With all due respect to the author... humanism is about doing good, so it makes sense for humanists to trumpet good works.
Not all atheists are humanists, and as far as I can tell, those who aren't don't care to "compete" for goodness.
But personally I put humanism ahead of nontheism. Humanism is actually based in an emotional desire to help other humans, much like the charities of theistic groups and most secular government programs and charities.
Frankly I think the dumbest question asked by theists isn't the one about what motivates good without God- the question is interesting when you take out the "God" part: what motivates good?
What I find dumber is when they try to tar atheism by citing the totalitarian political movements of the twentieth century.

The truth is that atheism is not a moral philosophy. Humanism is.
And I'm less and less convinced that Christianity is a moral system. I see stark differences between those who value good works as a sign of faith and those who use faith-over-works as an excuse to do no good while still holding an exclusionary view toward others.
As a humanist, I find myself akin to those Christians who emphasize the alleviation of suffering. And I think the faith-obsessed culture warriors are more akin to the kind of amoral atheists they like to paint us all as.

Spiderstupid:

"For evolution to work, inherent with it must be INTELLIGENCE to back it up."

My suggestion is that you not attempt solid foods until you have learned to digest pablum.

An argument that began with Hume, says that the likelihood that the ordered universe was created by intelligence is very low. In general, instances of biologically or mechanically caused generation without intelligence are far more common than instances of creation from intelligence. The probability that something generated by a biological or mechanical cause will exhibit order is quite high. Among those things that are designed, the probability that they exhibit order may be quite high, but that is not the same as asserting that among the things that exhibit order the probability that they were designed is high. Among dogs, the incidence of fur may be high, but it is not true that among furred things the incidence of dogs is high. Furthermore, intelligent design and careful planning very frequently produces disorder—war, industrial pollution, insecticides, global warming, and so on.
So we can conclude that the probability that an unspecified entity (like the universe), which came into being and exhibits order, was produced by intelligent design is very low and that the empirical evidence indicates that there was no designer.

This explains your continuing failure to prove the existence of god.

You lose again.

There is no god and I believe that most Christians secretly know it. They grasp onto religion because they fear death and uncertainly and the stigma from their peers and family. The sooner Jesus gets put into the same category as Zeus and the sacred bull, the better we will all be.

There is no god and I believe that most Christians secretly know it. They grasp onto religion because they fear death and uncertainly and the stigma from their peers and family. The sooner Jesus gets put into the same category as Zeus and the sacred bull, the better we will all be.

There is no god and I believe that most Christians secretly know it. They grasp onto religion because they fear death and uncertainly and the stigma from their peers and family. The sooner Jesus gets put into the same category as Zeus and the sacred bull, the better we will all be.

Onofrio,

A quotation for your Oxford educated Calvinist friends:

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."

-- Mark Twain
---------------------------------
We want to believe that education, morality, and sanity go hand in hand (along with delight in poetry sans doute.)

"Oh, why should the shattermyth have to be a crumplehope and a dampenglee?"

--Thurber

This needs to be repeated again and again. It would be like soap in the midst of dirt.

It's time for science to correct itself. Ooops, wrong statement. Darwinian evolution is not science but a jumble of fantastic fairy tales.

If one drops a certain liquid to the water and water turns to blue, common sense dictates that the transformation was caused by the applied liquid.

If my hand evolve to have 6 fingers, common sense dictates that simultaneous with it is the INTELLIGENCE needed how the bones will be formed, the nerves, the muscles, the blood vessels, and a controller part in the brain. For a transformation to work and function, common sense dictates that simultaneous counter-actions should form to support the said transformation.

If a building evolves to be tall, simultaneous with it is the INTELLIGENCE to support that transformation like sturdier columns, beams and wider footing.

Any transformation without an INTELLIGENT simultaneous "counter-action" is doomed to fail and won't work.

For evolution to work, inherent with it must be INTELLIGENCE to back it up.

COMMON SENSE. Sadly atheists lack one.

Persiflage,

Addressed you in earlier post, but forgot to include you in salutation. Lo siento.

Farnaz

Hi Schaum, Onofrio, DITLD, Arminius, et al,

What a wonderfully learned thread! Persiflage, yes Eliade....the Eternal Return.

Very fond of Padraic Colum, as poet, Joyce biographer, anti-nazi, anti-antisemite.

Consider this interesting scenario of brother and sister presented by social and moral psychologist Jonathan haidt.

"Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide never to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that; was it OK for them to make love?"

In his book ‘the blank slate’ Steven Pinker writes regarding the story: “Most people declare that what Julie and Mark did was wrong, and then they grope for reasons WHY it was wrong. … Eventually many of the respondents admit, “I don’t know, I can’t explain it, I just know it’s wrong.” Haidt call this “moral dumbfounding.”

It would be really interesting to find out how atheists and theists would answer the question posed by Haidt and if there are any differences in their moral reasoning. Maybe we should all take a survey to find out. Atheist might reason that since no one was hurt what Julie and Mark did was okay; or would their answers be similar to how the rest of the population view this moral dilemma?

Hi Onofrio,

"I'm considering how to address more specifically the Horus-Christ link raised by Schaum. Concision, concision..."

Yes, please. By all means, do continue when you can.

Farnaz

Hi Farnaz,

I'm considering how to address more specifically the Horus-Christ link raised by Schaum. Concision, concision...

Of late, have been contending again with homegrown Hell-is-Good Calvinians. These folk have Oxford cred, love poetry, are subtle and articulate about many things. And still they insist on Jesus-or-burn.

I'm not sure why, but it frightens me...

Onofrio!

Thank Non, you're back. In vain have I sought a series of your past posts on the connections betwixt and between Christianity and the ancient Egyptian.

Anything more you could add would in-debt me, additional debt to follow.

Persiflage, old soul, that is the house for me, certes!

May Sobek continue to guard you from all merdy crocks, and bless you croc-wise.

I salute.

Schaum,

cont'd from previous:

I've been rather dull and hasty here; it's only a crude overview. To begin communicating Egyptian religion as I have encountered it in the original language is extremely difficult. It's like a sort of alien chemistry, wherein gods are not so much distinct personalities as chemical compounds in complex interaction.

I'm not suggesting that Christianity has necessarily, consciously purloined its Christology directly from Egyptian sources. What I would suggest is that Christian claims to divinely ordained originality are shown to be highly dubitable in the light of Egyptian parallels. Furthermore, the affinity of Egyptian and Christian beliefs calls into question the claim that the trinitarian Christ perfectly fulfils Jewish Scripture. As I've said afore, Ramesses the Great would find it a lot easier to accept a Trinity than would Moses, to whom the Lord spoke.

A story that may amuse you: I once discussed these and other Egyptian foregrounds with a convinced Christian believer who had expressed an interest. As we were parting, this ostensibly intelligent, educated man summarised the whole exchange with the remark: "Yes, Satan has been counterfeiting the things of God for a long time."

Schaum,

An honour indeed, to be placed among such threadly worthies. Thank you, Schaum :^)

Some Egyptian foreground for aspects of Christianity (which you may well already know):

From early dynastic times (c.3100-2700 BC), Horus was the great cosmic deity par excellence (his name means "the distant one" or "the one above") and the oldest titles of the pharaohs show that they were thought to be Horus' earthly incarnation: *God with us*, so to speak.

From the Old Kingdom (a.k.a. Pyramid Age, c.2700-2200 BC) kingly co-optation of the sun-cult increased, and the king was thought to be the bodily son of the sun, Re, quite literally the *Son of God*. After death, the pharaoh was thought to ascend to the sky, ultimately to be united with his heavenly father.

From the Middle Kingdom (c.2000-1750 BC) we have the idea that humans are made in the image of the creator god, and that the king is meant to be the creator's deputy on earth - a man burdened with the cares of his human herd: *the Good Shepherd*.

From the New Kingdom (c.1550-1070 BC) we have the miraculous conception of the king by the supreme god Amun-Re ("the Hidden One" syncretised with the dazzlingly manifest sun), who is shown visiting the great royal wife and (rather decorously) impregnating her with the king-to-be. In the funerary literature of this period the notion of a post-mortem judgement-of-conduct develops, from which the individual - male or female - is saved through identification with the perfect being, Osiris. The sun's nocturnal journey through the otherworld is depicted on the walls of the kings' tombs, and includes scenes in which human forms - identified as "rebels" and "enemies of Osiris" - are submitted to execution, dismemberment, and perpetual fiery torments: the ancestor of Christian Hell.

Also in the New Kingdom, triads become the typical grouping (usually father-mother-son) of local numina, and in the royal tombs something very close to an all-male, genuinely perichoretic trinity develops: Re, Osiris, and the King. The latter is of particular interest to me, and I have researched in some detail one of the compositions that expresses this notion.

cont'd

Dedicated to the On Faith clan of kindred spirits and wanderers, and our own resident shanachie, Onofrio......

An Old Woman of the Roads
by Padraic Colum

O, to have a little house!
To own the hearth and stool and all!
The heaped up sods upon the fire,
The pile of turf against the wall!

To have a clock with weights and chains
And pendulum swinging up and down!
A dresser filled with shining delph,
Speckled and white and blue and brown!

I could be busy all the day
Clearing and sweeping hearth and floor,
And fixing on their shelf again
My white and blue and speckled store!

I could be quiet there at night
Beside the fire and by myself,
Sure of a bed and loth to leave
The ticking clock and the shining delph!

Och! but I'm weary of mist and dark,
And roads where there's never a house nor bush,
And tired I am of bog and road,
And the crying wind and the lonesome hush!

And I am praying to God on high,
And I am praying Him night and day,
For a little house—a house of my own—
Out of the wind's and the rain's way.

Onofrio:

"Gods ain't always God. Overly silly-subtle? Bien sûr!"

Hardly!

I've encountered six intellects on OnFaith that I respect: (in no particular order) Farnaz, Persiflage, Onofrio, DanielInTheLionsDen, Arminius (with whom I am frequently at odds), Timmy2, and Susan Jacoby -- on whose posts I very rarely comment because they rarely ever need comment. If you have the time to say something to me, I have the time to listen!

Hi Schaum,

Indeed Horus Christ in several ways, but it's not quite as clear-cut as the prevalhaiti list makes out. I'd also take Acharya's interpretations with more-than-a-pinch of salt. But perhaps I am too tangled up in snobbish erudition.

So here's a bit of flakiness to balance things out:

Thee:
"While I am prepared to change my mind in the event some striking new evidence in favor of Sobek’s existence comes to light or that the moon is the sun’s brother, none of these gods has ever proven to be real."

Their truth is not that of the established fact, but of the well-wrought poem. One does not believe IN them, one makes believe with them. And the latter is not necessarily as childish as it seems.

I do not believe in Sobek as if he were a logarithm, a clock, or a item of dogma. Yet I can say I have encountered him, in those places where the croc still rules supreme. In him is concentrated the primal power through which this world was formed, the sheer might of nature. He doesn't need us to have faith in him; he is obdurately THERE. We can perceive, or not.

Gods ain't always God. Overly silly-subtle? Bien sûr!

As for the moon, it may be the sun's brother, sister, wife, or simply the other eye of a cosmic bird. And plenty else besides: the scythe of time; a rabbit's hole; a slice of cheese; a reservoir of stolen semen...

Facts - no. Real - yes, that small part of reality that we conjure with.

Otherwise said: Sobek is a croc(k) :^)

Oh, yeah...notes show I got the birthdate, and other stuff from:

http://www.prevalhaiti.com/messages.php/5131

http://www.truthbeknown.com/horus.html

I've got a lot of stuff in notes I made back in the day, when I was working my way through Protestantism, Catholicism and Atheism and Buddhism. I didn't often make note of where I picked up the info.

Onofrio:

Much of it came from a Canadian website: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm. Scroll down in the document and you will find a table of comparisons. Other stuff from notes I've made in researching how christianity stole from other religions.

Also see 46 comparisons at: http://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=6316

Where have you been? Missed seeing you.

Comparison of some life events of Horus and Jesus:

Schaum,

Thee, re Horus:

"Horus-Egypt-3000 BC
-Born Dec 25th
-Born of a virgin
-His birth was heralded by a star in the east
-At his birth he was adorned by three kings
-He was a prodigal teacher at age 12
-He was baptized at the age of 30 and began his ministry
-He had 12 disciples with whom he traveled performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water
-He was known as: the truth, the light, and the lamb of god
- After being betrayed he was crucified
- He was dead for 3 days, then resurrected"

What's your source for this? This ain't the Horus I know.

Are these good rules of humankind behavior simply commonsense expressions of how to properly behave with or without deities? Such expressions have been going on since humankind began to express itself.

Some words of wisdom? from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism

"Some believe that a moral sense does not depend on religious belief. The Dalai Lama has said that compassion and affection are human values independent of religion: "We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion.
Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things."[51]

Atheists such as Richard Dawkins have proposed that our morality is a result of our evolutionary history. He proposes that the Moral Zeitgeist helps describe how morality evolves from biological and cultural origins and evolves with time."

"I was stunned the first time I was asked, by a right-wing radio talk show host attacking my Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (2004), what would prevent me from committing murder if I did not believe in God. I answered truthfully, because I had never been asked such a question before, that it had never even occurred to me to murder anyone. I will never respond to such an insulting question again."

I think this could have been a teachable moment for the interviewer. Ask him whether he would go out and murder someone if you could prove to him that God didn't exist. Despite their fiery rhetoric about sin, most Christians really know that people are better than that.

should be "ask all the fathers that you meet", obviously.

"But I can't help but wonder why she was offended by the talk-show host's question about what keeps atheists from committing murder?"

Perhaps you should make an effort to familiarize yourself with the social mores of a polite society. The question Ms. Jacoby was asked was rude. It implied disrespect for her philosophy.

You can test this theory in the following way. Go to your local police station, fire house, football stadium, or wherever. And ask all of the fathers that you mean why is it that they do not rape their daughters.

Get back to us when with relative percentages of the following:

a) dispassionate discussions of morality

b) punches to the face

My guess is that you'll get more of b) than a). That's how our discourse works. Any attempt to portray it otherwise is either utterly naive or, more likely, simply disingenuous.

Persiflage:

"Regarding Eliade - anything he has written..."

Really...I always thought he was a she. Live and learn.

Regarding Eliade - anything he has written on the topic of religion is worth reading!

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

The religious impulse extends beyond the mere reinforcement of moral strictures. It provides community, community reinforcement of commonly held values, transcendent meaning for life passages, holidays to mark the passage of time with meanings supposed to transcend the material and mundane, and a shared cultural history and anchor for the adherents. As with any human construction, religion, science, or secularism are subject to corruption, misuse, and cruelty. Let the atheists celebrate in their own way, and let everyone be happy.

Hey US-Conscience:

Wow, have you ever taken the hook, line and sinker. You do realize that the books you claim have a 100% accuracy in predicting things were available to the people who, not having been actually present for the life of jesus, were writing his story decades or centuries later.

Not hard to write up the life of any obscure individual so as to match up with ancient prophecies. Just write fiction.

Carstonio:

"While you have excellent points, I emphasize that this type of skepticism is NOT exclusive to atheism."

Most certainly not, and I hope I have not written in such a way that inferences of exclusivity can be made.

they justify the atheist’s skepticism about the likelihood that any other supernatural claim of a god will turn out to be true, particularly in the absence of fact-based proof. It’s possible, of course, that supporting proof might be found in the future. It’s also possible that magic will be proven real, or that there are goblins. But atheists should demand impressive evidence to push us away from that skepticism. Mere possibility is not the equivalent of proof.

While you have excellent points, I emphasize that this type of skepticism is NOT exclusive to atheism. We need to make a distinction between being skeptical about magic hypotheses and concluding that the hypotheses are false. The first stance involves no such conclusion. The skeptical stance is that since magic is unfalsifiable, it amounts to speculation that is unworthy of serious consideration.

(I would add that magic hypotheses blindly assume that the unexplained events are violations or suspensions of physical laws - they ignore the possibility that there may be aspects to physical laws that humans haven't discovered.)

I'm not necessarily arguing that atheism is the position that magic doesn't exist, although many atheists do seem to hold that position. I'm saying that atheism seems to be something more than skepticism and that we shouldn't treat the two as equivalent.

1
Is it possible, I wonder, to construct an argument supporting a wide and positive atheism – extending to the view that no gods or divine beings exist?

Courtesy of “Patterns in Comparative Religion”, by Mircea Eliade, and without her permission, I offer here her list of 500 dead gods. (Actually, she is incorrect: the list has only 499 dead gods. One – Ogoun -- she listed and counted twice.) These non-existent gods were gathered by her from a wide range of cultures:

Aa, Aah, Abil Addu, Addu, Adeona, Adjassou-Linguetor, Adjinakou, Adya Houn'tò, Agassou, Agé, Agwé, Ahijah, Ahti, Aizen Myō-ō, Ajisukitakahikone, Ak Ana, Aken , Aker , Äkräs, Aku, Allatu, Altjira, Amano-Iwato, Ame-no-Koyane, Am-heh, Amihan, Amon-Re, Amun, Amurru, Anapel, Anath, Andjety, Anhur, Anit, Anu, Anubis, Anzambe, Apsu, Arianrod, Ash , Ashtoreth, Assur, Astarte, Aten, Atum, Ayida-Weddo, Ayizan, Azaka Medeh, Azaka-Tonnerre, Azumi-no-isora, Baal, Bacalou, Badessy, Bagadjimbiri, Bahloo, Baiame, Bakunawa, Bamapana, Banaitja, Ba-Pef, Baron Cimetière, Baron La Croix, Baron Samedi, Barraiya, Bata , Bathala, Bau, Beltis, Beltu, Belus, Bernardo Carpio, Bes, Biame, Biamie, Bilé, Bimbeal, Binbeal, Boli Shah, Bossou Ashadeh, Budai, Budai, Bugady Musun, Bugid Y Aiba, Bunjil, Bunjil, Cai Shen, Ceros, Chenti-cheti, Chi You, Chimata-No-Kami, Chun Kwan, Cihang Zhenren, City god, Clermeil, Congo (loa), Consus, Cronos, Cunina, Dagan, Dagda, Dagon, Daikokuten, Damballa, Dan Petro, Dan Wédo, Daramulum, Dauke, Dea Dia, Dhakhan, Diable Tonnere, Diana of Ephesus, Diejuste, Dimmer, Dinclinsin, Dragon King, Dragon King of the East Sea, Duamutef, Dumu-zi-abzu, Dzingbe, Ea, Ebisu, Edulia, Efile Mokulu, El, Elali, Elder Zhang Guo, Elum, Engurra, Enki, Enma, En-Mersi, Enurestu, Erlang Shen, Erzulie, Ezili Dantor, Fan Kuai, Fei Lian, Feng Bo, Four sons of Horus, Fu Lu Shou, Fu Xi, Fūjin, Fukurokuju, Furrina, Futsunushi, Gargomitch, Gasan lil, Gasan-abzu, Goibniu, Gong Gong, Govannon, Gran Maître, Grand Bois, Guan Yu, Guangchengzi, Gunfled, Gwydion, Hachiman, Hadad, Hakudo Maru, Han Xiang, Hapi, Hapy, Heka , Hemen, Hermanubis, Hermes , Heryshaf, Hoderi, Hongjun Laozu, Hoori, Horus, Houyi, Huang Feihu, Hung Shing, Iah, Ibong Adarna, Iho, Iku-Turso, Ilat, Ilmatar, Ilmatar, Imhotep, Imset, Iron-Crutch Li, Isis, Istar, Isum, Iuno Lucina, Izanagi, Jade Emperor, Jar'Edo Wens, Ji Gong, Julana, Jumala, Jupiter, Juroujin, Kaawan, Kagu-tsuchi, Kalfu, Kalma, Kara Khan, Karakarook, Karei, Kari, Karora, Kerridwen, Khaltesh-Anki, Khepri, Khnum,

2.
Khonsu, Kidili, Kini'je, Kitchen God, Kmvum, Kneph, Kōjin, Ksitigarbha, Kui Xing, Kuk, Kumakatok, Kuski-banda, Kuu, Ku'urkil, Lagas, Lan Caihe, Lei Gong, Leizhenzi, Lempo, Ler, Leza, Li Jing , L'inglesou, Llaw Gyffes, Lleu, Loco (loa), Lü Dongbin, Lugal-Amarada, Maahes, Ma-banba-anna, Mademoiselle Charlotte, Maîtresse Délai, Maîtresse Hounon'gon, Maman Brigitte, Mamaragan, Mami, Mamlambo, Manawyddan, Mandulis, Mangar-kunjer-kunja, Marassa Jumeaux, Marduk, Maria Cacao, Maria Makiling, Maria Sinukuan, Marinette, Mars, Marzin, Matet boat, Mawu, Mayari, Mbaba Mwana Waresa, Meditrina, Mehen, Melek, Memetona, Menthu, Merodach, Mider, Mielikki, Min , Molech, Mombu, Morrigu, Mounanchou, Mulu-hursang, Mu-ul-lil, Muzha , Na Tuk Kong, Naam, Nana Buluku, Naunet, Ndyambi, Nebo, Nehebkau, Nergal, Nezha , Nga, Ngai, Nin, Ninib, Ninigi-no-Mikoto, Nin-lil-la, Nin-man, Nio, Nirig, Ni-zu, Njirana, Nogomain, Nuada Argetlam, Numakulla, Num-Torum, Nusku, Nu'tenut, Nyan Kupon, Nyyrikki, Nzambi, Nzame, Odin, Ogma, Ogoun, Ogoun, Ogyrvan, Ohoyamatsumi, Ōkuninushi, Olorun, Omoikane (Shinto), Ops, Osiris, Pa-cha, Pangu, Papa Legba, Peko, Perkele, Persephone, Petbe, Pie (loa), Ple, Pluto, Potina, Ptah, Pugu, Puluga, Pundjel, Pwyll, Qarradu, Qebehsenuef, Qin Shubao, Qingxu Daode Zhenjun, Ra, Raijin, Randeng Daoren, Rauni , Resheph, Rigantona, Robigus, Royal Uncle Cao, Ruwa, Ryūjin, Saa, Sahi, Samas, Sarutahiko, Saturn, Sebek, Seker, Serapis, Sesmu, Shakpana, Shalem, Shangdi, Shango, Sharrab, Shen , Shennong, Shezmu, Shina-Tsu-Hiko, Simbi, Sin, Sirtumu, Sobek, Sobkou, Sōjōbō, Sokk-mimi, Sopdu, Sousson-Pannan, Statilinus, Suijin, Suiren, Suqamunu, Susanoo, Ta Pedn, Tagd, Taiyi Zhenren, Tala, Tam Kung, Tammuz, Tapio, Temaukel, Tenenet, Tengu, Tenjin, Theban Triad, Thoth, Ti Jean Quinto, Ti Malice, Tian, Ti-Jean Petro, Tilmun, Tirawa Atius, Todote, Toko'yoto, Tomam, Tororut, Tu Di Gong, Tu Er Shen, Tuonetar, Tuoni, Ubargisi, Ubilulu, U-dimmer-an-kia, Ueras, Ugayafukiaezu, U-ki, Ukko, UKqili, Umai, U-Mersi, Umvelinqangi, Ungud, Unkulunkulu, Ura-gala, U-sab-sib, Usiququmadevu, U-Tin-dir-ki, U-urugal, Vaisravana, Vaticanus, Vediovis, Vellamo, Venus, Vesta, Wadj-wer, Wen Zhong , Weneg, Wenshu Guangfa Tianzun, Wepwawet, Werethekau, Wollunqua, Wong Tai Sin, Wuluwaid, Xargi, Xaya Iccita, Xevioso, Xuan Wu , Yama, Yau, Yemaja, Youchao, Yuanshi Tianzun, Yuchi Jingde, Yunzhongzi, Zagaga, Zaraqu, Zer-panitu, Zhang Guifang, Zheng Lun, Zhongli Quan, Zhu Rong , Zonget.

I haven’t carefully investigated all of these gods, nor do I intend to. I’ve only thought about a handful of them, and I’ve only investigated a few of them. In reading of those gods I did investigate, it occurred to me that each of the gods in

3.
question may very well have made perfect sense to someone living in a remote jungle village a thousand years ago. But none of those gods I investigated would make any sense as an explanation of the world as it is now, to anyone, anywhere. Gods don’t control the weather. Shooting stars aren’t religious events. The sun and the moon are just physical bodies, nothing more. The world didn’t come from an egg hatched by a cosmic turtle. Given what our scientific methods have shown us, we have learned now about the natural world – and it certainly appears that none of these gods is a reasonable being in which to hold any belief, any longer.it looks like none of these gods is a reasonable thing to believe in any more. While I am prepared to change my mind in the event some striking new evidence in favor of Sobek’s existence comes to light or that the moon is the sun’s brother, none of these gods has ever proven to be real.

Ms Eliade describes Puluga, the Sky God of the people of the Andaman Islands:

“Puluga is the Supreme Being; he is thought of very anthropomorphically, but he dwells in the sky and his voice is the thunder, the wind his breath; hurricanes are the sign of his anger, for he sends thunderbolts to punish all those who infringe his commandments. Puluga knows everything, but only knows men’s thoughts during the day. . . He created himself a wife and they have children. He lives in the sky near the sun (feminine) and the moon (masculine), with their children the stars. When Puluga sleeps there is a drought. When it is raining the god has come down to earth and is looking for food. Puluga created the world, and the first man, Tomo. Mankind multiplied and had to disperse, and after the death of Tomo grew ever more forgetful of its creator. One day Puluga got angry and a flood covered the whole earth and destroyed mankind: only four people escaped. Puluga had mercy on them, but men still remained recalcitrant. . . “

There has never been any evidence, much less proof, that Puluga really existed. He is, in fact, utterly implausible. Like the christer’s god, Puluga was a catchall theory to explain many things that people had no better way to describe. The stars aren’t divine offspring. The moon isn’t masculine. There was no first human Tomo. Droughts are caused by weather patterns not sleeping gods. Rain is caused by the saturation of the atmosphere with water vapor not a god searching for food, and so on. Puluga is a magical being. There’s no magic. Only magical thinking.

4.
Could a “positive” atheism also be informed by considering other exotic beings that have been alleged to be real at one time or another?. I think most people would believe it reasonable to assume: there are no witches., no ghosts,,no elves, no pixies, no trolls, no unicorns, no goblins, no fairies, no malevolent spirits, no gnomes, no succubi, no incubi, and no leprechans. There is no Bigfoot. No Loch Ness Monster. No Chupacabras. No Yeti. No houses are haunted. There are no werewolves, or vampires. There are no demons, and no demonic possessions. It is not possible to cast an evil spell on someone and make something bad happen to him. If you step on a crack, you won’t break your mother’s back. Breaking a mirror does nothing negative to your future. Black cats crossing your path do not bring you bad luck. If you wear your lucky Raiders jersey while you watch the football game on television in Hackensack, it will have no affect whatsoever on the outcome of the game. The human mind has no magical powers to act a distance; your astrology forecast doesn’t describe your day any more accurately than it does people who have the other 11 signs of the zodiac. Tarot cards don’t work. There are no psychic powers. Dreams don’t foretell the future. You are not a Sagittarius. It is not possible to read minds. There are no animate spirits that inhabit the moon, the stars, or any natural objects. Weather patterns are not caused by the moods of supernatural or divine entities. Predictions about future catastrophes on the basis of ancient mystical texts have not come true. Bad things don’t happen on Friday the 13th. It is not possible to say some magical words and invoke supernatural forces in the world.

I am assuming that of these claims are as obviously true to everyone as to me, but if you believe that your wearing a Raiders jersey while watching tv in Hackensack brought about their winning the game in Pittsburg, nothing is going to make sense to you. Most are likely, I think, to agree that at least a large majority of these claims are true. From that, I think we can draw some general inferences It would appear that in the overwhelming majority of cases, when people have subscribed to some sort of magical, supernatural, spiritual, paranormal, or god-believing account of what is real, we have found another better natural explanation; one that wasn’t anthropomorphic, and that doesn’t invoke mysterious magical forces or gods.

5.
I am not suggesting that people in ancient, less technologically advanced cultures than ours were not justified in their beliefs. Depending upon their background beliefs, their education, and the commonly-held views of their culture, their belief in their god may well have made perfect sense. There’s no way, ultimately, that someone living in a tiny village in rural India centuries ago who couldn’t read and who had little formal education, could know what is known now.. So we can’t fault them epistemically for believing as they did. But we can reasonably conclude that their account of the world is lacking. Medieval doctors thought that all disease was the result of an imbalance in the four basic humours—black bile, green bile, blood, and phlegm. Leeches were the cure for an excess of blood in your system. That was great for them, but who would go to a medieval doctor today, to be treated for maladjusted humors?.

On the basis of what is known, I think it is reasonable to conclude that spooky, magical, or supernatural explanations have never been the best account of what’s true in the world. A good part of our reasons for thinking so are all of the cases where they have failed. The past has clearly shown that supernatural and spiritual explanations of reality are just barking up the wrong tree. They just never pan out. This means that there is an enormous burden of proof to be met by anyone claiming that some supernatural or spiritual entity is real, in the light of all of these similar claims that have turned out to be untrue; this makes it reasonable to conclude that no such beings, forces, or phenomena are real, and to disbelieve them until evidence proves they are fact. If all of those supernatural entities and forces from the past have never been proven to be real, is it not reasonable to apply the same truth-criteria, and reasoning, to the gods that are familiar to us, like the unproven, unseen, incommunicative christer god? If there are enough similarities between the christer god and the other 499 listed, and between the role that those 499 played for their believers and the role that the christer god plays for its believers, then the same grounds for rejection for lack of proven evidence of existence should apply.
So…are there similarities between the christer’s god and discredited earlier gods? Consider these as a start, each holding popular support centuries before christ:

6.
Horus-Egypt-3000 BC
-Born Dec 25th
-Born of a virgin
-His birth was heralded by a star in the east
-At his birth he was adorned by three kings
-He was a prodigal teacher at age 12
-He was baptized at the age of 30 and began his ministry
-He had 12 disciples with whom he traveled performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water
-He was known as: the truth, the light, and the lamb of god
- After being betrayed he was crucified
- He was dead for 3 days, then resurrected

Attis-Greece-1200 BC
-Born Dec 25th
-Born of a virgin
- Crucified
- Dead for 3 days
- Then resurrected
-He was known as: the truth, the light, etc
-Sacred day of worship was Sunday

Mithra-Persia-1200 BC
-Born Dec 25th
-Born of a virgin
-He had 12 disciples with whom he traveled performing miracles
- Dead for 3 days
- Then resurrected

Dionysus-Greece-500 BC
-Born Dec 25th
-Born of a virgin
-Traveling teacher who preformed miracles such as turning water into wine
- Referred to as: king of kings, and the alpha and omega
- Upon death he was resurrected

7.

I think the point is made…all those other bogus supernatural entities teach us something: they justify the atheist’s skepticism about the likelihood that any other supernatural claim of a god will turn out to be true, particularly in the absence of fact-based proof. It’s possible, of course, that supporting proof might be found in the future. It’s also possible that magic will be proven real, or that there are goblins. But atheists should demand impressive evidence to push us away from that skepticism. Mere possibility is not the equivalent of proof.

At this time in history, there is no more reason to assume the christer god is real than any of the other 499. But…everyone is entitled to his delusions.

Pardon my intrusion in this particular forum, but some issues are so important, in my opinion, as to justify cross-posting. Post editor Jo-Ann Armao's article today in PostPartisan is so revolting in its revelations about the warped sense of values that has come to suffuse the Post, it justifies wide notice. Here is my letter to the editor submitted today:

The most incredible, but not surprising, thing about Jo-Ann Armao’s PostPartisan article on February 18 about how she invited Marion Barry to the White House correspondents’ dinner is the admission by a high-level Washington Post doyen that the Post panders to politicians, no matter how incompetent, corrupt, and totally lacking in morality that they may be. The wide-eyed innocence with which Ms. Armao discusses inviting this despicable reprobate to a White House dinner is breathtaking.

Imagine if a Washington Post editor around 1960 recounted, with not one iota of shame or remorse, inviting a Southern race-baiting politician to a White House dinner. Imagine a WaPo editor telling us how he had invited a religious figure like the Reverend Jim Jones or David Koresh to a White House dinner.

There is something so pathetically sick here, it defies human imagination.

When climate scientists want to test their model, they go back into the past (as far as they can), input the data available, then test it for some time not as far in the past - a future date for the original data, though not in this future we're in.

This is how the bible's prophesies work as well. The people writing the NT did so with full awareness of the prophesies made, and considering they were the few with sufficient education understand what they were doing - they refactored their model to include these data.

The believers today are a curious bunch too, when you look at them. They point out the timeline of the dead sea scrolls, its date verified by carbon-14 (scientific) dating methods, and insert this into their arguments.

Yet along comes this shroud of turn thing, scientific dating places it somewhere in the 13th-14th century: http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

Nowhere is the science-denying nature of the believer more apparent than in their denial of this.

These children need to believe there are no morals outside their religion. They never grew up, never developed the morals of an adult. They are still afraid of the spanking, and further afraid of those who are *not* afraid of that spanking.

Here is a link to a important article Schaum recommended. Also, strongly suggest
Leon Festinger, When Prophecy Fails.
This is a classic study, with a brilliant analysis of the Christ myth (no offense intended), available at most libraries and at Amazon.

Perseverance of Social Theories: The Role of Explanation in the Persistence of Discredited Information
Craig A. Anderson, Mark R. Lepper,

http://www.nifc.gov/safety/investigation_guide/Guest%20Speakers%20Presentations/Mike%20Johns/Articles%20cited%20in%20What%20Was%20He%20Thinking/Belief%20Perseverance.pdf

Previously noted:

" more than 50,000,000, men and women have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy charged against them by Papal authority of the Holy Inquisition, which lasted for 605 years."

And previously responded to as follows:

Death toll from the Inquisitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls and

www.spiritus-temporis.com/spanish-inquisition/death-tolls.html

"Some dubious statistics of large death tolls are given by historians such as Will Durant, who, in, The Reformation (1957) cites Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801, as estimating that 31,912 people were executed from 1480-1808. He also cites Hernando de Pulgar, a secretary to Queen Isabella, as estimating 2,000 people were burned before 1490. Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church gave a number of 8,800 people burned in the 18 years of Torquemada. Matthew White, in reviewing these and other figures, gives a median number of deaths at 32,000, with around 9,000 under Torquemada. R. J. Rummel gives similar figures as "most realistic," though he cites some historians who give figures of up to 135,000 people killed under Torquemada. This number includes 125,000 who are claimed to have died in prison due to poor conditions, leaving 10,000 as sentenced to death.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Thankfully, the Spanish Inquisition kept very good records and these are now being sifted through by historians. They paint a very different picture of sentencing patterns to traditional historians. Geoffrey Parker analyzed 49,000 trial records between 1540 and 1700, representing one third of the total, and found 776 executions took place. This suggests a total of about 2,000 in the period reviewed. Earlier records are less well preserved but do not support the picture of a bloodbath usually painted. Henry Kamen (p. 60) does not believe more than a thousand executions took place in the earlier period. However, he points out that the Inquisitors activities were heavily slanted towards Jewish and Moslem communities who would have suffered far more than most from their activities. Recent work, sponsored by the Catholic Church, also points to a significantly lower death toll. Professor Agostino Borromeo, a historian of Catholicism at the Sapienza University in Rome, writes that about 125,000 people were tried by church tribunals as suspected heretics in Spain. Of these, about 1,200 - 2,000 were actually executed, although more killings were performed by non-church tribunals."

Continued below:

For a very good analysis of body counts due to atrociticies commented by humans against humans see

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

"The Top 21 Atrocities
Rank Death Toll Cause Centuries
1 55 million Second World War 20C
2 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C
3 40 million Mongol Conquests 13C
4 36 million An Lushan Revolt 8C
5 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C
6 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C
7 20 million Annihilation of the South and North American Indians 15C-19C
8 20 million Iosif Stalin 20C
9 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C
10 18 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C
11 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C
12 17 million British India (mostly famine) 19C
13 15 million First World War 20C
14 9 million Russian Civil War 20C
15 8 million Fall of Rome 3C-5C
16 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C
17 7 million Thirty Years War 17C
18 5 million Russia's Time of Troubles 16C-17C
19 4 million Napoleonic Wars 19C
20 3 million Chinese Civil War 20C
21 3 million French Wars of Religion 16C"
P

Spidermean2

Observation trumps what logically ought to be.

Onofrio wrote:

"'What is the root of all goodness?'

Its image begins as a perfect circle, diameter of seven palms, drawn with dew on moondust, placed atop a tangential baseline exactly two sevenths of the circumference in length.

For goodness to proceed, a line of a length identical to that of the baseline must be drawn so as to cut the circle on its lower right arc, with one end touching the baseline and the other extending directly toward the circle's centre. Once the circle is cut thus, the first baseline is to be erased.

From this root proceeds the quartering of the disk, the sun's tears, the fall of fishes' scales, and the completion of the eye, into which the sharp stars are knit in myriads."
------------------------------
Oh, what a cliche!

I was hoping for something a little more thoughtful, creative, and original.

... but seriously ...

This is wonderifically flabberfounding.

It reminded me of something all day; but what??

It reminded me of the Crystal Egg by H G Wells, which I read more than 40 years ago.

Is US-conscience for real? Is there anyone truly that stupid in this modern age?

I'm convinced he's an atheist just having fun by throwing out ridiculous arguments to get a rise out of others. Nobody is that clueless.

I'm more than tired of religious people claiming that "atheist regimes" were responsible for more deaths/mass murders in history, especially in the 20th century.

Hitler was a baptized Roman Catholic, and Stalin was a Jesuit who at age 14 was accepted by a seminary to begin training for the priesthood.

Admittedly, Mao was not religious. If you want to argue body counts, however, the historical consensus is that Hitler and Stalin were responsible for more deaths than Mao.

Just regarding the birth and life of Jesus there are 160 specific prophecies that where fulfilled. Posted by: US-conscience | February 17, 2010 10:55 AM

If the stories in the NT had been written before the OT had been known by anyone, you'd have a really good point. But since all the writers of the NT were well acquainted with the OT, you don't.

Schum wrote "Religion never rejects or corrects its foundational beliefs, but science often does---this is the source of its honesty and its usefulness. "

It's time for science to correct itself. Ooops, wrong statement. Darwinian evolution is not science but a jumble of fantastic fairy tales.

If one drops a certain liquid to the water and water turns to blue, common sense dictates that the transformation was caused by the applied liquid.

If my hand evolve to have 6 fingers, common sense dictates that simultaneous with it is the INTELLIGENCE needed how the bones will be formed, the nerves, the muscles, the blood vessels, and a controller part in the brain. For a transformation to work and function, common sense dictates that simultaneous counter-actions should form to support the said transformation.

If a building evolves to be tall, simultaneous with it is the INTELLIGENCE to support that transformation like sturdier columns, beams and wider footing.

Any transformation without an INTELLIGENT simultaneous "counter-action" is doomed to fail and won't work.

For evolution to work, inherent with it must be INTELLIGENCE to back it up.

COMMON SENSE. Sadly atheists lack one.

1.
Christers and god-believers love to claim that science is a religion or just like a religion since it too is built upon apparent articles of faith. No scientist denies that a world outside of humans, languages or minds actually exists. But this article of scientific “faith” is hardly unique to science. Christers and god-believers accept it as well. I am inclined to suspect that most all of the basic claims about reality that science accepts are also accepted by the religious. But science accepts the Big Bang Theory or Darwinian Evolution, which are anathema to fearful christers.

The truth is that a number of scientists do not accept Big Bang Theory, yet do accept that the origin and the complexity of the cosmos need explaining. Similarly, many scientists are ambivalent about Darwinian Evolution and consider it possible that many (maybe even all) complex life forms emerge without any natural selection operating whatsoever. These guys accept that life begets life --and that sometimes it is possible that non-life produces life. They propose alternative explanations for life that either diminish the scope of natural selection as a creative force, nor supplants it with another natural (chemical, physical, probabilistic) process.

What science observes of the world is that there are curious phenomena needing explaining. There appear to be law-like regularities in nature or curious organisms behaving in ways sometimes conducive to survival and sometimes not; they occasionally accept explanations of these provisionally -- based on observable, testable, imperfect evidence. Christers seem to agree superficially with this attitude, but, where they part company from science is in their purely faith-based belief (wholly without empirical evidence) that not only are such things describable by observation and inference, such things are only fully explicable by reference to at least one intelligent, super-powerful, supernatural creator-being or force whose existence they do not doubt, but cannot prove.

In science, every article of faith is subject to doubt and only accepted conditioned on and constrained by empirical evidence. But most articles of faith in religion are never doubted, each is unconditionally believed and none are constrained by any evidentiary limits whatsoever. Faith overrides "reasonable doubt" in religion,, when in fact it is nothing more than wishful thinking. Faith licenses the religious to accept what appears impossible: miracles, healings, epiphanies etc. In science, faith is the enemy of reasons for accepting. Reasonable doubt is sought out---no scientist wants to accept what might be false or better accounted for by a more accurate theory. Christers claim ‘miracles are inexplicable, thus a mysterious

2.
divinity must be their cause.’ Science says: ‘allegedly miraculous events have been reported and are heretofore inexplicable, thus we need to consider (a) whether such events occur and (b) whether other explanations account for what is alleged before we settle on any traditional, popular or untestable explanations.
’
Science can function without believing that whatever it accepts is true or beyond reasonable doubt. Religion cannot. For instance, science can explain religious experiences or near-death "out of body" experiences without referring to souls, spirits, gods or angels. Religious people think these are proofs of the divine or immortality or evidence of life-after-death. But scientists do not go so far, since they know, from careful, controlled observations that human minds are capable of imagining all sorts of things, especially under the influence of brain chemicals released during stressful events.

Meditation, drugs, exhaustion, hallucination, seizures, brain surgeries and even memories induce and inform “religious experiences” and “out of body experiences” (which I also recently found out can be induced and replicated with the veterinary tranquilizer/anesthetic Ketamine). Religion cannot entertain the possibility that prophets did not talk to God (or divine messengers) or that its messianic-heroes healed the sick or arose from the dead. A christer/god-believer cannot imagine no heaven, or life without meaning. Yet science routinely imagines the cosmos without a beginning or life without a purpose.

There are several good reasons why science is not a religion or faith:

(1) Religion presumes more than science, since it assumes the existence of entities or a non-physical realm about which science remains skeptical or silent, given that whatever science cannot examine and test, it remains neutral about.

(2) Religion has too many articles of faith science does not need: in science, what explains, with fewer commitments to unsubstantiated speculation or unobservables, and none to emotions, is better than what explains with more.

(3) Religion has a built-in faith-based immunity to criticism and scrutiny which science rejects; the scientific method and attitude require a perpetual, skeptical

3.
attitude about articles of faith however much these may support ones delusions and wishful thinking.

(4) Religion believes what it cannot prove, inasmuch as evidence is either not needed or is optional so long as it is complementary; science accepts only what it proves (tests) and this is only conditioned upon the quantity and quality of the evidence available.

(5) Religion never rejects or corrects its foundational beliefs, but science often does---this is the source of its honesty and its usefulness. Science is a self-correcting, revisionary, fallible process that routinely revises and even abandons altogether inadequate hypotheses in favor of better ones.

In reality, despite their many claims of “faith”, christers and god-believers have nothing to feel “confident” about. Why does one need “faith” if one has truth and facts for support? Christers love to take strong positional stances because it “feels good, righteous” –however, it does not follow that a strong stance is necessarily correct. To be correct, you must have provable facts to back you up. So, why feel good in taking a strong stance when you have no real objective facts to back it up? Faith, in fact, is only needed when one LACKS truth, facts, and proof.

It may indeed make christers and god-believers “feel good” to be absolutists with no evidence or facts to support them, but I wonder how often “warm/fuzzy happy feelings” are actually related to truth. How can one really be confident of, or give credibility to, a faith based on zero empirical evidence? Such a ‘believer’ seems to me to be more a pathetic dupe than anything else, so why propose that science is the institution with the problem? Because people want easy answers they don't have to work for or think about much, and which gives them assurance of not really dying and not being.

For these people, science is an atheistic/anti-christer pursuit. Atheists have no reason to be threatened by people like this – just annoyed with their delusions – to which, of course, they are entitled.

If one drops a certain liquid to the water and water turns to blue, common sense dictates that the transformation was caused by the applied liquid.

If my hand evolve to have 6 fingers, common sense dictates that simultaneous with it is the INTELLIGENCE needed how the bones will be formed, the nerves, the muscles, the blood vessels, and a controller part in the brain. For a transformation to work and function, common sense dictates that simultaneous counter-actions should form to support the said transformation.

If a building evolves to be tall, simultaneous with it is the INTELLIGENCE to support that transformation like sturdier columns, beams and wider footing.

Any transformation without an INTELLIGENT simultaneous "counter-action" is doomed to fail and won't work.

For evolution to work, inherent with it must be INTELLIGENCE to back it up.

COMMON SENSE. Sadly atheists lack one.

Emonty:

Sure. Cohorts are welcome, but not necessary.

You have to take Mary Cunningham with a grain of salt. Notice that she said my number of 50,000,000 was 'stupid and wrong'...even though I supplied three, I think, pages of citations, complete with page numbers, from published historians and professors, which not only supported the number of 50,000,000, but in a few instances claimed larger numbers...yet she offered not one citation, not one thread of proven fact that the number is wrong.

Mary is a politically correct papist revisionist. She gets herself into a lot of similar untenable positions on most every site she posts on, gets her tail feathers set ablaze, storms off vowing never to return....yet always does, as soon as she has extinguished the fire in her tail section. Our own peaceful,calm, well-educated Farnaz has even mowed her down a few times, and she always goes through the same histrionics. Nobody really pays her any attention anymore. And she is the primary reason that I just don't give a damn what other people think. If they can't deal in facts and proof, I don't have time for them.

Spiderstupid:

"I'm not so sure any proof would work if common sense is not present to the observer."

A copout. As usual, you have no proof. And, in your case, your readers are more likely to be persuaded to your cause if, rather than common sense, they possess limitless superstition.

Schaum

"Now, take the last word, abuse away, and call in the rest of your cohorts for reinforcement."

If I agree with you from time to time, and disagree from time to time, and I am a 'christer' can I still qualify for the 'cohort'?

Spidermean2 wrote "How many times should atheists be told that evolution can't exist without an inherent INTELLIGENCE with it."

Schum wrote "Only once -- when you come up with proof."

--------

I'm not so sure any proof would work if common sense is not present to the observer.

The word evolution, scientifically speaking, is a very complex matter. When a fertilized egg forms into a baby and grows into an adult, that is a true demonstration of evolution science (the true evolution and not the fake Darwinian doctrine). For the process to take place, it should revolve around a very INTELLIGENT algorithm.

No proof is needed to understand the above statement. Just a simple common sense will suffice.

AnnieDC:

"Silly as it seems, a new word might help, even if it means the same thing as the old one."

Actually, the term atheism originated from the Greek word (atheos), meaning "without gods", which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the majority in favor of lesser known/popular gods. The word appears in the greek version of the new testament, with definitely narrow, negative connotations, and is applied to those who do not adopt the christer religion. While it is true that "atheist/atheism" is found earlier than the christer usage, its intentions, meaning and thrust were much less narrow, and much less damning than the christer adoption/adaptation of the word.

Mary_Cunningham:

"I tell you 50,000,000 deaths is a dumb statement and you respond to a fact by screaming abuse."

I find your denial of the number of deaths at the hand of papists is a dumb statement and abusive of reality. And, if you'll scroll a bit farther down, I cited chapter and verse of respected historians, where I got that number? Are you a historian? Are you even respected? Doesn't appear so from this vantage point.

Mary_Cunningham:

"I don’t much care as I won’t read it and, in any case, I am finished here."

Blessed Mary, like your namesake, you were finished elsewhere and very long ago.

Schaum: if facts fail you, try abusing the fact finder. It works (here at least).

And here I thought atheists were supposed to be rational! I call you on a stupid statement and you ‘refute’ it by resorting to this:

Mary Cunningham Ever Virgin Mother of Blather, is a roman catholic christer. She would, of course, resist exposure to the light of day of the rottenness of the roman catholic christer religion. Nevertheless, despite her breast beating and hand wringing, the facts are there for all to see. roman catholicism is a loathsome disease which should be eradicated from the earth. And its adherents are equally diseased with delusion. Blessed Mary is, sadly, no exception.

But it won’t work Schaum. I tell you 50,000,000 deaths is a dumb statement and you respond to a fact by screaming abuse. But the number will still be small, and despite all your histrionics you'll still be wrong. All you have done is add bad behaviour to bad thinking. Come to think of it, that sums up a lot of your ‘oeuvre’.

And watch those trigrams, my little blog hog. They’re a dead give away, as is any gushing encomium following your ad hominem. (Rongoklunk? Where do you think them up?)Need to stay sharp. Well, come to think of it, you don’t need to be smart here, do you? You can say any stupid thing here that you want, really, and if your fan club doesn’t agree with you, well, you can create another fan club. Well, works for some.

Now, take the last word, abuse away, and call in the rest of your cohorts for reinforcement. I don’t much care as I won’t read it and, in any case, I am finished here.

Well, except they didn't. It's a perfectly standard English prefix that signifies "the absence of" -- apolitical, atypical, amoral, asexual, etc. Unfortunately, it's often heard in connection with/opposition to a concept that sounds inherently positive, so the gut reaction is that it SOUNDS like it means something bad, regardless of the actual definition of the specific word in question.

Silly as it seems, a new word might help, even if it means the same thing as the old one.

AnnieDC:

"ATHEIST sounds like it's in opposition to the concept of a god, or that something is lacking."

Thats exactly why christers invented the word.

... to say nothing of his many protestations about homosexuality.

Seriously troubled boy.

re: WP Junk's post - "Atheist charity addresses both points. It makes people more aware that we atheists exist, and does so in a positive light. It also satisfies some of that emotional need that drives people to religion. Wether you do charity in private or publically, it still helps society as a whole. However, doing it publically as an atheist also helps break many of the negative stereotypes that atheists have to endure. It makes atheism something that you can get behind emotionally as well as rationally."

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

Well, in a very pragmatic, PR kinda way, you're right. But this gets pretty weird pretty quickly. One thing about many atheists (well, all of the ones I know, but I don't want to overstate it) is that we DON"T define ourselves by the absence of a belief in a god. We define ourselves by what we do believe, which is unrelated to the concept of an god. Theists may get a lot of their self-identification from their belief in their god. Fine, that's their privilege. But I pretty much don't think about it at all until I'm confronted with some problem or issue caused by a person of faith who feels the need to impose their philosophies, or the manifestations of their philosophies, on me. Then I have to decide how to deal with it, but the problem isn't inherently mine, as it wouldn't be there if others weren't assuming they were right and I should go along.

I don't focus on the absence of a god in defining myself or in making my decisions any more than I focus on the absence of unicorns. The idea of promoting good in the name of atheism so others will understand that atheists can be good is very convoluted and just perpetuates that odd belief by the faithful that "No God" is the center of some sort of of philosophical system. The point isn't that we're focusing on "No God," it's that we're focusing on other things entirely.

Earlier in this chain one of the religious posters asked "why do you hate God so much? " I don't hate God. How could I hate something that I don't think exists? Does that poster hate leprechauns?

Just like with feminism, I think that a lot of it is complicated by the semantics. "Feminist" sounds like someone who is biased towards women. "Equalist" doesn't have the same ring to it, but something like that would really more accurately define the conventional feminist philosophy. Same with this issue. ATHEIST sounds like it's in opposition to the concept of a god, or that something is lacking. But I think that for most atheists, it's really just that god is a concept not included in our world view -- we don't "hate" God; we really don't think about him/her/it too much. That's why I prefer "humanist" or "secular humanist" because it more accurately defines what I DO believe. I find it awkward to be defined by the absence of a particular optional belief.

Barferio:

That is a very funny link, B. Thanks.

I think, though, that a much more revealing understanding of Spiderstupid can be gained by paying attention to his many references to "beating" by a father-figure of some type...

Atheists MUST be deeply concerned with religion, because of the profound impact that it has on all our lives.

If the religious, christers in particular, were content to quietly entertain themselves with their antiquated fairytales and delusions, religion would hardly be an issue. But that isn’t the case.

We live in a country which, according to the Treaty of Tripoli, “…is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” Yet it is unlawful for me, because I am an atheist, to hold public office or to testify in trials in Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and that bastion of clear-thinking, Arkansas.

I live in a country where George Bush Sr. publicly stated that he does not consider atheists to be citizens.

I live in a country where policy decisions that affect the rights and lives of my friends and family, such as stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia, are based on Bronze Age ideas and mores – influenced in very great part by the pope through his US bishops.

I live in a world where people are murdered daily for belief in a fictitious god.

Atheists MUST be concerned with religion because the theists have forced us to be. When god-believers and christers ask why atheists are so concerned about religion, the only necessary answer is: “Look at yourselves and see what you have done.”

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

I couldn't resist :-)

This is how we can explain spidermean and his kind.

The universe could simply recycle itself in a never-ending expansion-shrinking/collapsing, expand again process. Hopefully if humans make it to the recycle stage, their goodness will also recycle with them. No gods needed or are they?

ROSSACPA:

"By the way, it would be more intellectually honest to cite the web site from which you cutting and pasting the summaries of various schools of ethical thought."

Ummmmm.....I think I'll let you do that.

There is another aspect to this. Sure, I agree with Susan Jacoby that trying to compete with Christians in doing charity sets them up as arbiters of behavior and morality to some extent. If that's the only reason to identify with atheism when we do charity, it is not worth it.

However, that's not the only reason we should do so. It's not the only reason Chrsitians do so either. There's a reason why so many charities exist with the word "Christian" or other religious reference in them. It's great advertising. People associate Christians with charity because of the Christian's successful marketing campaign to establish that association.

Atheists tend to be a quiet group. We also tend to play more to reason and evidence. Religion is mainly based on emotional hooks, and rational debate really doesn't address that.

Atheist charity addresses both points. It makes people more aware that we atheists exist, and does so in a positive light. It also satisfies some of that emotional need that drives people to religion. Wether you do charity in private or publically, it still helps society as a whole. However, doing it publically as an atheist also helps break many of the negative stereotypes that atheists have to endure. It makes atheism something that you can get behind emotionally as well as rationally.

"... that proving that Statement A is false, I also prove the Statement ~A is true. But when I cannot prove that Statement A is true of false, then I cannot prove the Statement ~A is true or false."

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

ROSSACPA,

Agreed but please tell us which claim (A) of Shaum's do you disgree with?

What Shaum statement is (A) in your example?

Schaum: Not sure I'm the one obfuscating. I do know that you still have not addressed the following logical rule: state whether you accept the logical principal that proving that Statement A is false, I also prove the Statement ~A is true. But when I cannot prove that Statement A is true of false, then I cannot prove the Statement ~A is true or false.

By the way, it would be more intellectually honest to cite the web site from which you cutting and pasting the summaries of various schools of ethical thought.

EMONTY:

"My reading list is growing!"

Good for you. Check with Farnaz for suggestions. She has read everything! And while teaching at university, to boot! When I was teaching, when arriving home at the end of a day, reading was the last thing I wanted to do.

1. 'Darwinian Evolution is now a conquered foe.’ What absolute rubbish! The standard christer rant is that morality cannot be explained by evolution. christers repeat this claim, with no proof of course, without looking at the evidence. The first problem is that their claim is confused about several different distinctions. To iterate those distinctions:

Can the theory of evolution give us an account of how natural selection might have worked on humans (and other animals) to endow them with a moral sense? Yes. Ever since Darwin, people have put forward ideas about how evolutionary forces could have selected for certain kinds of cognitive constitution in early hominids, over others. The answer will depends upon what is meant by “moral sense”.
Perhaps the question is: Can evolution give us an account of why we care about each other, or why we do good things for each other, why we are generous or compassionate, why we have a sense of justice? Yes, it does. Barbara Kind, Frans de Waal, Marc Hauser, Patricia Churchland, Philip Kitcher, and many others have given careful accounts, supported by empirical observations, of how the process of evolution might have selected for individuals with some behaviors, preferences, and sensitivities and not others. As with any scientific theory, more empirical research and investigation will make progress in determining which theory best accounts for the facts.

Can the theory of natural selection make us want to be better, more moral people? No. The theory is neutral in this regard. It just tells us what we are. But the process of natural selection does appear to have left us with some very strong desires to be better, more “moral” people. So evolution has made us want to be “moral”. But it has also made us favor foods that have very high calorie densities. In the wild, nuts with their high fat content are an important find when food is scarce. But I shouldn’t be following that same preference by ordering another slice of calorie rich cheesecake.

But can divine command theory make us want to be better, more moral people? No, it can’t. What believing that god/jesusgod commands X and forbids Y can do, especially if it is coupled with a threat of punishment (death) or the promise of reward, is to provide some incentive to engage in more behaviors that appear to be moral. But acting for the sake of reward or out of a fear of punishment isn’t

2.
moral behavior. That’s save-your-ass behavior. That’s utterly selfish, amoral behavior. Moral behavior requires other directed, other concerned, non-self-interested motivation. Kant argued that in order for an act to be morally good, it must arise from the right sort of principled motivation that recognizes the autonomy and value of another person as a self-governing being. Real moral actions are those which transcend concern about yourself and that recognize others as beings who make choices, employ reason, and have freedom. Following orders from god either because he issued them or because of fear of punishment actually thwarts individual responsibility, freedom, and reason. Even if god commands that we act in selfless ways that acknowledge the rational autonomy of others, doing so isn’t moral if your motivation is that god commanded it.

Socrates clearly illustrated in the “Euthyphro” that whatever god commands, the question of whether that commandment is the morally right thing to do is a completely separate matter. Deciding either to do what god commands (because you are free) itself is a decision that concludes “What god commands is good.” And that is a moral decision that must be made on the basis of grounds other than the mere fact that god commanded it.

Can evolutionary theory tell us what we ought to do? Not really. It can tell us what we are and how we are built. It can tell us what sorts of behaviors are favorable to survival, and so on. But whether you ought to do any of the things that you are built to do is a separate question. One needs must have some better reasons to do it than the mere fact that we are biologically inclined to do some things rather than others. Biology may have endowed us with inclinations that themselves are immoral. This is the infamous is-ought problem. But the mistake is thinking that this problem is confined only to naturalized accounts of ethics. The is-ought problem is everyone’s challenge, especially for those who imagine morality comes from god.

Imagining that god wants us to do certain things doesn’t tell us that we OUGHT to do it, either. First, the diversity of religious views and the countless instances of doctrinal in-fighting over every moral and religious question makes it abundantly apparent that there are no clear answers about what god wants us to do, especially among the people who are most convinced that we should do what god commands. Second, even if someone (mistakenly) concludes that god

4.
“If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. . . . The principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering of any other being.” (Singer)

4. Eudaimonia, or flourishing, for humanity can only be achieved by acquiring virtue with regard to that which sets us apart, or our capacity to guide our own behavior by reason. Fulfillment can be achieved by living well according to this essential nature over the span of a whole life. (Aristotle)

5. Act according to that principle that will promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number.(Mill)

6. Only have aversion for those things that are in your control If you are averse to sickness, or death, or poverty, you will be wretched. . . .If you desire any of the things which are not in your own control, you must necessarily be disappointed; and of those which are, and which it would be laudable to desire, nothing is yet in your possession. (Epictetus)

7. “Man first of all is the being who hurls himself toward a future and who is conscious of imagining himself as being in the future. Man is at the start a plan which is aware of itself, rather than a patch of moss, a piece of garbage, or a cauliflower; nothing exists prior to this plan; there is nothing in heaven; man will be what he will have planned to be." (Sartre)

8. It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly. (Epicurus)

9. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. And social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that : a) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society b) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity (Rawls)

5.

10. Refraining mutually from injury, exploitation, and putting one's will on a par with others, may lead to a certain degree of good conduct among individuals. But to make it a fundamental principle of society is a will to the denial of life, a principle of dissolution and decay. (Nietzsche)

Some christers imagine it is a serious blow against atheism and evolutionary accounts of human origins that they cannot explain morality. The problem is that in many regards, evolutionary theory does explain morality. But even if moral behavior were a mystery from an evolutionary standpoint (it isn’t), we still wouldn’t have any grounds to prefer a divine explanation for moral behavior. Adding god to the discussion just doesn’t do any explanatory work for us in helping us understand what is right and wrong, what the human moral conscience is, or what we ought to do. We will all encounter challenging, morally complex situations. And in order to get through them, we will have to think about the reasons we have for various actions. And we will have to decide which reasons are better and which are worse. Thinking that god commands something is a delusion that won’t help us decide if it really is morally good to do that. That is, no one can escape the burden of responsibility for their actions. And the only tools we have for solving those dilemmas are our powers of reasoning.
Some of the very best reasoners among us about moral matters have been philosophers advancing theories of morality. Those accounts do much more towards answering the question of what we ought to do. And they can supplement the evolutionary accounts that we are developing about what sorts of creatures we are. The answer to the lead question is that evolution and philosophy can explain morality, but appeals to god cannot.

Schaum,

My hat is off to you and some of the others. I don't have the academic background to follow the discussion but I think it is great that others do. My reading list is growing!

The story does not exist outside of its historical and antropological context. It is speaking to people who lived at a time (late Bronze Age/Iron Age) when the cultural practices surrounding them would have been well known.

But we have the bare text today. I'm questioning the claim that a modern reader who doesn't know the context would automatically make the correct interpretation, or the interpretation that the authors intended. My larger point is that Christian scriptures are widely published and read while the historical and anthropological context is not common knowledge, so many people come to the text cold. They know that the text dates from a different time and culture, but that's about all.

Apparently according to scholars, it was not obvious to the people surrounding the ancient Israelites, that child sacrifice was not honky dory. When the one God tells you it is not OK, that sends a really strong message. One that is harder to disobey in the long run.

If that was the intended message, then it doesn't make sense to have the god switch orders on Abraham. It gives the impression that the god was playing a mind game with Abraham. I've heard of interpretations among Jewish scholars that the point was to test Abraham's guile.

it is only the transcendence and power of the Deity that would cause a moral shift in the social order of a late Bronze Age Middle Eastern society...how it could change moral understanding in the region and ultimately in the West.

Do you mean an actual deity, or the idea of such a deity? That doesn't explain how the Israelites came to believe in that type of deity versus the ones believed by their neighbors. And scholars of Greek mythology theorize that "flower" myths such as Narcissus originated with child sacrifices that were later repudiated by that culture, and that culture's concept of gods included no such ideas of transcendence or moral authority.

Persiflage:

"On a more clinical note - obsessive reiteration is not a sign of emotional health in this dimension."

True -- and no one in our dimension has ever accused Spiderstupid of possessing any degree of emotional health.

ROSSACPA:

"When you speak of reading Ludwig Wittgenstein, do you mean the earlier or older work..."

Reading for comprehension is usually a good idea. I did not speak of reading Wittgenstein's "works", whether old or new. I spoke of only ONE work -- the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus". Pay attention. Stop obfuscating.

It was in his posthumously published "Philosophical Investigations" that he retracted some of what he wrote in Tractatus. Nevertheless, it remains a standard of required reading in many colleges and universities, in introductory philosophy and logic classes.

'Darwinian Evolution is now a conquered foe. Atheists should find another fictional science to defend their stupidity.'

Like I said, there may indeed be alternate universes.....looks like we have a visitor from one such, and a surly one at that.

On a more clinical note - obsessive reiteration is not a sign of emotional health in this dimension.

Wait, is the point of the Abraham story that "child secrifice is not hunky dory"? I thought the tale was intended to convey the necessity of obeying god, even if his will is both cruel and stupid . . . in other words, another strike against unyielding religious faith. Am I wrong about that?

1.
Deductive disproof would provide the strongest possible example of “proving the negative.” But there is a wide range of other circumstances under which we take it that believing that X does not exist is reasonable even though no logical impossibility is manifest. Juries decide that defendants are not guilty, doctors conclude that patients are not ill, mechanics infer that a car is not in need of repair, computer technicians conclude that a computer is not malfunctioning, and biologists conclude that an animal species is extinct. None of these cases achieves the level of deductive, a priori or conceptual proof. Nevertheless, these and countless other instances like them are instances where concluding that X is not true, or X does not exist is entirely justified and reasonable. These cases are, for the most part, inductive. That is, under a wide range of circumstances it is reasonable to conclude that X does not exist on the grounds that X is improbable. Inductive atheological arguments purport to make just such a case against the existence of god or jesusgod.

When the christer objects on the grounds that the justification for non-belief doesn’t achieve deductive certainty—“You can’t prove atheism! How can you be so sure? You’re being unreasonable”-- he has invoked an artificially high epistemological standard of justification that creates a much broader set of problems not confined to atheism. If one must achieve deductive proof in order to be justified in believing any claim, then not being able to justify atheism is the least of one’s worries. This high standard of justification undermines the vast majority of what people believe and normally consider to be justified. It generates a broad, pernicious skepticism against far more than religious and irreligious beliefs. Mackie says, “It will not be sufficient to criticize each argument on its own by saying that it does not prove the intended conclusion, that is, does not put it beyond all doubt. That follows at once from the admission that the argument is non-deductive, and it is absurd to try to confine our knowledge and belief to matters which are conclusively established by sound deductive arguments. The demand for certainty will inevitably be disappointed, leaving skepticism in command of almost every issue.” (The Miracle of Theism, 7)

If the atheist is unjustified for lacking proof, then so are the beliefs that planes fly, fish swim, air contains oxygen, electrons exist, or the Cubs are baseball players, not robots. This criticism presents a problem for everyone, believer and non-believers alike. If we are to take it seriously at all (we shouldn’t), then the challenge is not just the atheist’s to answer because the general problem of

2.
skepticism is not uniquely the atheist’s to solve. Addressing it is not more of a problem for atheism than for any other view about an empirical, inductive, or non-a priori matters. Skepticism is an interesting and historically influential problem in epistemology, and it is as old as philosophy itself. But part of what makes it interesting is that no one really takes it seriously. That is, even though the occasional earnest philosophy student pushes the issue and makes himself or herself into a pain in the ass, we all talk, act, and think under the pervasive presumption that we do have knowledge. The widespread assumption is that we are justified in believing that planes fly, fish swim, and that oxygen exists even though no one can satisfy the stringent deductive proof standard to support them. It would be a mistake, therefore, to object to inductive atheology or to try to defend it against this charge as if the problem is particular to non-belief in god/jesusgod. Throwing this problem at the non-believer is nothing more than a flagrant case of the pot calling the kettle black.

We can also understand this attack on disbelief as an example of the more general mistake of applying a sliding scale of proof. When we encounter an idea, we tend to form rapid reactions to it, many of which are thought to happen beneath our conscious awareness. Psychologists have shown that the gears of belief formation are set into motion long before the subject is even aware of what is going on -- in one study the gap was 7 seconds. So, if our immediate reaction is a positive one, we are prone to much more forgiving with reasons or justifications that are given in favor of it. As long as a speaker or writer is drawing a conclusion you agree with—as long as he or she appears to be on your side—then they can do no wrong. But if we are averse to the conclusion they are drawing, then we bring a high degree of scrutiny to bear on every inferential move they make. We jump on the slightest appearance of mistake and draw the satisfied conclusion that they are mistaken—“See, I knew it all along. What he’s suggesting is outrageous.”

I would suggest that it’s not just the serious god-believers criticizing atheists who are guilty of playing this “fixed” game of cards. Its just as often the case that a self-professed agnostic is guilty of stacking the deck. This critic of atheism doesn’t subscribe to the religious excesses of the hard-core believer. But he thinks that the atheist is just as guilty of going to extremes that the evidence cannot support. But for many agnostics, the high standard of justification that

3.
beliefs would satisfy. They are being highly selective about which matters they will apply this epistemic standard to and which they won’t. The agnosticism, as a result, is arbitrary and disingenuous. This double-standard agnostic amounts to a sort of closet god-believer, holding out some false hope for something he’s reluctant to give up. He’s not so much an agnostic because it’s what the evidence indicates but because he doesn’t have the courage and consistency to follow through. (Just pull the band-aid off quick!)

The atheist has been subjected to a great deal of this inconsistency. In “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”, Daniel Dennett gives an example of a believer and a non-believer playing tennis. When the believer serves, he lowers the net on his own behalf. The beauty of faith after all is that it doesn’t play by any rules of reason. It’s virtue is abandoning the dictates of reason and evidence. But when the non-believer tries to return the serve and challenge some preposterous claim, suddenly then net is raised high, making it nearly impossible to successfully return the volley. It gets even worse when two believers get together to play and exchange ideas, Dennett says. Philosophical theology amounts to “intellectual tennis without a net at all."

But, god-believers and christers are entitled to cherish their delusions.

Spiderstupid:

"How many times should atheists be told that evolution can't exist without an inherent INTELLIGENCE with it."

Only once -- when you come up with proof.

Schaum: When you speak of reading Ludwig Wittgenstein, do you mean the earlier or older work, because with your expertise you know that Wittgenstein's later works repudiated much of his early work.

I know this was an oversight on your part, but you neglected to state whether you accept the logical principal that proving that Statement A is false, I also prove the Statement ~A is true. But when I cannot prove that Statement A is true of false, then I cannot prove the Statement ~A is true or false.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY8JynFxUko

Darwinian Evolution is now a conquered foe. Atheists should find another fictional science to defend their stupidity.

Darwinian Evolution is now crushed due to the fact that true evolution and intelligence are two faces of one coin. They are inseparable.

Cartsonio wrote:

"When all the priests of all the gods around you are demanding child sacrifice for placation of those gods
But we don't know that from the Sacrifice story alone, or even from Genesis alone. All we know is that the god in the story orders the sacrifice and then stays it. My point isn't about the author's intentions because these would be unknown to the casual reader."

The story does not exist outside of its historical and antropological context. It is speaking to people who lived at a time (late Bronze Age/Iron Age) when the cultural practices surrounding them would have been well known. There were no casual readers in the late Bronze Age and Iron Age. There were people embedded in a cultural context that affected their everyday lives. Apparently according to scholars, it was not obvious to the people surrounding the ancient Israelites, that child sacrifice was not honky dory. When the one God tells you it is not OK, that sends a really strong message. One that is harder to disobey in the long run.

"Imagine how the story would have turned out if Abraham had refused to go through with the sacrifice. He could have told the god, "Wipe out my existence if you want, but I won't slaughter my son. If you want him dead, do it yourself."

Your resolution of the story would have had a far weaker moral impact on the tribal society it was supposed to teach. One man telling God to do the killing himself has no long term moral consequences, because it is only the transcendence and power of the Deity that would cause a moral shift in the social order of a late Bronze Age Middle Eastern society. It is the force of this social change that has long range effect on moral thniking. Again you take the story out of its historical and social context, and when you take such a narrow focus you are deprived of understanding how it could change moral understanding in the region and ultimately in the West.

What we know of the world, we know through observation, not logic. Therefore, there is no logical argument than can prove that God exists, because even if it is logically proven, he still might not exist.

Where did creation come from? Of course it must have been from a Creator. But isn't that a circular argument, since existence is referred to as "Creation" instead of the world, or instead of existence?

Where did existence come from? Or what causes all to be? Of course, the answer is, that it has always been. But that is a circular argument, too.

There is no answer; and there can be no answer. For as intelligent as we are, we are not intelligent enough to figure out why, much less understand why all this is here. What a fruitless waste of time arguing over it.

Our minds wonder on this stuff. Religion is a way of pressing the off button, so that we can stop wondering. It does not give any realistic answers, but merely puts a barrier to further questioning.

'Therefore the only logical conclusion is that the universe has always existed.'

Well, that's one theory, along with the theory of parallel universes - that are used to accomodate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

In fact, by modern scientific standards, deity-based theories are putting the cart WAY before the horse - since we're only just now getting an idea of how much we DON'T know, cosmologically speaking.

Assuming some kind of non-material super-creator as the first cause i.e. the causeless, self-existing cause of all things, was all well and good when humans didn't know how limitless the explanatory possibilities really were.

People that base an entire cosmology on religious experiences that happen to conform with an established religious belief system can hardly be called unattached observers - of even their own experience.

Basing beliefs about the material world on the basis of inner/numinal religious experience is a leap of faith that really defies logic and reason. You can hold these revelations to be true for yourself, but you can't extrapolate beyond your own personal experience.

This is what the religiously devout do continuously, and have always done through the ages. And this severely limits their credibility among more objectively minded folks - the kind you might find on this thread, for example.

This skepticism is especially true for individuals that might have a wide grounding and exposure to the history of world religions.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090505061949.htm

Schum wrote "(There's) a large body of evidence now that indicates that evolution built us, along with lots of other species, to be moral. "

How many times should atheists be told that evolution can't exist without an inherent INTELLIGENCE with it.

Time to wake up guys.

US-Conscience:

"Shwamm - I often find that when people dont have anything to say, they often "choose" not to say anything."

It might be prudent for you to be guided by that finding.

1.
You can’t be moral without god? Then what the hell is wrong with you!
Christers believe it is not possible for a person to be moral without god or jesusgod. So the charge that atheists are somehow lacking morally in this regard is iterated again and again.

There are a lot of confusions embedded in these comments, coming from both sides. It is necessary to be clear about what the claim might mean and sort out some ambiguities. The first ambiguity concerns whether the claim is to be taken in an epistemological sense or an ontological sense. That is, do they mean that if a person doesn’t believe in God, they won’t be moral, or that if God does not exist, then morality could not exist? The second ambiguity concerns what “be moral,” means in this context. Does it mean ‘to act in a morally decent, law abiding manner’, or does it mean ‘to ground moral decisions on the “right” moral considerations’?

There are several different ways to interpret the sentence. At the risk of being tedious, let’s deal with them one by one. Is it true that unless a person believes in god/jesusgod, they won’t act in a morally decent, law abiding manner? No. There are a billion or so Buddhists on the planet, and several hundred million atheists, just for starters, who do not believe in any sort of divine being, but it would be absurd to suggest that none of them act in a morally decent, law abiding manner.

Is it true that unless a person believes in god, he will not/cannott ground his moral decisions in the right moral considerations? Again, this can’t be true either. Kant, Mill, Rawls, Aristotle, and many respectable and plausible moral theories, give accounts of how moral decisions should be grounded without any requirement for the actor to believe in god. If the someone wishes to defend this claim, then they will need to argue that none of the widely respected, studied, and emulated moral theories that have been developed in history are right and that no acts that are done in accordance with them are moral. That seems like an extraordinary and implausible position to take. It seems that at least one of these must be at least as plausible as divine command theory. In fact, the vast majority of expert moral philosophers have taken them all to be superior theories.

2.
Is it true that unless god exists, no one would act in a morally decent, law abiding fashion? It’s hard to know what the god-believer is getting at if he says ‘yes’. He might be thinking that it’s only the fear of god or respect for god’s commandments that makes people behave themselves. But again, this is myopic. There have been billions of people in history who don’t believe, don’t know about, or who have taken no note of god in their deliberations, but they have behaved morally. So it’s not believing that god is present that keeps people in line. Whether god exists or not, there are people who think he does not and who behave morally. So it seems implausible that his existence or non-existence makes any real difference in their behavior.

Is it true that if there were no god, no one would ground their actions in the right moral considerations? We can imagine that the god-believer would insist that this one is true. Sure, lots of people do ground their actions in other, non-god considerations, and they also behave in what appears to be a morally decent manner. But in fact, says the theist, none of their actions are based on the right considerations. He might insist that if there were no god, there would be no sense of morality in humanity, or humanity would have never developed an awareness of a moral dimension in their lives, or our natures would be radically different. god is responsible for our capacity to act in moral ways, so if there were no god, there would be nothing like morality at all. And then this moral capacity, that can’t be explained any other way is employed as evidence for the existence of god.
The problem with this position, of course, is that it is in danger of being circular reasoning. How is it that the theist came to know that the moral capacity in humans could have only come from god? It’s embarrassing if the answer is “from god.” It’s even worse if that moral capacity, that god told them came from god, is then used as evidence that god exists. god tells me that only god can provide us with morality. My morality proves that god must be real.

The god-believer might try to go deep here and insist that even though many moral systems like Aristotle’s or Mill’s make no explicit appeal to god, if it hadn’t been for god endowing humanity with a capacity for moral action or a moral sense, Aristotle and Mill would have had nothing in human behavior to theorize about. They wouldn’t have even been aware of any moral dimension to our lives. But this argument also seems to beg the question, and it’s very hard to see how one might defend it, particularly since we have some plausible alternative accounts of how morality arose in humanity. Evolutionary biologists have given

"freestinker: because according to current scientific evidence, the Universe had a starting point. A beginning."

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

US-Conscience,

You 1st claimed that "out of nothing, nothing comes". Now you say the universe came from nothing? Which is it?

Where's the evidence that proves the "beginning" of the universe (as we know it today) came from nothing?

Hint: There isn't any!

If you still claim that "out of nothing, nothing comes" then the universe must have always existed because it could not have come from nothing but then you claim (without any evidence) that the universe did come from nothing!

Which is it? You can't have it both ways!

3.
us a large body of evidence now that indicates that evolution built us, along with lots of other species, to be moral. For instance, swans are monogamous. Does this mean that swans believe in god? Does their monogamous nature prove the existence of god? We observe proto-moral behaviors in all sorts of animals now, and we have a number of theories that about why evolution might have selected for sympathy, cooperation, and other social instincts.

It’s possible that the capacity for moral behavior that we find in ourselves came from god, but the god-believer needs to argue that that’s the only possible source it could have come from. And that much stronger claim is very hard to give a plausible argument for.

Thus, whatever christers mean by the claim that ‘you can’t be moral without God’, it can’t be right. Some of the things that sentence might mean are obviously false, and other interpretations fall into circularity or have to argue for some claims that can’t fit with the facts.
Still, you are entitled to your delusions.

" The usual waste of space from Jacoby." ?

Sometimes I agree with Susan Jacoby; sometimes I do not. However, her writing is anything but a waste of space which perhaps explains why so many people respond to her and to each other each time she writes.

AnnieDC wrote "One can have a mainstream ethical system without a belief in a god. "

History proves that it's not possible.

Decay happens slowly. When all the structural columns are fully decayed, the building (society) will collapse (burn).

As prophesied, very soon this world will collapse.

freestinker: because according to current scientific evidence, the Universe had a starting point. A beginning.

Shwamm - I often find that when people dont have anything to say, they often "choose" not to say anything.

Therefore the only logical conclusion is that the universe has always existed.

Logic and reasoning alone cannot prove or disprove the existence of any object or phenomenon. Any assertion about those things has to be testable and falsifiable, otherwise it's merely speculation.

US-Conscience,

What evidence do you have that your "Transcendent Uncaused Immaterial First cause of the Material Universe" is anything other than the actual material universe itself?

Or a Creator's Creator's Creator?

US-Conscience:

I decline to respond to your rantings probably for the same reason that others seem to ignore you: you present no new thoughts, ideas, or insights, and frequently seem as irrational as Spiderstupid -- though possibly not so obsessive-compulsive. And your spelling is godawful, which tends to turn me off.

So I ignore you. My call.

RE: Spidermean's replay to my post -- AnnieDC wrote "Many people are sentient and empathetic, and understand, either objectively or intuitively, that people are social animals who function in cooperation with others".

Wrong presumptions lead to wrong conclusion. Social animals like lions kill. "
-----------------------------------

Spidermean, you're absolutely rignt. Indeed they do. However, that is in no way responsive to anything I wrote. Feel free to read my original post -- in its entirely -- again.

You also said - "There are many "experiments" where societies don't believe in God. They were called the killing fields in Vietnam, Cambodia, ., etc." Well, that is also true. It also has nothing to do with my post. But, I might add, we all can make a comparable list where just as many deaths were caused in the name of a god.

The big picture question for this entire chain distills to "Can one have an ethical system without a belief in a god?" And one of the things I'm finding problematic with many of the postings is that so many writers are treating things as if they are absolutes.

Thats neither accurate or productive. Some people have what most of us would consider ethics, some don't. The mere fact that SOME non-religious people do horrible thing does not mean that ALL non-religious people will. The fact that SOME religious people behave well doesn't mean that ALL do.

One can have a mainstream ethical system without a belief in a god. One can believe in a god and be evil. And the opposite of both of those statements is also true.

And, I still maintain that any religious person who would still be "good" even if their god was indifferent to that behavior truly does know that an ethical system can exist without imposition from above.

If you behave well just because God tells you to, you don't really have ethics -- you're just good at mindlessly following rules.

What is the probability of the Creator's Creator?

The fact remains that for a Big Bang to form into any kind of brain like that of insects, fishes, animals or humans or a pretty flower, there needs to be a Maker of them all.

The probability of their formation without a Creator is ZERO PERCENT. Whether we like it or not, that is SCIENCE.

And for evolution to function, there must be an inherent INTELLIGENCE with it.

Everything points to a Creator and to deny it just proves the idiocy of the person.

To clarify:

"their delusional constructs" should read "the christers delusional constructs".

BuckminsterJ:

"The "explicitly atheist communists regimes" to which Edbyronadams refers, as pointed out by Hitchens and countless others, are much nearer in ideology to religionists than to rational non-believers. One of the few differences between fundamentalist Christians and, say, North Koreans, is that the former call their infallible supernatural leader "god," while the latter call him "Kim Jong Il."

Exactly. What edbyronadams consistently and persistently fails to take into account is that while MOST communists do not believe in god, MOST "atheists" in fact are not communists. But equating the two does seem to suit their delusional constructs.

hey schwamm, I'm feeling left out, why dont you ever reply to my posts ? here - i will repost one, maybe you could say something interesting about it.

Nastradamus !!! Really ?

OK. He made many vague "predictions" that maybe a few out of thousands have possibly come true, in a vague way.

Now the Bible, the only "holy book" in existance that is filled with specific, detailed prophecies, all of which ( 100 % ) have all come true ( with the exception of those prophecies regarding the end of time or the 2nd coming of Christ )

Just regarding the birth and life of Jesus there are 160 specific prophecies that where fulfilled. Its interesting that before the dead sea scrolls where discovered the popular argument against these fulfilled prophecies by Jew's, Muslim's and atheist's were that they were all added after the fact, somewhere in the first 2 or 3 centuries after the crucifixion. Enter the dead sea scrolls: every prediction was there dating back from 150 b.c.

Mathamaticians have calculated that for even 12 of those predictions to come true, the odds where equal to filling the state of Texas with quarters 2 ft. deep and having one quarter with an "X" on it, then blindfolding someone, spinning them around and pushing them out into the state and for them to wander around and then upon first try picking the quarter with the X on it. And that was just for 12 !!!

Spiderstupid:

Repeat it until you collapse in exhaustion -- mere repetition of an unproven posit does not make it proven.

The lack of proof for the existence of god does not imply the absence of a creator. There is a vast difference between "god" and "creator"...except, of course, in the deluded thinking of christers.

Freestinker - keep thinking about it !

ROSSACPA:

If you would take an one-semester course in elementary logic, you would realize that I have made nothing "fit" my "theories". christers posit the existence of god. Their failure to prove gods existence means, LOGICALLY, that we may infer that it is not the case that god exists. That is simple, basic logic. No smoke, no mirrors, none of your presuppositions and assuming facts not in evidence...like I've not read Bertrand Russell. You must be new here, or you would recall that I have frequently made reference to him. But that would interfere with your presuppositions and delusions, I imagine.

Read Anderson, Lepper, and Ross, “Perseverance of Social Theories: The Role of Explanation in the Persistence of Discredited Information,” wherein they prove that people will continue to hold beliefs even after they are thoroughly discredited.

If you have any genuine interest in logic and reason, which does not seem to be the case, I suggest that you read Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus", in which he exhaustively deals with the logical structure of propositions and the nature of logical inference.

Edbyronadams wrote: "It is foolish. There is no way they can adequately compensate for the body count of the explicitly atheist communist regimes in recent history."

The "explicitly atheist communists regimes" to which Edbyronadams refers, as pointed out by Hitchens and countless others, are much nearer in ideology to religionists than to rational non-believers. One of the few differences between fundamentalist Christians and, say, North Koreans, is that the former call their infallible supernatural leader "god," while the latter call him "Kim Jong Il." Unlike non-believers, these two groups refuse to examine any law handed down by (their respective) Dear Leader, regardless of evidence or independent moral justification. Whether religious or political, such unexamined ideology is precisely what atheists find so worrisome and infuriating.

US-Conscience claimed: "They tend to call it "a big bang", but there is something else Science has shown us, and that is that "out of nothing, nothing comes" (in fact if there was ever a time when "Nothing" existed, then "nothing" would exist today. ) and that things at rest tend to stay at rest. So, what made "nothing", on a particular tuesday afternoon, explode into everything? "

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

US-Conscience,

Your argument contradicts itself! Since as you say, "out of nothing, nothing comes" then the universe could not have come from nothing. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that the universe has always existed.

Science has shown us that the universe, as we know it today, began with the Big Bang but there is no scientific evidence that proves that something (the universe) came from nothing. As far as science knows, the universe has always existed in some shape or form. Evidently, the universe itself may very well be the uncaused first cause, as you put it.

What evidence do you have that your "Transcendent Uncaused Immaterial First cause of the Material Universe" is anything other than the actual material universe itself?

Read

Spidey: Remember that not all of the Christian creed can be accessed by logical thought alone. Certainly creation evidences the creator everywhere; his fingerprints are on everything we see.

Bur matters of the Creed rely on revelation. This is particularly true of what we believe about the person of Jesus. A note further down takes issue with the claim that Jesus is an infinite, eternal, necessary being because of his human birth. The person is probably totally ignorant of the doctrine of the hypostatic union of the two natures in the one person of Jesus, and is rooted in a lacking reception in the gift of faith, and a dirth of knowledge in Aristotelian philosophy. It is in this context that we must present the Faith to a secular peers.

Schaum: Bertrand Russell, an English atheist philosopher of the early 20th century made great strides in logic and the philosophy of mathematics. After you have mastered a freshman text of predicate logic, you might benefit by reading Russell. In the meantime, recognize that logic cannot be adapted to your subjectivist, relativistic notions of how you would like it to work. When I prove that Statement A is false, I also prove the Statement ~A is true. But when I cannot prove that Statement A is true of false, then I cannot prove the Statement ~A is true or false.

Schum,

Let me repeat it. "The fool hath said in his heart that there is no God " (Ps 14:1)

It's easy to spot a fool coz fools proclaim that there is no God. That is what the Bible said and science proves that it is so true.

Here is the science that supports that claim. Evolution can only function if there is an inherent intelligence in it. Only a fool believes in evolution without intelligence present.

What more is there to prove that you guys are truly fools?

Skipsailing28:

From the quality of your posts, I think it is difficult for you to make sense of anything.

Angry? Yes, perpetually angry with myths, lies, fairy-gods, and other unproven idiocies that keep people encumbered with superstition.

Nothing in the universe cares how you lived your life. These are the only logical conclusions for the atheist.

Those aren't exclusively atheist conclusions. (Many deists believe in indifferent gods.) Sure, we have no evidence that the universe is anything but indifferent to human existence. But so what? Why should it matter to us what the universe thinks or doesn't think about us? What matter is that we're important to ourselves. What matter is that we value things like morality and honor and compassion. what matter is that we make a difference in the lives of others while we live.

For me, as a Humanist, every day is judgement day.

wow is that guy schaum angry or what?

I read two of his comments directed at me and neither made any sense. I'm hardly surprised

FH1231 - its interesting that you brought up the Nazi's....In World War II

German troops invaded Europe and took over country after country.

The Nazi’s set up their own governments and made their own laws and did whatever they felt was right in their own eyes, and as we all know, they did some pretty heinous things.

Their view of right and wrong was kind of skewed!

When the war ended and the rightful governments regained control of their countries, they took those same Nazi’s and put them on trial.

They were judged individually for every act they had committed based on the laws that had already been established in that country.

Something very similar is about to happen.

You see right now you are living according your own laws, your own created ideas of right and wrong, good and bad.

But one day soon, a KING is going to return and He is going to judge each person individually, based on the Eternal Laws that He has already established.

God has appointed a day in which He will Judge the world in Righteousness and has commanded each person to repent.

Spiderstupid:

"It's so easy to spot a fool."

At last you have said something true, and it is particularly easy to identify the fool who suggests there is a 'doctrine' to atheism... an "ism" which doesn't even exist!

"All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."
Friedrich Nietzsche

In essence, moral truth is a function of power, not some "golden rule". If the Nazi's now dominated the world, than their belief system would be "right". You can't claim to be an animal, and then give yourself things like; value, purpose, honor, compassion. If a lion kills a competitor, and the cubs that competitor sired, you don't call it immoral. The lion just did what lions do.

You killed "God" but you can't live happily without the sense of higher purpose that a belief in Him/It engenders, so you delude yourself with the idea that you are of more worth because you believe in things like; reason, love, compassion for your fellow man...the noble lie. Our civilization is doomed. You came out of oblivion...you are going into oblivion. Nothing in the universe cares how you lived your life. These are the only logical conclusions for the atheist.

How odd, that only one animal in the history of the planet would be cursed with the knowledge we all share. As Sartre would say; "Well, well, let's get on with it".

CARSTONIO:

"We don't have the knowledge to say what may have taken place before the Big Bang.

Nor the knowledge to say how many times the Big Bang may have occurred in this, or other potential, universe(s).

Yeal's suggestion that the universe(s) may be constantly expanding and contracting to start over again, is a fascinating one, and one that many physicists take as seriously credible.

Hey Schwammy, Nastradamus !!! Really ?

OK. He made many vague "predictions" that maybe a few out of thousands have possibly come true, in a vague way.

Now the Bible, the only "holy book" in existance that is filled with specific, detailed prophecies, all of which ( 100 % ) have all come true ( with the exception of those prophecies regarding the end of time or the 2nd coming of Christ )

Just regarding the birth and life of Jesus there are 160 specific prophecies that where fulfilled. Its interesting that before the dead sea scrolls where discovered the popular argument against these fulfilled prophecies by Jew's, Muslim's and atheist's were that they were all added after the fact, somewhere in the first 2 or 3 centuries after the crucifixion. Enter the dead sea scrolls: every prediction was there dating back from 150 b.c.

Mathamaticians have calculated that for even 12 of those predictions to come true, the odds where equal to filling the state of Texas with quarters 2 ft. deep and having one quarter with an "X" on it, then blindfolding someone, spinning them around and pushing them out into the state and for them to wander around and then upon first try picking the quarter with the X on it. And that was just for 12 !!!

At the risk of infinite regression, there has to be a "FIRST CAUSE"

Why would there be such a risk? We don't have the knowledge to say what may have taken place before the Big Bang. So we have no basis for making any assumptions about it.

Schum,

Nostradamus make predictions based on what is fed to him by some "medium". In spite of that, there are lots of misses. He also can't turn water into blue water coz I doubt if he knew how to make dyes.

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God"

It's so easy to spot a fool. You guys are lousy defenders of your stupid doctrine.

"For every effect, there has to be a cause. At the risk of infinite regression, there has to be a "FIRST CAUSE" . For there to be a material, imminent universe to exist, there had to be a transendant, immaterial first cause. "

Or the universe could simply recycle itself in a never-ending expansion-shrinking/collapsing process.

Spiderstupid:

"If one is not convinced, he also made prophecies in which future generations like us is about to witness."

So did Nostradamus. Hey, maybe jesusgod has already come a second time, this time as Nostradamus. Wow.

Barferio:

"daniel12, before anybody claimed the existence of a god there was nobody who claimed it didn't exist.

"Nobody tried to prove a lack of god, nobody had to.

"Your extraordinary claim that there is a god, and the christian god in particular, is the first claim.

Prove that claim. we do not have to prove there isn't a god."...

..."You know the score. Prove unicorns don't exist, prove the incredible hulk isn't responsible for earthquakes. None of these things make sense, and without the suppression of reason required by your gods faiths you would be able to see your god is equally ridiculous."

Do you have any idea how many times, or by how many people, or on how many threads all this has been explained to him? He doesn't get it, because he CAN'T get it. He can only deal in the irrational assumptions and presuppositions he has been spoonfed since he was a child. He is unable to use reason and logic, and can only make broad and unproven assumptions.

Making lots of broad assumptions about who atheists are and what they believe allows Daniel12 to comfortably relegate atheists to a pre-defined and pre-dismissed category, without the troubling inconvenience of rational thought. He sees no need to inquire about their actual beliefs if their actual beliefs don't matter, and their actual beliefs won't matter if they are simply playing a pre-defined role in his religious ideology.

Though not as obvious as when people go so far as to demonize another group, this sort of pre-categorization is still a form of dehumanization. It effectively undermines his insistence that he only wants to "understand the atheist's point of view." In truth, it's more likely that he simply is searching for validation of what he has been taught. He has been repeatedly told there is no such thing as atheism, and rather than "believing" anything, atheists have merely chosen to "disbelieve" the godmyths until they are proven. He processes everything he is told through a perceptual filter, changing everything that he is told, until it looks comfortably like what he was told to expect from atheists. He is, thereby, once again relieved of the burdens of logic, reason, and rational thought. One can almost hear him sighing in that relief.

rohitcun wrote "Suppose the rest of your arguments are accepted. What justifies you in identifying "Transcendent Uncaused Immaterial First cause" with Jesus? Jesus was BORN and the Transcendent Uncaused Immaterial First cause could not have been born."

Jesus said the following :
"Iam the Alpha and Omega"
"Before Abraham was Iam"

He performed miracles which no other being has done like turning water into wine; multiplication of fishes and bread; resurrecting the dead and resurrecting from the dead.

If one is not convinced, he also made prophecies in which future generations like us is about to witness.

Only a fool cannot see the deity of Jesus.

These idiots present evolution as their defense but lo and behold, even the term evolution means that there is an inherent INTELLIGENCE for it to function.

Jesus (whom I admire, but only as a wise man).
Posted by: rohitcuny | February 17, 2010 8:43 AM

A wise man ? One who said "before Abraham was, I AM" who said "I am the truth and I am the light and I am the way". who said "no one comes to the Father but by me". who said "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely for MY NAMES SAKE"

either this man was a nut case ( not a wise man ) or he was who he claimed to be: the Messiah.

also: He existed from everlasting to everlasting ( thats another way of saying eternally ) - the day Jesus was born was the day he became incarnate ( in flesh ) Emmanuel ( God with us ).

Farnaz--

I'd appreciate it if you'd post your recommendations for future essay topics again here. I missed your earlier post. As I mentioned, there are so many comments on this new thread that I just can't get to them all. Thanks.

It is foolish. There is no way they can adequately compensate for the body count of the explicitly atheist communist regimes in recent history.

This is a remarkably stupid thing to say. These so-called explicitly atheist communist regimes did their killing in the name of communism, not atheism. They worshiped communism, they wanted to replace the religious control of everybody with communist control.

You're one of those christianists who don't understand that atheism is not an "ism", it is a not-ism, not theism. It is "not something", not a something.

These communists exerted the same kind of mind control that you religionists want. They were far more like you than any atheist posting here today.

'In the spring 2009 edition of the Phi Kappa Phi Forum, Molecular geneticist Georgia Purdom and astrophysicist Jason Lisle put up a spirited creationist defense on the same grounds by declaring that while “most evolutionists adhere to a moral code and believe in right and wrong,” they “have no rational reason for this position.”'
________________

Apparently they skipped undergraduate classes in psychology and learning theory - and how belief systems, moral codes, emotions, reinforcement, and behavior all work together in order to yield a properly socialized human.

There is so much wrong with the presumptions of the creationist position, that it has taken libraries full of research material to successfully refute these ancient beliefs - and still they continue because they 'feel good', as other religious posters bravely concede.

Once again, this business of attributing acceptable moral conduct, meaning, and purpose exclusively to homo religiosus is as farfetched for the PhD as it is for the man on the street.

To do so ignores vast areas of available information that by nature causes considerable belief system conflict.

Does logic and the powers of retiocination only need to capitulate to the superstitions of religion for true contentment?

And who enjoys all that inner conflict?? Better to make the case for creationism......

It is foolish. There is no way they can adequately compensate for the body count of the explicitly atheist communist regimes in recent history.

Jacoby's usual article full of straw men and ad hominem. You'd think a humanist would know better than to use such illogic, but wait, humanists are no more ethical nor smarter than us feeble minded faith pushers. On Faith? Seriously? It is unethical for someone without faith to comment on those who profess it. The usual waste of space from Jacoby.

For every effect, there has to be a cause. At the risk of infinite regression, there has to be a "FIRST CAUSE" . For there to be a material, imminent universe to exist, there had to be a transendant, immaterial first cause.
I worship the Transcendent Uncaused Immaterial First cause of the Material Universe.
We're celebrate His birthday on Dec. 25th
Posted by: US-conscience
--------------
Suppose the rest of your arguments are accepted. What justifies you in identifying "Transcendent Uncaused Immaterial First cause" with Jesus? Jesus was BORN and the Transcendent Uncaused Immaterial First cause could not have been born.

There are some arguments which justify religiosity, but the arguments which identify religiosity with Christianity are a bit weak.

Why not worship Brahma whom Hindus identify with the Transcendent Uncaused Immaterial First cause? Hindus do not celebrate the birthday of Brahma for the simple reason that they realize that Brahma, as the creator, could not have been born. I am not trying to convert you and I am not a worshipper of Brahma but you have to admit that his claim to be Transcendent Uncaused Immaterial First cause are a lot stronger than those of Jesus (whom I admire, but only as a wise man).

Barferio:

"And lastly, what is it with this worship business? Are you believers too cowardly to go through life without these fantatsies?"

I think the answer is "yes". My experience with and as a christer suggests to me that the ultimate fear most christers feel is the fear of not existing. Their god and jesusgod provide them, with blood sacrifices no less, with the "assurance" of surviving death. That is all they need -- the assurance that, at the end, there will be no end, but eternal existence.

Fantasies is definitely the word.

Brad81:

"Stop playing linguistic games,applying them to mathematical formula, and using that to insult people. Look at the evidence (from both sides, not just your favourite)."

You assume facts not in evidence, and make a presuppositions that fail: I do not believe that a linguistic game is involved in uncovering facts, or disproving unprovable "logic". You assume that I do not look at evidence from more than my side. You do not prove your assumption. I have been both christer (in multi-denominational settings) and non-believer.
Have you? Do you have proof of the existence of god? No, I thought not. Until you can prove that posit, assertions and presuppositions make you look like an ass. Maybe you didn't read what I wrote earlier: I have no interest in arguing with neophytes. You don't like the way I express myself? Ok with me. Don't read my posts. Whether anyone is insulted by what I write is irrelevant in every conceivable way, and of no interest to me. You are able to handle that, yes? Content yourself with the garbage that Daniel12 writes and passes off as "original thinking". But until you can provide the proof that is needed to support the "god exists" posit, you are useless to me.

At the risk of infinite regression, there has to be a "FIRST CAUSE"

First, that is a premise, not a conclusion. And what's wrong with infinite regression anyway?

And lastly, what is it with this worship business? Are you believers too cowardly to go through life without these fantatsies?

Science has shown that the Universe had a "beginning", a starting point. They tend to call it "a big bang", but there is something else Science has shown us, and that is that "out of nothing, nothing comes" (in fact if there was ever a time when "Nothing" existed, then "nothing" would exist today. ) and that things at rest tend to stay at rest. So, what made "nothing", on a particular tuesday afternoon, explode into everything?

For every effect, there has to be a cause. At the risk of infinite regression, there has to be a "FIRST CAUSE" . For there to be a material, imminent universe to exist, there had to be a transendant, immaterial first cause.

I worship the Transcendent Uncaused Immaterial First cause of the Material Universe.

We're celebrate His birthday on Dec. 25th

daniel12, before anybody claimed the existence of a god there was nobody who claimed it didn't exist.

Nobody tried to prove a lack of god, nobody had to.

Your extraordinary claim that there is a god, and the christian god in particular, is the first claim.

Prove that claim. we do not have to prove there isn't a god.

And remember the difference between the word "infer" and "proof." we can infer from your lack of proof that your claim is invalid. It does not prove your claim invalid, but the onus of proof lies on you and your kind making the claim.

You know the score. Prove unicorns don't exist, prove the incredible hulk isn't responsible for earthquakes. None of these things make sense, and without the suppression of reason required by your gods faiths you would be able to see your god is equally ridiculous.

the christianists complain that there can be no system of morality that is not absolute, and provided by their god. Their god in particular, nobody else's.

It's like their argument for creationism, they way they think on this issue. Everything has to have a cause, and that cause is their god. You ask what caused their god and they get that dumb deer-in-the-headlights look on their face.

So what made their god moral?

They claim their absolute system of morality is based on an entirely imaginary creature invented by primitive iron-age barbarians.

They can't imagine morality based on anything else, so they imagine this god and base it on that. Transitive fantasies. Utterly pathetic.

Brad_81

Susan was insulted by a question designed to be insulting. And you are using your religous belief and your belief in God to prove that what she said she felt was not really what she should have felt. Your argument is ridiculous; your system of belief cannot allow for simple good manners, nor for remorse in a simple social misstep; so what good is it to anybody in dealing with anything more complex?

This bad attitude is EXACTLY what is wrong with religion, and it is EXACTLY why atheists react to religion with hostility.

What about THAT don't you get?

Cap'n,

When all the priests of all the gods around you are demanding child sacrifice for placation of those gods

But we don't know that from the Sacrifice story alone, or even from Genesis alone. All we know is that the god in the story orders the sacrifice and then stays it. My point isn't about the author's intentions because these would be unknown to the casual reader.

In the context of the Bronze Age, being faithful to God after the binding of Isaac, now does not require child sacrifice.

Again, one wouldn't reach that conclusion from the text alone, since it doesn't explicitly say that the other religions demanded child sacrifice. It doesn't mention other religions at all. One could tell the same story with the god being a powerful human king and it would be no different.

Imagine how the story would have turned out if Abraham had refused to go through with the sacrifice. He could have told the god, "Wipe out my existence if you want, but I won't slaughter my son. If you want him dead, do it yourself."

Farnaz,

I don't know what you mean by "casual reader."

A 21st-century person who finds the Gideon Bible in his hotel room, or a child who finds the Christian Bible on a relative's shelf and begins reading out of curiosity. My own introduction to the story was through a children's series called "The Bible Story" which attempted to frame all of the OT as presaging Jesus. It spun the Sacrifice story as not just about Jesus but also about trusting the Christian god.

The practice of human sacrifice in the region was well known at the time Tanakh was written. Since then, it has been confirmed by numerous scholars...Further, there is the Talmud, which followed shortly after, the work of Judah haNasi, etc., all of which is quite clear on this point.

But most non-Jews would have never read the Talmud or the work of haNasi. And most people of any religion would not be familiar with the scholarly research.

That last sentence in last post should read (toward the end of the sentence) "...we are incapable of incorporating...."

Brad_18, no use trying to speak to Schaum of logic. He actually stated this in the past: "There is no proof for God, therefore we can infer God does not exist. As for proving the nonexistence of God, a negative cannot be demonstrated."

He takes no proof for God--which any philosopher will tell you cannot be certainly arrived at without being in an absolute reference point, literally God himself--as a certainty God does not exist (we can infer God does not exist). Then when it comes to his inability to prove the nonexistence of God--which also cannot be demonstrated if not in an absolute reference point--he gets off the hook by saying "a negative cannot be demonstrated".

He cannot understand that his slight of hand can be posed in exactly the opposite way which of course is a piece of slight of hand in itself: There is no proof for the nonexistence of God, therefore we can infer God exists. As for proving the existence of God, one cannot do that without being God--we are lowly humans and are incapable incorporating in human proof the immensity of his being.

Farnaz,

I thought Levinas was lurking there behind your remarks. Always happy to read the readable, me. Thanks for the recommendation; I shall attempt it :^)

As for Thou, I like the sound, though aware that du is a you more dearly near, dear.

Comment: Spidermean2 is a living refutation of evolution, being the stupidest person I have ever yet seen express what passes for thought.

I treat others with respect and kindness because I think that is right and because that is how I would like to be treated, not because I am trying to buy my way into Heaven.

SCKershaw wrote "Purdom and Lisle seem oblivious to the fact that there were societies in the recent past that had no knowledge of Abrahamic theology and yet they had moral codes. This should be impossible if the Bible is the only way to obtain a moral code. Evolution can account for all of this."

This is the problem with atheists. They often use evolution to deny God. As I've said, if one truly understand the word evolution, they would realize that it is actually like a coin. It has two faces and its flip side is called INTELLIGENCE. They are INSEPARABLE. It's an interconnected system. It's a simultaneous set of actions as opposed to a series of actions.

That by itself is the proof of God.

"Purdom and Lisle seem oblivious to the fact that there were societies in the recent past that had no knowledge of Abrahamic theology and yet they had moral codes. This should be impossible if the Bible is the only way to obtain a moral code. Evolution can account for all of this."

This is the problem with atheists. They often use evolution to deny God. As I've said, if one truly understand the word evolution, they would realize that it is actually like a coin. It has two faces and its flip side is called INTELLIGENCE. They are INSEPARABLE. It's an interconnected system. It's a simultaneous set of actions as opposed to a series of actions.

That by itself if the proof of God.

Onofrio,

"When I confront a human being as my You and speak the basic I-You to him, then he is no thing among things nor does he consist of things."

In German, it is "Ich und du," not thou.
------------
But the ethicist I was thinking of was Levinas. Have you read? If not, might I recommend Difficult Freedom? It is infinitely readable, a pathway into the rest.

They all were heavily influenced by Franz Rosenzweig....

Farnaz,

"Dunno about Karma."

I concur. Potentially another opiate; justice sedated, not sated.

I suspect that souls are not recycled, though perhaps Soul exacts its own equilibrium, deep in the mystery. Pass the opium.

In the spring 2009 edition of the Phi Kappa Phi Forum, Molecular geneticist Georgia Purdom and astrophysicist Jason Lisle put up a spirited creationist defense on the same grounds by declaring that while “most evolutionists adhere to a moral code and believe in right and wrong,” they “have no rational reason for this position.”

Despite the myriad of theocratic histories, traditions and rules that exist in this world, these august scientists only defend the Bible and they offer no rational reason for this position. Just like the Bible, those other religions stipulate the parameters of proper human behavior and they offer comparable physical evidence.

Purdom and Lisle seem oblivious to the fact that there were societies in the recent past that had no knowledge of Abrahamic theology and yet they had moral codes. This should be impossible if the Bible is the only way to obtain a moral code.

Evolution can account for all of this. Only societies that reined in the core of what most of us would regard as anti-social behavior and that had some mechanism to instill a deep reticence against breaking the rules. Those that didn’t aren’t here to defend their choice. Morality then is not so much a concept to defend as much as it is a element of who we are.

As for myself, I am a Theist. I find it comforting. While I have no doubt that individual Atheists can be and are moral people, I’m no so sure that an entire society of Atheists could maintain the deep reticence that I think is indispensable.

Finding and losing I in Thou, mebbe?

Farnaz, you're making too much sense.

I would venture seriously that the root of goodness may have something to do with the embrace of one's individual extinction.

Schaum Writes:
"I have not stated that no one ever will prove the existence. By the laws of logic, the statement "there is a god" has an opposite posit:"it is not the case there is a god." Failure to prove "there is a god" validates the opposite posit, until such time as there is proof for the positive posit. If you knew anything about logic, you'd know that negative posits cannot be proven. I don't have to have proof of god's non-existence in order not to believe the unproven posit that "god exists."

Don't set yourself up as the arbiter of Logic by carefully crafting your definitions. As a logician you should know that logicians can posit a false A, and then without breaking the laws of logic declare an absurd B to be true because A is false. Behind any logic there must always be evidence searched for to support what is posited.

What is to stop me using your identical argument with the same logical force in this way:

"I have not stated that no one ever will prove the self-creation. By the laws of logic, the statement "The Universe created itself" has an opposite posit:"it is not the case the universe created itself." Failure to prove "The Universe created itself" validates the opposite posit, until such time as there is proof for the positive posit. If you knew anything about logic, you'd know that negative posits cannot be proven. I don't have to have proof of the universe's non self creation in order not to believe the unproven posit that "the universe created itself."

Stop playing linguistic games,applying them to mathematical formula, and using that to insult people. Look at the evidence (from both sides, not just your favourite).

Schaum,

Dunno about Karma. Too many thugs escape, at least in this life, which is my focus, in the short and long run.

Hi ONofrio,

The question on the root of all goodness is mine. Schaum has given two answers thus far, one of which is pistachios. I suspect that pistachios play a huge role, although the precise nature is mysterious.

I think figs, chocolate with raisins and walnuts, and puppies play a role. Love is good, but it is not the root of all goodness.

The sky is good, and so are many words, particularly in combination, but they are not good.

That which I like or think is nice is good, but it is not good.

Deep respect for the otherness of things, nature, people...one ethicist thinks so.

Mebbe...

To bring the discussion back to the topic:

Was Hammurabi (1700 BCE) an atheist? Apparently not!!

From his Code:

"When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind. "

Before Hammurabi, there was the Egyptian Book of the Dead (origin ~2000 BCE):

"Hail to thee, great God, Lord of the Two Truths. I have come unto thee, my Lord, that thou mayest bring me to see thy beauty. I know thee, I know thy name, I know the names of the 42 Gods who are with thee in this broad hall of the Two Truths . . . Behold, I am come unto thee.

I have brought thee truth; I have done away with sin for thee. I have not sinned against anyone. I have not mistreated people. I have not done evil instead of righteousness . . .

I have not reviled the God.
I have not laid violent hands on an orphan.
I have not done what the God abominates . . .
I have not killed; I have not turned anyone over to a killer.
I have not caused anyone's suffering . . .
I have not copulated (illicitly); I have not been unchaste.
I have not increased nor diminished the measure, I have not diminished the palm; I have not encroached upon the fields.
I have not added to the balance weights; I have not tempered with the plumb bob of the balance.
I have not taken milk from a child's mouth; I have not driven small cattle from their herbage...
I have not stopped (the flow of) water in its seasons; I have not built a dam against flowing water.
I have not quenched a fire in its time . . .
I have not kept cattle away from the God's property.
I have not blocked the God at his processions."

Then there is this bit of blog wisdom:

"There are many commonsense rules for good behaviour but be cognizant of the embellishments, falsehoods, and fiction surrounding the formulators and "rocks" of said rules of life."

"I will never respond to such an insulting question again."

Why were you insulted Susan? If there is no standard of right and wrong, how were you treated below this standard in such a way to be insulted? You and the interviewer obviously had different ethical positions, but why is yours better than theirs?

If (as many humanists do) you believe ethics have evolved into us for a common advancement, then dosent that simply make ethics a big game theory exercise: "How do I co-operate enough in order to advance with the herd, but defect at the right time to advance further myself so that my (genes/ wealth/ power/ influence) survive to the next generation?"

In that case, you should not be any more insulted by the host than you would be by a maths formula, or a biological reaction.

Danielinthelionsden,

Thee:
"What is the root of all goodness?
Maybe some people would like to say ..."

Its image begins as a perfect circle, diameter of seven palms, drawn with dew on moondust, placed atop a tangential baseline exactly two sevenths of the circumference in length.

For goodness to proceed, a line of a length identical to that of the baseline must be drawn so as to cut the circle on its lower right arc, with one end touching the baseline and the other extending directly toward the circle's centre. Once the circle is cut thus, the first baseline is to be erased.

From this root proceeds the quartering of the disk, the sun's tears, the fall of fishes' scales, and the completion of the eye, into which the sharp stars are knit in myriads.

Farnaz:

Meant to add: After all, doing good things to receive the "blessings" and "rewards" from god is pretty much the foundation of evangelical "Prosperity Theology". And there is, of course, karma to consider...

Farnaz:

In the same vein as the assertion that there is no such thing as altruism, perhaps the "root" of goodness is the personal benefit that accrues to the doer of good.

ROSSACPA:

"Your statement rests upon an assumption that no one can prove and no one can disprove. By the rules of logic, it cannot be a fact. Call it an assumption or another term if it makes you feel better,"

You are very slow-witted. You have no "case". I have made no assumptions. I have stated that no one has proven the existence of god. I have not stated that no one ever will prove the existence. By the laws of logic, the statement "there is a god" has an opposite posit:"it is not the case there is a god." Failure to prove "there is a god" validates the opposite posit, until such time as there is proof for the positive posit. If you knew anything about logic, you'd know that negative posits cannot be proven. I don't have to have proof of god's non-existence in order not to believe the unproven posit that "god exists."

I really have no interest in yet another discussion about the application of logic and reason to an illogical and unreasonable superstition about an unproven god, with yet another neophyte. You are perfectly free to indulge your delusion to your heart's content.

Hi DITLD,

So? What is the root of all goodness? Maybe some people would like to say...
--------------------------
Thanks for the post! Yes, I hope some people will say. It is a difficult, complex question.
At some point, if folks do say, it will probably have to be analyzed, applied, etc.

Farnaz

I have never given it alot of thought until lately, but now I am starting to realize that rich people, at least, very rich people seem very peculiar and strange. There is something about great wealth that is corrupting. More and more, the very rich seem to me, pitiful, somehow ruined, for living a good and happy life. At least that is what I tell myself, but, I actually do believe it.

So, I am really writing because of what you said about the "root of all goodness."

That is a good question which I have never heard before. So? What is the root of all goodness?

Maybe some people would like to say ...

Shaum wrote "There is nothing to believe ..."

I rest my case. Your statement rests upon an assumption that no one can prove and no one can disprove. By the rules of logic, it cannot be a fact. Call it an assumption or another term if it makes you feel better, but it is not something you can prove and therefore not a fact. Your resistance indicates you are less comfortable in your faith than you might want to concede.

If God has created moral absolutes, what does that mean? What is a moral absolute? Is it a thing? Is it a force? Is it a law of nature? Does it have characteristics like color or momentum or effect of any kind? How does the absolute quality of it work?

Or is it merely an assertion made with a forceful voice, or with a forceful gramatical flair? and attributed to God, in some non-specific way, such as by saying, "it is written..." who says it it is written? a man? and who wrote it? a man?

What about a moral absolute makes it absolute? Is the threat of punishment what makes it absolute? So along with this sense of a moral absolute, there must also be a real sense of coercion and punishment, which also has some sort of absolute quality about it? So where is free will in all of this?

There really isn't any, is there?

The moral absolute consists in no more than an arbitrary set of rules that theologians say that God says are the rules we must obey, or else. To question the purpose for the rules is heresy; to seek to understand the rules is apostasy; to disagree with the rules is blasphemy.

To believe in this quasi-force of moral absolutes, and of its consequent system of punishments, is to make God absurdly small; God is little more than a big man; is this concept of God really that much more than God as a stone idol?

Christians are proud of their concept of moral absolutes, and they like to belittle atheists for lacking moral absolutes. But, what is the difference? A Christian or religious vision of moral absolutes is an illusion; everyone can see this, but them.

Schaum:
Its pistachios.
--------
That works. I love pistachios.

Farnaz:

"Still looking for the root of all goodness...."

Its pistachios.

Schaum:
They look happy because they are responding to anticipated treats from their handlers.
--------------
I suspect I am an idiot, at least in some matters. It is still difficult for me to understand how much money motivates some people.

Still looking for the root of all goodness....

Cartsonio writes:

"How did you come up with that interpretation of the Sacrifice of Isaac? It would make sense if the sacrifice was entirely Abraham's idea and the god or the angel stopped him."

What nonsense.

When all the priests of all the gods around you are demanding child sacrifice for placation of those gods, and your God stays it, even when the human is willing to placate his God with such a sacrifice, you've got some new moral order emerging there, my friend.

Whether that God is real or not doesn't matter in the Bronze Age. In the context of the Bronze Age, being faithful to God after the binding of Isaac, now does not require child sacrifice. Abraham's
God demands acquiescence to ethical rules, but not human sacrifice. That has implications for moral behavior into the future, and it appeared to require something transcending human impulse and frailty in the history of human development.

Farnaz:

They look happy because they are responding to anticipated treats from their handlers.

Yes, I have heard horror stories about their lives. There is a hell of a lot of money at stake in dog shows, and jealousy, and intense competition.

But worse than that is the lives of greyhounds who are kept as racing dogs. They are starved, forced into active training (they are, by nature, couch potatoes). And when their exhausting career lives are over, they frequently end up at pounds, because their owners don't want to care for a non-revenue-earning dog. They are sad creatures. My sister is planning to adopt one shortly.

Schaum,

Those dogs look so happy, yet a friend tells me that theirs are not a good lives. Sebastian is best in show in his owner's life. Probably more than enough!

Carstonio, you write:
I question that obviousness because the practices by those neighbors wouldn't be common knowledge to a casual reader of the Old Testament, at least one in the 21st century.

------------------------------
I don't know what you mean by "casual reader." The practice of human sacrifice in the region was well known at the time Tanakh was written. Since then, it has been confirmed by numerous scholars.

Further, there is the Talmud, which followed shortly after, the work of Judah haNasi, etc., all of which is quite clear on this point.

The human-sacrificing, unforgiving NT deity is another matter altogether. I posted on It below. That deity knew not Joseph (or Abraham), as it were.

ROSSACPA:

Let me once again ask the question to which your party seems not have a satisfactory answer: How is atheism any less a faith statement than the theist conviction that God exists?"

Then let me ONCE MORE explain, and for the last time, that "atheism" is a construct of superstitious christers. In fact, "atheism" does not exist. In fact, atheism in not a faith statement of anything. There is nothing to believe, much less have "faith" in. Your comments actually make you look silly.

christers make a positive posit: god exists. They fail to prove, or even to give credible evidence, that god does, in fact, exist. In view of the christer's inability to prove the existence of god, their posit fails. I do not need to "prove" that god does NOT exist. The christers inability to prove their posit means that "it is not the case that god exists...UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY CAN PROVE THAT HE DOES. WHEN THEY DO PROVE HE EXISTS, I'LL BE IN LINE TO SIGN UP.

Is that simple enough?

Hi Spidermean,

Thanks for your reply. I've read about religious experiences and know two people who have had them. For one, the event was transformative, but he will never tell me about it.

The other was not terribly dramatic. It involved a Muslim friend of mine, an academic. She is observant, but I've never been quite sure what it all means to her. She does not, for instance, believe in an afterlife.

However, she was once caught up in the middle of something terrible. In Islamabad, where she lives, she was standing her ground against a pack of fundamentalists. Her life was not in danger but her career and mental health were. Nevertheless, she could not back down; she didn't and doesn't have it in her.

She tried prayer, relaxation, meditation, etc. One day, she just walked outside and sat down under a beautiful tree. She spoke from her heart and said, "God, I give this to you. This is too much for me. I cannot carry this burden. I give this to you."

When she rose, she felt light, felt the burden relieved. The peace remained with her throughout the ordeal, which she did see through. She ended victoriously.

There have been other ordeals such as this for her, but no repeat of that unburdening.
She's a very rational person, my friend, psychologically oriented, reflective. To her this was a religious experience, so I think it was, not a conversion, but a religious moment in her life.

In a Bronze Age world, with little moral compass, the God of Abraham demonstrates that, in this world, a divine moral guidance may be necessary to modulate the destructive human impulses that themselves demean human dignity.

How did you come up with that interpretation of the Sacrifice of Isaac? It would make sense if the sacrifice was entirely Abraham's idea and the god or the angel stopped him.

Elsewhere I've read the claim that the Sacrifice story was "obviously" intended as a refutation of the human sacrifices practiced by the Israelites' neighbors. I question that obviousness because the practices by those neighbors wouldn't be common knowledge to a casual reader of the Old Testament, at least one in the 21st century.

Schaum:

Let me once again ask the question to which your party seems not have a satisfactory answer: How is atheism any less a faith statement than the theist conviction that God exists? It seems to me that the agnostic is the only one that can claim to make a factual statement: I do not know if there is God. That is a statement with which one cannot argue.

But to say there is no God entails a statement of conviction, not of fact. You cannot offer anymore conclusive evidence of your belief in atheism than I can for my faith in God. You make yourself look silly when you do not acknowledge that fact. While it is certain one of us is wrong, neither of us can presently determine which one.

VicentPorter:

Exactly what in subsequent human history since the Ages of Reason and Scientific Positivism would commend a sole reliance on our rational abilities? the French Revolution and the subsequent wars in Europe? The devastation visited on men, women and children in the Industrial Revolution? Modern slavery? Colonialism? World War I or WWII. The additional hundreds of millions that died for the "rationalism" of Communism? The fact that any of 50 odd coutries can now blow up the planet with atomic weapons without even asking for objections?

Human rationalism has increased our comfort and given us reasons to believe that we are superior to almost anyone anywhere in any time period. But I suggest it is difficult if not impossible to make a single cogent claim the the essence of the human person has advanced since the 18th century because of your vaunted rationalism.

VincePorter:

"Atheists should stop reasoning with believers. One might as well talk to a baked potato."

In the case of Daniel12 and Spidermean (with his obsession about beatings -- which could explain a lot)its more like half-baked potatoes.

But you are right: reasoning with believers is a contradiction in terms. Believers have irrational, unreasoned faith in a mythical god, so reasoning with them is impossible. Thank god for science.

Farnaz:

Thanks for the link. A scottie won best of something at last year's show...not best of show, that went to a 10-year old Spaniel. Maybe it was best of breed. I don't remember. Anyway, Sebastian will never win! He's too stubborn.

Ms. Jacoby writes:

"The intervention of God renders the story meaningless as a commentary on the dignity of man. Obedience and reliance on divine authority is the real message of this foundational religious story."

Again Ms. Jacoby misses the point. In a Bronze Age world, with little moral compass, the God of Abraham demonstrates that, in this world, a divine moral guidance may be necessary to modulate the destructive human impulses that themselves demean human dignity. A transcendent moral authority in Abraham's God, not seen in previous human imagination or previously imagined gods, provides a moral guidance for humans that may shape the moral compass of Western humans into the future.

Atheists should stop reasoning with believers. One might as well talk to a baked potato.

Part one.

Can a person be moral without a belief in God?

Obviously so, because we have atheists behaving morally and of course they never tire of declaring they can be moral without God. Is that enough evidence for that observation? I think even a religious person would agree that an atheist can be moral without God in at least some instances.

But without God many problems as to morality arise which did not exist in the religious point of view. First, obviously, without God there is no conceived foundation in any reasonable fashion to morality and reason. The atheist has reason and morality arising--and not only arising but being able to be improved beyond religious ages--from a foundation to existence with no intelligence at all. Or to put it really clearly, morality and reason arising from precisely no intelligent design behind existence.

As I've said, godless Darwinian evolution is a farce.

The word evolution and intelligence always go hand in hand and are INSEPARABLE.

Evolution (micro) is a very complex and intelligent process and only idiots think that evolution can exist without intelligence.

If one makes an evolving device, it means it's a VERY INTELLIGENT device. Up to now, nobody has ever made an evolving device coz it is almost close to impossible. Actually, not even close. It's simply impossible.

Even micro Evolution is not not a full-fledged evolution perse.

If one can make a device that can talk in any language if you expose it to people around the world that in itself would be a true evolution. But that kind of device cannot be made. It's simply impossible.

You guys are stupid if you think that a godless evolution is even possible.

Part two.

A problem of logic in that last paragraph. But it gets worse. Atheists in their world of morality without God must recognize the very science they never tire of throwing into the faces of the religious. I mean the evidence of biology which says that regardless of whether man believes in God the biological record shows morality to be not only relative, but often starkly so what with animals demonstrating a wealth of behaviors far beyond (whether in the direction of up or down) human morality.

The atheist's world of morality is a world in which the most various types of morality have a plausible demand on human existence. And it gets even worse. Atheists seem utterly ignorant of the history of civilization insofar as they are atheistic and left wing. A commonplace of the left wing today is that dealing harshly with those we perceive to be immoral, such as terrorists or those having committed capital crimes, "turns us into them".

Part three.

Never mind that the history of human existence shows precisely the opposite truth: That dealing harshly with those perceived to be immoral results in precisely being "free of them" and not "turned into them". Civilization is perhaps founded upon no stronger truth than that. Read a history book. The world of the atheist being scientific, dedicated to truth, must more and more recognize this truth. Atheism if scientifically bolstered is far from left wing bleeding heart liberalism.

And it gets even worse. What does biology, a favorite science of atheists which they never tire of throwing into the faces of the creationists reveal? The answer is simple: Not even the innocent have any real moral hope in the atheistic world. Biology reveals that man evolved, that he changed from a primitive ancestor, really a primate not much different from a chimpanzee and that he today, as he is, has not the slightest claim to having his existence continued whether he is as innocent as can be or not.

Biology demonstrates that if man progresses along the lines of evolution he must accept even the most innocent examples of himself perishing--needing to perish--because otherwise a superior species of human does not come into existence and man just drags along until extinction for lack of being adaptable. Biology, atheism, puts us in a totally different world of morality than atheists would have us believe.

Part four.

They actually have us existing (their mind's eye of society without God) in a world not at all far removed from the morality of religion! In fact they have it that we will be better, less likely to steal, murder and so on--when biology shows that not even the most innocent people really have any claim to existence over anyone else! Biology simply asks that the most fit human go on to eventually result in a superior human species!

Morality becomes relative in the atheist's world and in fact becomes superseded by questions of human fitness, what types of humans are most likely to lead us to a superior human species. And such humans may or may not be moral as we like to think of the word. Atheists have really thought not the slightest of morality without God. Their morality without God is essentially the same old morality which existed in religious ages but this time without the concept of God.

But we can see by basic biology and the history of civilizations that things will become much different. A whole new set of moral problems. Hell, the threat of a new morality which has never been seen before. But atheists have us most definitely--they are sure of it--becoming just...nicer human beings without God. What proof they have for that is a good question. But let us not ask them for proof of anything. They are the advanced minds and are the only ones apparently that can phrase questions of proof. We must be silent and accept them at their word.

I think atheists' capacity for a consistent ethical life worthy of human existence is roughly the capacity of teenagers to stay sober when their parents leave on a three-day weekend leaving a well-stocked liquor cabinet, a frig full of beer, and permission to invite over any friends they want. If the kids are still sober and the house still standing, then Mom and Dad aren't out of the driveway yet.

We may fondly view ourselves as noble beings who would become our best selves if we were only left to figure it out alone. Any history student can tell you it just ain't so.

Religious morality is not about doing the right thing; it's about coping and thriving after you have done your worst.

I must add it was not a "fairy tale" and happy close encounter. It's more like an absentee father whom you never knew who just arrived to beat you coz you have done wrong but the fact that he hit you coz he loves you is a nice experience.

The feeling of being loved by the Creator is more powerful than the pain caused by the rod.

Daniel 12

The fact of evolution is morally neutral.

To link human ethics and morality to the natural processes of evolution is purely arbitrary. There is nothing in evolution that should make it apply to human morality, and there is no reason why human morality should be patterned after evolution.

Beyond that, it is difficult to understand what you meant.

Hi farnaz,

Thanks for that Taylor poem. Im glad that you're giving some thought to my posts.

I was born in a Christian church. Yes, I had a conversion experience. My own stupidity lead me to knowing Jesus after years of searching. When before he doesn't seem real to me, after my conversion, He has become so real.

It's different when somebody talks about your relative that you haven't met as compared to being introduced to him in person and know him personally. The difference can be likened to the difference between a false religion and a true one.

Being "introduced" to God is the greatest gift a man can have. Yes, I still struggle to be a good person but the fact that you were introduced to the Creator of the universe is a very satisfying experience.

Hi Schaum,

For you and Sebastian, perhaps of interest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/02/15/GA2010021502548.html?hpid=topnews

Hi Spidermean,

How are you? I'm glad you liked the Taylor poem. I think he is a much neglected writer. He was a minister you know; none of his poems were published during his lifetime. His elegy on the death of his infant son is one that has stayed with me through the years.

At all events, I've been thinking about your post. It seems to me the issue originates with a prime mover since almost everything "follows laws, rules, etc.," if we are to accept the metaphysics of science.
The flow of electricity, for instance, follows laws. All growth and decay follow laws. No?

Also, I was wondering if, at some point, you could explain what faith has given to YOU, to you specifically, what peace, understanding it has brought you. I envision you as fairly young, was wondering if you had been raised in a Christian household, had a conversion experience.

Regards,
Farnaz

I know this is simplistic. However I don't believe any atheists have been involved in the problems of Northern Ireland. Both sides would claim to be Christian and happily claim to have a good heart, except for the other side. American Christians and atheists were responsible for segration and worse for economic reasons This entire discussion is silly. The old 60's motto is more appropriate. "If you can walk the walk, you can talk the talk."

The authoress writes: "I will never respond to such an insulting question again."

Now, there's a reasoned argument for you! So there. Because I said so. I'm not listening! I'm not listening! Na-na-na-na-na!

Just when you think the authoress could not possibly embarrass herself further, she stumbles into new depths of inanity.

Daniel 12

I am not trying to be sly to trick you. This is what I really think. I had a hard time, actually making coherent remarks on what you wrote, so I will just throw it all out there, possibly in several disconnected posts.

First of all, atheists DO have a concept of God. Without a concept of God, you could not have a word for God, and without a word for God, you could not say, "I do not believe in God." An atheist is someone who does not believe in God, not someone who has no concept of God.

Second,

... you said ...

"If we subscribe to modern science we have a vision of no morality protecting anyone from the fact of evolution, that all man is must continually perish for the sake of a superior human species. Unless of course we dislike that project."

No one subscribes to science. Science forms the trinity of modern thought, together with philosophy, and religion. It is impossilbe for a person to have a realistic vision of the world without knowing a good bit about science. There is nothing really controversial about science; there are just people who don't care about a realistic vision, and those that do.

And you seem to touch on the fact that "all man must continually perish."
Yes, you are right, all who are born, then also die. You said earlier, all must die, guilty and innocent. Yes you are right. But it is not science, nor evolution, nor atheistm that makes this true; it just is true, and has always been true.

Suffering is a fact of life. That the innocent suffer as much as the guilty is a fact of life. That is how it is. Why are we alert and conscious? So that we can avoid danger. If there were no danger, we would be dull, and dopey. What is it that makes us feel love for others? It is worry; worry about some danger that may befall them; without danger, there would be no worry, no concern, no love.

But these ideas are not peculiar to any particular belief system, nor science, nor to evolution; it is just how it is; it is how this mosaic world we inhabit and are a part of is laid out.

If "no concept" of God makes you feel uneasy and poses a difficult moral problem, that is irrelevant. God exists, or does not exist, not according to how good or how bad it makes you feel, and not according to how the anwser may confuse you or balance you, but merely according to how it really turns out to be, whatever that may be.

I need to repost this so the stupidity of a godless macro evolution can see the stupidity of their science.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Ps. 14:1)

It is easy to spot a fool coz fools don't believe in God. If one truly study the word "evolution", the word won't exist if there is no inherent intelligence with it.

Evolving means it needs a set of intelligent rules to enable it to stand or continue to exist. An "evolving building" would crumble if it does not follow some form of an intelligent set of rules. As the "evolving" building add more weight, it also means that an intelligent redesign like reinforced columns, beams and footings should follow. Evolving means some form of INTELLIGENT counter-actions is needed for every slight changes.

The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God. This is so true since atheists believe in evolution without intelligence. It appears that the one can't exist without the other. Evolution (micro) and THE PRESENCE OF INTELLIGENCE always GO TOGETHER AND ARE INSEPARABLE.

Wow, this is another case to prove the stupidity of ATHEISTS AND EVOLUTIONISTS.

God is perfection. Only idiots or those with bitter hearts can hate perfection.

Hating evil or stupidity is not bitterness. It's called SANITY.

"You beat me too it."

I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

Spidermean2:

"Their hearts are full of bitterness and I find them very dangerous."

No human heart is so full of bitterness than yours...and I find you deluded and incompetent, making you very dangerous.

Daniel12:

" We were delivered from them, arrived at morality by destroying them."

Certainly the Nazis would agree with you. I think you are insane, however.

"So called morality..."

So called morality? Do you have evidence that what is called morality is, in fact, not?

"has arisen by a process of man ruthlessly taming himself."

This sounds like more unsubstantiated opinion. What is your proof?

" Even paleontologists have spoken of the increasing gracilization of the human skull."

And these paleontologists to which you refer would be....???

To be clear, although the religious world has no monopoly on morality the non-religious, scientific world, the atheistic world, must recognize (and putting aside the problem of the relativity of evil without God) that the progress of civilization has depended and apparently will continue to depend on man continuing to risk "turning into them" because that is the only path of being "free of them".

Absurd conjecture, irrational assertions, and as usual your unsupported/unproven opinion.

"It gets worse. In the non-religious world, the atheistic world--the world of biology and not religion--not even the innocent can be saved."

Saved from what? The wrath of your unproven, irrational, illogically conceived god? Ok. I can live with that.

"In fact they must perish along with those society declares guilty."

At this point, you have become so sophomorically absurd that you loose any shred of credibility that you might have had.

You are an idiot. I'm going to go trim my dog's nails.

AnnieDC

What you describe is what I call "having a good heart." I do not feel the need to define this term "a good heart;" I think the simple words describe it, simply.

A lot of Christians have a good heart. But I do not believe that it is Christianity that causes their good hearts. And there are atheists who also have a good heart. In fact, there is nothing really to say what causes it, probably a complex of many, many things, but not any absolute moral law that God has proclaimed.

GIMPI

No insult taken by me from your post.

I've re-read what I posted earlier and I'm very satisfied that I conveyed the essential points in the space alloted. I'll have to be content with what I can produce given the resources that I have.

Daniel12:

"Can one be moral without a belief in God?"

Does having a belief in god make one moral? Can one BE moral with a belief in your god?

"Obviously one can be moral without a belief in God."

Why is this obvious? To whom? Please qualify.

" Some people must be doing so at this moment.

Why? Is this opinion or fact?

"But atheists, of all people,--of all people because they should be insightful if anybody--seem to not recognize the problems that arise in the moral sphere without the concept of God."

What are these "problems" that arise? Who defined them? Does anyone agree with you that they are problems? Is this more unsupported opinion?

"First we can ask how it is morality and reason have arisen--let alone are expected to improve--..."

Who asks this? Why do morality and reason need improvement? Who has these expectations? Can you offer cites, evidence, proof?

"when supposedly there is not the slightest bit of reason and morality at the foundation of existence.

What is the genesis of this supposition? Where does it appear? Who stated it?

"Atheists like to counter that morality and reason have existed despite God being a delusion, but it is one thing to think a God is behind morality and reason and another that nothing is behind such."

What atheist has claimed that there is nothing behind "morality" and "reason" Can you define those terms?

"Of course if no God exists atheists must admit that morality is relative--in fact by biology admit that there are many ways in which an animal can act,..."

Qualify this claim, please, with evidence and proof. I am an "atheist" in the eyes of god-myth believers, and I make no such admission. Please list those who do. Are you suggesting that animals are incapable of moral acts? Is not a mother cat, who nurses an orphaned dog pup, behaving in a moral way?

"...which means our current moral sense is not assured for any length of time at all--but this is not even getting to the problem which can easily be articulated."

Is it possible/desirable for a "current" "moral sense" to be assured for any period of time? Why?

What does it mean to say that God created moral absolutes? What does it mean to say that God enables man to know goodness and to experience good and to be good?

Isn't this really just a sort of fanciful, magical thinking? Isn't it a lazy and apathetic attitude, which discourages thoughtful curiosity?

A person doesn't have to be thoughtful and curious to be happy. But if someone is thoughtful and curious, then what is the harm in that?

And I find that the source of their bitterness is the fact that they've been duped into STUPIDITY.

VERY NICE PEOPLE BUT VERY STUPID.

AnnieDC wrote "Many people are sentient and empathetic, and understand, either objectively or intuitively, that people are social animals who function in cooperation with others".

Wrong presumptions lead to wrong conclusion. Social animals like lions kill.

There are many "experiments" where societies don't believe in God. They were called the killing fields in Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc.

I know some people who are atheists and some are even communists. They are so different with the Christians I know. Their hearts are full of bitterness and I find them very dangerous. Yes they are friendly and nice people but deep inside, they are very bitter.

PSOLUS:

""Perpetually five minutes late, and a dollar short."

"Prove it."

You beat me too it.

AnnieDC

Commenting about your posting about ehtics systems -OUTSTANDING! As a person of deep religious faith I can, nevertheless understand exactly where you are coming from.

Actually, when I think about my own spirituality and graduate work in that area, I realize very little of my faith has to do with following "God's rules" or any others. I believed murder, rape, etc. was wrong when I had little faith, and I still think those things are wrong.

In answer to your question to any religious person, this religious person would answer a firm 'no'. I would go farther and suggest that a faith that is only based on 'law' has very shallow roots.

Strange to say for a 'christer' but the 'non-christers' seem to be making a lot of sense and I am grateful for it.

"Perpetually five minutes late, and a dollar short."

Prove it.

I've never understood why some religious people can't fathom an philosphy of ethics that isn't based on God's laws-- a term I use as shorthand; feel free to insert your preferred synonym.

Many people are sentient and empathetic, and understand, either objectively or intuitively, that people are social animals who function in cooperation with others to, at a minimum, survive. Many of us truly believe that we are all pretty much equal \, and our behavior is a manifestation of that. We understand that violent, abusive, selfish, cruel, dismissive, or just plain unfair acts are hurtful to the recipients, as well as simply being unproductive. We empathize, and so we feel badly if we cause others to feel badly. The phrasing of the Golden Rule may have it's source in some religious text (or so I assume, although I don't really know or care) but the idea, regardless of the source, is a very pragmatic one. Like many other religious prescriptions and/or proscriptions. it deals with the fact that a society is best when its population is happy, productive, thriving -- and when its members can trust their co-habitants.

My question to any religious person is this: Do you REALLY only avoid stealing, raping, fighting, lying, and cheating because God said to? Like, you really want to do some/all of those things, but just resist because that's what your God wants? Can you really see no other reason to avoid such behavior? If so, that is very odd, and very sad.

Part one.

Can one be moral without a belief in God?

Obviously one can be moral without a belief in God. Some people must be doing so at this moment. But atheists, of all people,--of all people because they should be insightful if anybody--seem to not recognize the problems that arise in the moral sphere without the concept of God.

First we can ask how it is morality and reason have arisen--let alone are expected to improve--when supposedly there is not the slightest bit of reason and morality at the foundation of existence. Atheists like to counter that morality and reason have existed despite God being a delusion, but it is one thing to think a God is behind morality and reason and another that nothing is behind such.

Of course if no God exists atheists must admit that morality is relative--in fact by biology admit that there are many ways in which an animal can act, which means our current moral sense is not assured for any length of time at all--but this is not even getting to the problem which can easily be articulated.

Part two.

Let me explain the problem by a well known commonplace especially on the liberal side of the political spectrum of today. The commonplace that if we stoop to terrorist tactics or even if we execute certain prisoners in our incarceration system "we will be turned into them". That is so patently riduculous, so contradicted by the march of civilization--the constant upholding of laws--that it hardly bears speaking of. Sure at times hurting people has "turned us into them", but overall the opposite has occurred: We were delivered from them, arrived at morality by destroying them.

So called morality has arisen by a process of man ruthlessly taming himself. Even paleontologists have spoken of the increasing gracilization of the human skull. To be clear, although the religious world has no monopoly on morality the non-religious, scientific world, the atheistic world, must recognize (and putting aside the problem of the relativity of evil without God) that the progress of civilization has depended and apparently will continue to depend on man continuing to risk "turning into them" because that is the only path of being "free of them".

It gets worse. In the non-religious world, the atheistic world--the world of biology and not religion--not even the innocent can be saved. In fact they must perish along with those society declares guilty. Biology, human evolution, has clearly demonstrated that what man is now is a creature that has arisen by the price of all previous types and alternatives of himself having perished. Not just the guilty must go but the innocent if the human race wants to evolve further. This is occurring right before our eyes as the more educated get all the rewards in society, are preferred to the lesser...beings.

Part three.

Morality without God? If we subscribe to modern science we have a vision of no morality protecting anyone from the fact of evolution, that all man is must continually perish for the sake of a superior human species. Unless of course we dislike that project. We can continue in our present day understanding of morality which ironically enough arose with the religious sensibility. I certainly hope atheists are not going to claim that typical morality today arose by atheism and not religion. I certainly hope they are not going to do so when so easily a world can be imagined along atheistic lines--scientific lines atheists typically subscribe to.

Morality without God? What is meant by that when we have the overwhelming fact before us that not even innocence can protect a human from the march of evolution--that in fact even the innocent must go? Far from violence against terrorists or certain prisoners in our incarceration system "turning us into them", we are delivered from them--and furthermore we must be against our very selves if we want to be delivered from ourselves. That is what biology dictates. I find it most ironical that atheists argue they can be moral without God when following them in their reasoning, their science, a whole different view of morality arises, a whole different demand on the human race.

We have atheists trying to preserve essentially the morality which arose in religious days--preserve it without preserving the concept God--when without God and by science we have an entirely different demand of man! Just another example that the supposed superiority in reason of the atheist over the religious man is an exaggeration.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Ps. 14:1)

It is easy to spot a fool coz fools don't believe in God. If one truly study the word "evolution", the word won't exist if there is no inherent intelligence with it.

Evolving means it needs a set of intelligent rules to enable it to stand or continue to exist. An "evolving building" would crumble if it does not follow some form of an intelligent set of rules. As the "evolving" building add more weight, it also means that an intelligent redesign like reinforced columns, beams and footings should follow. Evolving means some form of INTELLIGENT counter-actions is needed for every slight changes.

The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God. This is so true since atheists believe in evolution without intelligence. It appears that the one can't exist without the other. Evolution (micro) and THE PRESENCE OF INTELLIGENCE always GO TOGETHER AND ARE INSEPARABLE.

Wow, this is another case to prove the stupidity of ATHEISTS AND EVOLUTIONISTS.

PSOLUS:

Perpetually five minutes late, and a dollar short.

"what would prevent me (Jacoby, an atheists) from committing murder if I did not believe in God."?

We can rephrase this statement into "what would prevent a fool from committing murder?"

That makes it easier to answer. One way is to revamp their idiotic science to lessen their stupidity.

Schaum,

"Prove it."

I don't have to; you just did.

And, no, I can't prove it.

And, I can't that I can't.

fr yeal9:

>...For a very good analysis of body counts due to atrociticies commented by humans against humans see ...

Add the murder of Matthew Shepard by two homophobic thugs to that list, and the murder in Sacramento CA of Satinder Singh by a homophobic Ukranian "Christian" man who then skipped the country and is STILL a international fugitive. This happened in approximately 2007.

On the issue that atheists can be dangerous people, YES they are by virtue of their STUPIDITY. Stupidity is the main driver for any form of crime.

Looking at history, atheists and practitioners of false religions like Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism. liberal Protestantism are a murderous lot.

You can easily spot a false religion coz they support a non intelligent form of evolution.

Micro evolution is science but not macro like the Darwinian Evolution.

Psolus:

Prove it.

"You prove that I did."

I never claimed you did.

Can you prove that I did?

If you have not yet learned the siliness of your ways by now, you never will.

And, no, I can't prove that, but you can.

Hi Susan,

Actually, that post was not particularly intended for you, but thanks very much for your reply.

At the time the Binding was transcribed, human sacrifice was still occurring in the region. The intent of the ancient tale was to say that the willingness to commit to God in this way was Sufficient.

Whatever one thinks of this, it surely pales before the visciously reconceived god of the NT. That god understood the behaviors of Adam and Eve to be sinful, so sinful in fact that only a human sacrifice could atone for them because they were unforgivable by the diety.

This sacrificing god, who gave rise to the world's salvific religions implicated all humanity in the death of his incarnated self, ushered in essentialism and its horrific consequences in endless scapegoating throughout history.

We all have the blood of christ on our hands, etc. Far too much has been written on this horror and its consequences for justice for me to have to revisit it at length now. NO One Died for our sins. We sin. And sin. And sin. As the great
Catholic theologian Rosemary Reuther said again and again and again.

Strongly recommend, Roesemary Reuther, Faith and Fratricide.
-----------------------------------
In the interim, I hope you will take seriously the recommendations I made on your previous thread for topics for future essays.

Farnaz

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Ps. 14:1)

It is easy to spot a fool coz fools don't believe in God. If one truly study the word "evolution", the word won't exist if there is no inherent intelligence with it.

Evolving means it needs a set of intelligent rules to enable it to stand or continue to exist. An "evolving building" would crumble if it does not follow some form of an intelligent set of rules. As the "evolving" building add more weight, it also means that an intelligent redesign like reinforced columns, beams and footings should follow. Evolving means some form of INTELLIGENT counter-actions is needed for every slight changes.

The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God. This is so true since atheists believe in evolution without intelligence. It appears that the one can't exist without the other. Evolution (micro) and THE PRESENCE OF INTELLIGENCE always GO TOGETHER AND ARE INSEPARABLE.

Wow, this is another case to prove the stupidity of ATHEISTS AND EVOLUTIONISTS.

To Farnaz--

I can't respond to many posts on "The Spirited Atheist" thread, because there are so many more of them. But thanks for posting the link to the column on the Baha'i.

That the story of Abraham and Isaac was meant to replace human sacrifice with animal sacrifice seems to me much less important than the fact that Abraham was prepared to go right ahead and kill his son if God commanded it. The intervention of God renders the story meaningless as a commentary on the dignity of man. Obedience and reliance on divine authority is the real message of this foundational religious story.

It's always interesting to see your posts.

Psolus:

"Don't need to. Never made that claim."

Prove it."

Prove that I never claimed something?? Uh...no. You prove that I did.

"Don't need to. Never made that claim."

Prove it.

Here is a link to OnFaith's interview on the B'hai in Iran, about whom I've posted in the past.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/index.html?nid=roll_onfaith

AGAIN, I ask ONE simple question. Looking at the world as it is, the endless wars, scandals, crimes committed in the name of GOD, RELIGION, etc., CAN HUMANITY be Good WITH Religion?

OR, is religion a source of EVIL?

The idea that God creates morality discounts the innate ability for empathy that humans possess. I don't need God to tell me that it's cruel to mistreat animals, that it's wise to help the poor, that it's kind to help out disaster victims. My ability to put myself in the place of a cat, a poor mother or an earthquake victim let's me experience enough of their pain to want to alleviate it.

Anyone who commits charitable acts out of fear of God is infantile. Anyone who obeys the law for fear of punishment is not a truly virtuous person. The ability to empathize, which is exogenous to religious belief, allows us to create a better world for humanity.

PSOLUS:

"So, how would this prevent a person from committing murder?

And, can you prove it?"

Don't need to. Never made that claim.

The Binding of Isaac was meant to end for all time human sacrifice to deities.

A different sort of G-d, demonic, unforgiving, hater of humans, arises with the NT, which implicates humanity in the sacrifice of a man-god to atone for the "unforgivable" (to a very different god from that of Abraham) "sins" of Adam and Eve.

The Adam and Eve myth is etiological, explanatory. There is nothing to forgive. The ways to heal the world are spelled out.

As a number of scholars have pointed out the Jesus myth is a throwback to pre-Judaic times (pre-Tanakh times).

Definition of delusion:

# (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
# a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; "he has delusions of competence"; "his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination"
# the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

In order for the belief in god to be a delusion, there would have to be solid proof that god does not exist (that it is false...). Or proof that belief in god is false (again pointing to proof that god does not exist). As an atheist that is not interested in proving the existence or non-existence of god, the use of the word delusion to describe the theist places the burden of proof of the fallacy of the belief on the atheist. Not the other way around.

As to the argument that a negative can not be proved, I have already given a counter example (proposition: I am not dead. Argument: I am writing this blog, I must be alive to write this blog. Conclusion: I am not dead is proved). On the other hand, if one has a belief that logic disallows the proof of a negative, that delusion will persist even in the setting of the counter example. Definitions that are unquestionable are simply faith. But if we accept that negatives can not be proven, then the atheist (that can not prove the non-existence of god) has a BELIEF in a negative that can not be proven - faith.

The honest atheist would be the one that says: I do not know if god exists or not and will live my life based on my beliefs / interpretations of the evidence before me. The step of calling the theist delusional is mono-ideological nonsense of an intolerant mind that has closed itself to evidence for the sake of preserving its own prized belief system.

hariaum

By the way, sorry for all the typos - my computer isn't worth snot.

"Provided the applicant submitted two identical copies of his specifications of his theory on "respect for life" AND that no one else had previously copyrighted such a specification for the theory of "respect of life", he would have his copyright registered, giving him legal ownership of the theory of "respect of life"...assuming he sent in the required registration fee, which in my time at the copyright office was $20. I suspect is is substantially more now."

So, how would this prevent a person from committing murder?

And, can you prove it?

PSOLUS:

"Discuss what would happen if some one attempted to copyright simple respect for life."

Provided the applicant submitted two identical copies of his specifications of his theory on "respect for life" AND that no one else had previously copyrighted such a specification for the theory of "respect of life", he would have his copyright registered, giving him legal ownership of the theory of "respect of life"...assuming he sent in the required registration fee, which in my time at the copyright office was $20. I suspect is is substantially more now.

It seems that SJ and I agree. It is not group membership that allows or disallows moral learning. It does not depend if you believe in god or don't whether you care for your fellow human being.

But it is the ideology of one truth, one way, the mono-ideological construct that justifies hate. And that mono-ideological construct can occur if a person believe in the bible, the koran, or any other finite representation of the way it should be (even a book on evolution).

It would be evident, then, that those of us wanting a more peaceful world would support enthusiastically a poly-ideology. You want to believe in this god, ok, you want to believe in that, ok, you don't want to believe in a god, ok... But once you start telling people that they can't believe in a god, can't believe in this god, or that god,... you propagate that mono-ideological construct that underlies hate and the evidence points to your own hatefulness, perhaps even lack of ego integrity that needs a sharp mirror.

hariaum

Death toll from the Inquisitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls and

www.spiritus-temporis.com/spanish-inquisition/death-tolls.html

"Some dubious statistics of large death tolls are given by historians such as Will Durant, who, in, The Reformation (1957) cites Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801, as estimating that 31,912 people were executed from 1480-1808. He also cites Hernando de Pulgar, a secretary to Queen Isabella, as estimating 2,000 people were burned before 1490. Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church gave a number of 8,800 people burned in the 18 years of Torquemada. Matthew White, in reviewing these and other figures, gives a median number of deaths at 32,000, with around 9,000 under Torquemada. R. J. Rummel gives similar figures as "most realistic," though he cites some historians who give figures of up to 135,000 people killed under Torquemada. This number includes 125,000 who are claimed to have died in prison due to poor conditions, leaving 10,000 as sentenced to death.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Thankfully, the Spanish Inquisition kept very good records and these are now being sifted through by historians. They paint a very different picture of sentencing patterns to traditional historians. Geoffrey Parker analyzed 49,000 trial records between 1540 and 1700, representing one third of the total, and found 776 executions took place. This suggests a total of about 2,000 in the period reviewed. Earlier records are less well preserved but do not support the picture of a bloodbath usually painted. Henry Kamen (p. 60) does not believe more than a thousand executions took place in the earlier period. However, he points out that the Inquisitors activities were heavily slanted towards Jewish and Moslem communities who would have suffered far more than most from their activities. Recent work, sponsored by the Catholic Church, also points to a significantly lower death toll. Professor Agostino Borromeo, a historian of Catholicism at the Sapienza University in Rome, writes that about 125,000 people were tried by church tribunals as suspected heretics in Spain. Of these, about 1,200 - 2,000 were actually executed, although more killings were performed by non-church tribunals."

Continued below:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For a very good analysis of body counts due to atrociticies commented by humans against humans see http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

"The Top 21 Atrocities

Rank Death Toll Cause Centuries
1 55 million Second World War 20C
2 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C
3 40 million Mongol Conquests 13C
4 36 million An Lushan Revolt 8C
5 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C
6 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C
7 20 million Annihilation of the American Indians 15C-19C
8 20 million Iosif Stalin 20C
9 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C
10 18 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C
11 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C
12 17 million British India (mostly famine) 19C
13 15 million First World War 20C
14 9 million Russian Civil War 20C
15 8 million Fall of Rome 3C-5C
16 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C
17 7 million Thirty Years War 17C
18 5 million Russia's Time of Troubles 16C-17C
19 4 million Napoleonic Wars 19C
20 3 million Chinese Civil War 20C
21 3 million French Wars of Religion 16C"

Psolus:

"Even grade school math students know you cannot prove a negative."

Prove it."

Don't need to. It is a rule of logic. Oh -- you may never have heard of it.

TEOC2 asks: "what will science do when it discovers irrefutable evidence that existence is truly super natural?"

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

TEOC2,

Science only deals with the natural so if science ever discovers that existence is super-natural, Science will cease to exist as we know it!

You can't be serious?

CARSTONIO:

Very good post! Compliments.

Captn_Ahab:

"The story of the binding of Isaac demonstrated that a God of ethics would never allow the sacrifice of a child."

A "god" of "ethics" would never have asked one he loved to be willing to sacrifice his child as a "test".

Jfv123, the "Creator" reference in the Declaration is generic enough that doesn't have to be interpreted to as meaning a conscious agency. (The whole document shows that the capitalization rules were different in that era.) Hypothetically, "Creator" could be interpreted as a metaphor for natural forces. Either way, the concept of inalienable rights doesn't require a conscious agency.

Describing a non-agency origin for humanity as an "accident" unnecessarily puts a negative spin on that possibility. Whatever the origin of humanity, the question of morality shouldn't depend on that origin being anything in particular. Arguing otherwise amounts to arguing that it's necessarily to believe in a thing regardless of its factual accuracy.

Also, a non-agency origin for humanity isn't automatically or necessarily atheistic. One can believe in gods that are not creators.

"Even grade school math students know you cannot prove a negative."

Prove it.

US-conscience wrote: "Secondly - the whole argument comes down to moral absolutes. If there is no law giver ( God ) then everything good or bad is simply a matter of opinion. What might be immoral behavior to one person is moral to another. Everyone will do what is right in their own eyes. This leads to chaos."

-------

US-conscience,

How is the situation you describe any different under your god's laws? You religionists can't even agree among yourselves as to what they mean. If your moral code is so infallible, why can't you all ever agree? Each of you has a different interpretation so the effect is the same.

As you said, "Everyone will do what is right in their own eyes." ... based on their interpretation of their gods' laws. So, in practice, your god's moral laws are just as relative and just as arbitrary as any atheist's set of morals.

"If you/he want. I worked in the copyright section of the music division of the Library of Congress for two years. I'll be happy to discuss copyright law with anyone who wants."

Discuss what would happen if some one attempted to copyright simple respect for life.

PSOLUS, you moron.

Even grade school math students know you cannot prove a negative.

"copyright law" !!???

and this has what to do with the existence/non-existence of God?

"As for sarcasm, which usually makes a point: yours doesn't."

Prove it.

the existence of God is independent of religion, religious teaching/tracts or religious "leaders".

the non-existence of God is independent of atheism, atheistic teaching/tracts or atheistic "leaders".

what will science do when it discovers irrefutable evidence that existence is truly super natural?

Jacoby in a previous column claims a lack of evidence of the super natural including understanding of space and time is proof of the non-existence of God.

and yet the existence of parallel universes and matter existing simultaneously in two different place has been "proved" by physics

"Not when explaining your deficiencies."

Prove it.

Ms. Jacoby writes:

"It is time for atheists to stop trying to prove what there is no need to prove: that they are as good as people whose religion began with a father's willingness to kill his only son at God's behest...."

It is surprising that such a sophisticated secular thinker makes such a simple statement, uninformed by history or anthropology. The story of the binding of Isaac demonstrated that a God of ethics would never allow the sacrifice of a child.
The sacrifice of a ram as hommage to God was all that was necessary at the time, and it is important to recognize that the time was the Bronze Age.

In this historical period, child sacrifice was common and often required by the pagan gods of the surrounding communities. However, Abraham's God would not allow the blade to touch the child, despite God's earlier request. This was something new, and a profoundly different morality for the time. It was an advance in moral thinking during the Bronze Age.

I think Ms. Jacoby missed much of the history and implications of the story.

I wonder why....

EMONTY:

"Oops! Students coming in; I think we will talk about 'copyright' law."

If you/he want. I worked in the copyright section of the music division of the Library of Congress for two years. I'll be happy to discuss copyright law with anyone who wants.

You don't kill because God created you in his good image. He is the Father of your consciences and He created you. Now wether you beleive this or not is not relevant nor does it change the fact that God is real and he created you in his goodness to do Good things.

That's the part you guys always miss. Just because you don't have faith does not mean that faith and God are not real. God is goodness. There is no goodness for goodness sake. Man did not know what goodness was until God said it was good or this was bad - morality did not evolve, morality was put into us in creation. When he created you in his image you were created with his goodness. Same with marriage, man takes a wife, engages in the convenant of marriage because God said it's is not good for man to be alone.

the idea of marriage did not evolvoe from or with man, the idea of Goodness did not evolve from or with man - like many of you think we evolved.

We did not evolve (what happen did we just stop evolving then). No. We were created in the image of a Good God who is real, who loves us wether we beleive in him or not and who we will see face to face one day -- all of us - wether you beleive in him or not, doesn't matter -HE IS that HE IS. And he made you to be good and he loves you enough to give you free will to be bad as well.

I'm sorry the right wing gets it very twisted not an accurate representation of God by any means but I always like to say this to the atheist - remember just because You don't beleive in God, doesn't mean he is not real or that there is no GOD.

You guys can try and seperate him for everything - being good for goodness sake etc etc. It really doesn't matter - it does not change the truth - WE have the capacity to be good because we were created in his goodness and for his sake. WE ARE HIS -- your unbelief does not change that. Simple.

Man did not create nor did he have a clue what it was until God told him - spoke it to his spirit, created him in his Image.

I do have a question for atheist - why do you hate God so much? He hasn't done anything but love you. I know you like to say well if there was a GOd why did this happen or that? But what we do to each other is man's doing not God's? He loves you, he's real, he is Good and because he is good you are too.

How do you define what is "good" if you do not have a standard by which to measure? Without God, man will "reason himself to hell". If you don't believe that is the case, pick up a history book and read about some of the atrocities that have been justified by either humanism acting in the "common good" and moral relevance."
Posted by: aswnylaw

And, Aswnylaw, many atrocities have been justified by deeply religious societies following their devout beliefs. Slavery, genocide, torture, murder, war, have all been justified with the "God is on our side," argument, as I'm sure you know. Good and bad behavior are both human. Religious people and non-religious people are all just people. However, as I understand it, people who espouse atheism are much less likely to commit crimes than believers. At least, they are much less likely to wind up in prison. Something to consider.

The most straightforward standard of good or bad, for me, is weather or not your actions cause harm. If you are hurting someone, you are most likely in the wrong. If you are deceiving someone, you are most likely in the wrong. If you are restricting someone else's freedom without dire need, you're probably wrong. If you are doing something you would not welcome being done to you, you are almost always wrong. Why is there any need for further complications?

PSOLUS:

"Let me explain it simply."

"Do you really have a choice?"

Not when explaining your deficiencies.

Oops! Students coming in; I think we will talk about 'copyright' law.

PSOLUS:

"Oh, you are also mistaken about copyright law."

Prove it.

As for sarcasm, which usually makes a point: yours doesn't.

"Let me explain it simply."

Do you really have a choice?

LOVE2MUCH:

"I do have a question for you - why do you hate God so much?"

Why do you make such an ass of yourself? Atheists -- I assume it is us you are addressing -- do not hate god. We hate delusion. Since you are unable to prove your assertion that there is a god, we decline to follow you into that delusion. Its as simple as that. Prove god's existence, and we will follow you instantly. Is that too much for you to do?

Schaum,

Evidently you know nothing about the concept of sarcasm.

Oh, you are also mistaken about copyright law.

Really a silly article. It is always appropriate to ask where te center of a person's ethics lie. All religions have a set of theological statements that undergird thei ethics. Most other philosophies also have some center, out of which an ethics comes. Athiests have nothing to prove, other than that they are capabl of rational thought, as (we hope) others are as well. I certainly believe that this is generally the case. The question is, then, what lies at the core of one's ethics? Some may believe that it's all about me - and so to hell with the kid in the pond. I remember, wen I was doing my internship in Wisconsin, he story of a woman who got caught in a blizzard, and went door to door, trying to get help. No one answered, even though everyone was home. She almost froze to death (lost som toes and fingers, as I remembered). So not everyone - even the religious - hold a benign ethics. The question is always valid - what is the center of your ethical response? If not "God says so," then what?

EMONTY:

Yes, you have a great sense of humor. You are one of the few here who does.

You don't kill because God created you in his good image. He is the Father of your consciences and He created you. Now wether you beleive this or not is not relevant nor does it change the fact that God is real and he created you in his goodness to do Good things.

That's the part you guys always miss. Just because you don't have faith does not mean that faith and God are not real. God is goodness. There is no goodness for goodness sake. Man did not know what goodness was until God said it was good or this was bad - morality did not evolve, morality was put into us in creation. When he created you in his image you were created with his goodness. Same with marriage, man takes a wife, engages in the convenant of marriage because God said it's is not good for man to be alone.

the idea of marriage did not evolvoe from or with man, the idea of Goodness did not evolve from or with man - like many of you think we evolved.

We did not evolve (what happen did we just stop evolving then). No. We were created in the image of a Good God who is real, who loves us wether we beleive in him or not and who we will see face to face one day -- all of us - wether you beleive in him or not, doesn't matter -HE IS that HE IS. And he made you to be good and he loves you enough to give you free will to be bad as well.

I'm sorry the right wing gets it very twisted not an accurate representation of God by any means but I always like to say this to the atheist - remember just because You don't beleive in God, doesn't mean he is not real or that there is no GOD.

You guys can try and seperate him for everything - being good for goodness sake etc etc. It really doesn't matter - it does not change the truth - WE have the capacity to be good because of God's sake. Simple. Man did not create nor did he have a clue what it was until God told him - spoke it to his spirit, created him in his Image.

I do have a question for you - why do you hate God so much?

Schaum,

I think we would also agree that I can't type worth a lick!

Psolus:

Let me explain it simply. You invent calculus, but you neglect to copyright it. I invent an identical matrix, which I choose to call calculus. I copyright it immediately. Therefore I have the copyright on calculus, regardless of the fact that you invented it first. You get no SECOND COPYRIGHT.

Schaum:

As a 'christer', and worse yet, a Roamn Catholic christer to boot, I would agree with you that the history of the Church has many 'loathsome' episodes in it. To say otherwise would be ignoring much hisotry, and especially recent history. There is no moral or ethical way to explain away the child abuse or the coverup. Many Catholics, including this one, are disgusted.

I for one, agree with Susan that NOBODY has a monopoly on 'goodness' and I keep an especially close eye on my wallet when people whol loudly proclaim their 'goodness' are around.

Now we will always disagree on my faith, but we do agree on the idea of your right to believe what you want, and my right to do the same, ends with shoving it down someone's throat.

I think we also agreed last week, that I have a sense of humor!

PSOLUS:

Evidently you know nothing about the concept of copyright. It is given to, and applied to, ONLY that work which is copyrighted first, regardless of whether it is the original work. There is no such thing as a second copyright and a third copyright for the same work. Basically, its first-come, first-served.

JFV123:

"That leaves it for athiests to decide whether to explain their belief systems to others or not."

Until and unless you can understand the basics -- that "atheists" (a christer invention) have no belief system; they merely believe that god-believers have failed to prove the existence of god -- I'd suggest that you keep your mouth shut and your eyes open.

"Copyright applies only to works which have been copyrighted FIRST..."

As opposed to works that have been copyrighted SECOND, or THIRD?

Many people wonder where do we and other people draw lines for different types of behavior and why they decide the line is in one place rather than another.

It's fairly natural that people who believe that god created people for a purpose are curious about other people who believe we are all random products of evolution who have happened by accident. If an atheist/evolutonist eats some randomly evolved creatures, why not others? Is it simply a matter of taste or health, or does something else drive menu choices? Theists differ depending on religion about which creatures not to eat and why. PETA activists say not to eat any creature. They draw a line that is consistent with all of us being randomly evolved creatures, and randomly evolved creatures shouldn't eat one another. Some athiests eat some, but not all randomly evolved creatures. Atheists must have a reason for their decisions, but it's not really clear to theists what the reasons are for treating some randomly evolved creatures differently than others. This does cause concerns when athiests get hungry.

Likewise, if as stated in the Declaration of Independence, we derive our inalienable rights from the Creator, do people who don't believe in a Creator believe others have inalienable rights? If so, why? Where do these rights come from. Remember, Jefferson was saying they came from something greater than government and that we could discern what these rights are. If Jefferson didn't know about evolution, was he wrong about inalienable rights? How could he know wht these rights were when he wasn't aware iof the evolutionary process. Was he jus a good guesser? Is a randon process of evolutionary changes (some scientists call them mistakes) the source of our inalienable rights that is bigger than government and bigger than the will of all the randomly evolved people? It seems like it would take something really really big to outweigh government and the will of the people. Jefferson had an answer for what that was. It's a basic principle of our political system, government can't take away rights, because rights are given by the Creator, not by government. People who believe this wonder about whether people who don't are too beholden to government. If evolution is what drives things, and if as science says, evolution is a series of random changes, some people worry that doesn't provide such a firm basis for inalienable rights. That causes some poltical insecurity.

These aren't answers, but they thngs people wonder about.

Athiests may have reasonable answers for these questions, but that doesn't mean it isn't reasonable for other people to wonder about them.

That leaves it for athiests to decide whether to explain their belief systems to others or not.

Psolus:

"Your question does not make sense; copyright applies only to original works."

No. Copyright applies only to works which have been copyrighted FIRST, regardless of whether they are origina.

Skipsailing28:

"We also recognize that the tenets of the faith form behavioral guidelines. We can chose our behavior."

I've no idea what this is called on your planet. On this one, it is called a logical contradiction.

"What about simple respect for life?"

Well... What about simple respect for life?

"Does anyone hold a copyright on that?"

Your question does not make sense; copyright applies only to original works.

"Richard Dawkins believes that Evolutionism should be taught like religion to children. That's a sign of his own evangelical crusade to usurp the role of religion in the lives of people. Dawkins and his intellectual running dogs aren't advancing science against ignorance. They're practicing religion."
Posted by: blasmaic

Blasmaic, evolution is basic biology, basic science. It has no religious overtones, except for those who can't accept the physical reality that science has discovered, and reject it for a religiously-based mythology.

I don't mean that as an insult. Understand that most people following a religious path have no trouble with the biological reality of evolution, any more than they have problems with the sun-centered model of the solar system. Only a small group of mostly conservative Christians would support the view that representing biological reality is somehow an "...evangelical crusade to usurp the role of religion in the lives of people."

As to your "The state is the atheist's church, synagogue, and temple. Who will feed the starving child? The state. Who will care for the sick and the elderly? The state. Who will protect the atheist from the Christian? The state," statements all I can say is HUH? That is one of the strangest things I have ever read. Atheism is simply a disbelief in a deity. It has nothing to do with "statist," whatever that might be. Lumping things together that have no connection is a sign of sloppy thinking. If you want to be take seriously, it might pay to tidy up your logic a bit.

Skipsailing28:

"That person schaum is on the wrong track. You can't disprove the existence of god by pointing to bad things that people have done in God's name."

It is you who are on the wrong track, Skippy. Atheists do not, cannot, have not attempted to, disprove the existence of god. We ONLY say that failure of god-believers to prove the existence of god is sufficient reason not to accept their beliefs as anything more that myth. Is that a hard concept for you to grasp?

What is done in "gods name" has nothing to do with anything.

No one is good, not atheists, not theists.

But what is it that causes the absoluteness in a moral absolute? Is it because God has said it? But did God say it? I never heard God say anything? Isn't it men so what is morally absolute, and they do it in the name of God? That is not the same at all as God saying it directly.

I think that people who believe they have found moral absolutes live under and illusion, and it is up to them to explain why they are not living under and illusion.

PSOLUS:

"What would prevent a person from committing murder if that person did not believe in god?"

What about simple respect for life? Does anyone hold a copyright on that?

Schaum, your response to Mary C was awesome, and made very interesting reading. Whow. Danke.

Mary Cunningham, Ever Virgin Mother of Blather, is a roman catholic christer. She would, of course, resist exposure to the light of day of the rottenness of the roman catholic christer religion. Nevertheless, despite her breast beating and hand wringing, the facts are there for all to see. roman catholicism is a loathsome disease which should be eradicated from the earth. And its adherents are equally diseased with delusion. Blessed Mary is, sadly, no exception.

"What would prevent a person from committing murder if that person did not believe in god?"

The same thing that would prevent a person from committing murder if that person did believe in god.

Nothing.

skipsailing28

Then why are atheists so bad, for saying, freely what they believe and why?

such fun.

Here's an answer for danielinthelionsden:
It is a fundamental to those who BELIEVE it is fundamental.

It seems that atheists have a blind spot when it comes to simple faith. Christians are christians because they chose to believe in Christ. It is simple, but not easy.

Faith is an important part of the entire religious experience. So faithful people claim things as fundamental to their faith. See?

That person schaum is on the wrong track. You can't disprove the existence of god by pointing to bad things that people have done in God's name. Nor can you disprove God's existence by reciting the crimes of those who profess faith and fail. In all those cases the behaviors being discussed are those of PEOPLE not God. The fact that someone says he's a Christian and even attends services and still commits a heinous crime doesn't mean that God is non existent or that religion is a failure.

We have free will. Those of us who believe recognize that we do so out of choice. We also recognize that the tenets of the faith form behavioral guidelines. We can chose our behavior. We're free.

There is no question that religion is a necessity to moral behavior.

Examples:
The Catholic inquisition.
The Crusade slaughter of women and children
Burning alive of Christian Heretics at the stake.
Salem Witches
Pogroms in Russia
Hitlers Christian Germany
Muslims burying a 16 year old girl alive because she spoke to boys.
Muslims stoning a woman to death who allows herself to be raped.

First of all, you have the Christian religion all wrong. No one claims it makes us better than anyone else, quite the contrary, we realize that we are not good, we are morally depraved which is why we ( and all people ) lie, steal, lust, covet, dishonor our parents and worship ourselves above anything else. We are not good ! we are sinners ! Which is why the good news of the Gospel is such good news and makes sense. ( Christians dont get to heaven because their good, but because even though we are bad, we are forgiven by a good God, that way He gets all the credit, not us )

Secondly - the whole argument comes down to moral absolutes. If there is no law giver ( God ) then everything good or bad is simply a matter of opinion. What might be immoral behavior to one person is moral to another. Everyone will do what is right in their own eyes. This leads to chaos.

1.
CCNL1:
" more than 50,000,000, men and women have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy charged against them by Papal authority of the Holy Inquisition, which lasted for 605 years."
"The credible historians are???"

OK...here goes.
"From the birth of Popery in 606 to the present time, it is estimated by careful and credible historians, that more than fifty millions of the human family, have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy by popish persecutors, an average of more than forty thousand religious murders for every year of the existence of popery." -- "History of Romanism," pp. 541, 542. New York: 1871.

Also see:

Amador de los Rios
Henry Charles Lea
William H. Prescott
Yitzhak Baer
Cecil Roth
Joseph McCabe (an atheist, incidentally...)

2.
Cushing B. Hassell, History of the Church of God, Chapter XIV: "This was the century of the last religious wars in “Christendom,” the Thirty Years’ War in Germany, fomented by the Jesuits, reducing the people to cannibalism, and the population of Bohemia from 4,000,000 to 780,000, and of Germany from 20,000,000 to 7,000,000, and making Southern Germany almost a desert, ..."

Rev. S. S. Schmucker, D.D., Professor of Theology in the Theological Seminary at Gettysburg. Published by Gould and Newman. 1838: "Need I speak to you of the thirty years’ war in Germany, which was mainly instigated by the Jesuits, in order to deprive the Protestants of the right of free religious worship, secured to them by the treaty of Augsburg? Or of the Irish rebellion, of the inhuman butchery of about fifteen millions of Indians in South America, Mexico and Cuba, by the Spanish papists? In short, it is calculated by authentic historians, that papal Rome has shed the blood of sixty-eight millions of the human race in order to establish her unfounded claims to religious dominion" -----(citing Dr. Brownlee’s “Popery an enemy to civil liberty”, p. 105).

“Plea for the West” by Lyman Beecher (Cincinnati, Truman and Smith, 1835), pp. 130-131: "And let me ask again, whether the Catholic religion, in its union with the state, has proved itself so unambitious, meek, and unaspiring so feeble, and easy to be entreated, as to justify-a proud, contempt of its avowed purpose and systematic movements to secure an ascendancy in this nation? It is accidental that in alliance with despotic governments, it has swayed a sceptre of iron, for ten centuries over nearly one-third of; the population of, the globe, and by a death of violence is estimated to have swept from 'the' earth about sixty-eight millions of its inhabitants, and holds now in darkness and bondage nearly half the civilized world.

3.
Brownlee states: "Papal Rome has shed the blood of fifty millions of Christians in Europe!" -- The Roman Catholic Religion viewed in the light of Prophecy and History, New York, Charles K. Moore, 1843, page 60.

And later in the same work, "The best writers enumerate fifty millions of Christians destroyed by fire, and the sword, and the inquisition; and fifteen millions of natives of the American continent and islands; and three millions of Moors in Europe, and one million and a half of Jews. Now, here are sixty-nine millions and five hundred thousands of human beings, murdered by “the woman of the Roman hills, who was drunk with the blood of the saints.” And this horrid list does not include those of her own subjects, who fell in the crusades in Asia, and in her wars against European Christians, and in South America!" -- page 97.

Walter M. Montano, a former Catholic priest, asserts in his book, Behind the Purple Curtain that it has been estimated that fifty million people died for their faith during the twelve hundred years of the Dark Ages. (Citing Walter M. Montano, Behind the Purple Curtain, Cowman Publications, 1950, page 91.)

"This great antichristian power robbed the church of its gospel light and plunged the world into the Dark Ages. It put to death and thus took away the lives of from fifty to one hundred millions of the saints of the Most High." -- Bunch, Taylor, The Book of Daniel, 1950, p. 170.

There is a great deal more, but I think this material will keep your lips moving for a while.

"Susan assiduously sidesteps the entire issue by arguing that history contains examples of good atheists and evil believers. Fine, but it adds nothing to the question she introduced at the beginning. If her vignette proves anything, it's that she's easily offended and doesn't like to be challenged to explain herself."
Posted by Dcatty

Dcatty, why do feel Ms. Jacoby needs to explain herself? Why would one assume that not believing in a deity would make one immoral? Kindness and cruelty are both human, and societies with profound beliefs in divinity have engaged in profoundly immoral actions. (Slavery anyone?)

The "What would stop you from committing murder?" question is very similar to the old chestnut "When did you stop beating your wife?" It indicates an assumption of immorality, a presumption of guilt. It is designed to put the person being questioned on the defensive, and to try to display an assumed 'superiority' on the part of the questioner based on nothing much.

Being in the public view, being an author, can and should open one up to questions about one's work, not one's ethics. Ms Jacoby's behavior has given no one any reason to raise ethical questions. Why would you consider such questions fair game?

Schaum's been cutting and pasting from the atheist site du jour. But his claims that 50 million died because of the Inquisition (which lasted 600 years) is awfully funny,. especially from one who takes himself so seriously.

A few questions our hero should have asked:

1) When was the Inquisition most active?
Ans: about 1300-1500
2) Where was it most active?
Ans: Spain
3) What was the population of Spain during this time?
Ans: Spain and Portugal numbered between 7 million in AD1000, increased to 9 million in 1350 and fell back to 7 million in 1450. The fall was due to the Black Death aka bubonic plague.

As all of Southern Europe numbered no more that 25 million during this time it is hard to justify the 50,000,000 number.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.html

As for how many deaths may be attributed to the various inquisitorial bodies, I'm not certain who the previous contributor refers to when he states that "those who thoroughly study the inquisition" agree that the death toll was in the millions, but he or she is quite wrong on multiple levels. I am unaware of any modern historian who would accept such ridiculous numbers and it has nothing to do with whether or not they are Christian. Again, for a general treatment of the various inquisitions, read Edward Peters' Inquistions, and for a more specialized treatment turn to Richard Kieckhefer's Repression of Heresy in Medieval Germany.

According to Henry Kamen's "The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision" it is very difficult to determine, because if people fled - which they usually did - the Inquisition would burn them in effigy, and make no distinction in their records between whether someone was burned in effigy or in reality. According to Kamen, at the height of the Inquistion, they executed a handful of people per year, and the State of Texas executes more people in a year than the Inquisition did in ten

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_from_the_Inquisition

I would like ask again, what about a fundamental belief makes it fundamental? Because God said so? That is what makes it fundamental? But what if you disagree? God will throw you in the Lake of Fire? But what if you dont' believe in the Lake of Fire?

Why is the mere assumption of a God ordered rule more authoratiative than thinking it out for oneself in a way that really makes more sense? Because it is not really God telling us all of the God made rules; it is people telling us. So if an atheist has some ideas about morlaity that God did not dictate, why is that not as real or fundamental as people who say what God's rules are?

Why are God's rules God's rules? Who says so?

"If God said "thou shalt not kill," why is that a more fundamental rule against murder, than if it is merely a rule of law that people agree with?"

"Why, if Jesus said, "love your neighbor" is that more fundamental than if you just DO love your neighbors?"

Those two statements made here point to a fundamental problem within this debate.

First, it is only said by others that "God said" or "Jesus said" this that or the other. There is hard evidence that either of them ever said anything. Only hearsay.

Second, Christian religion is but the monotheist version of the polytheist traditions of Paganism. Including stories about the crucifixion, the resurrection, Lazarus, the commandments (without,of course, those dealing with honoring and obeying one god), etc.

Given that Christians today refer to Pagans as heathens and non-believers, as they do atheists, their claim to moral righteousness lacks credulity when it is seen they, as they make that claim, reject the very basis of their belief system.

It would seem they should first strive to define their true identity before they pass judgment on the rest of humanity.

Susan,
since life started in our planet, many animal species have not survived. Many of species that have survived have at least two things in common: eat the other species but not your own and (always for the mothers and often for the fathers also)take good care of your young. These two traits are now in our genes.
Susan,
thank you for appreciating the Golden Rule.
Have a wonderful day.

Off topic but since the subject was brought up:

"Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into the role of biology in the development of human sexual orientation. No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[1] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[2] Biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure."

"A recent study suggests linkage between a mother's genetic make-up and homosexuality of her sons. Women have two X chromosomes, one of which is "switched off". The inactivation of the X chromosome occurs randomly throughout the embryo, resulting in cells that are mosaic with respect to which chromosome is active. In some cases though, it appears that this switching off can occur in a non-random fashion. Bocklandt et al. (2006) reported that, in mothers of homosexual men, the number of women with extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation is significantly higher than in mothers without gay sons. Thirteen percent of mothers with one gay son, and 23% of mothers with two gay sons showed extreme skewing, compared to 4% percent of mothers without gay sons.[17]"

"In 2004, Italian researchers conducted a study of about 4,600 people who were the relatives of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than those of the heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men on their mother's side tended to have more offspring than those on the father's side. The researchers concluded that there was genetic material being passed down on the X chromosome which both promotes fertility in the mother and homosexuality in her male offspring. The connections discovered, would explain about 20% of the cases studied, indicating that this is a highly significant but not the sole genetic factor determining sexual orientation.[21]."

"Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each older brother increases the odds of a man being gay by 33%.[18][19] This is now "one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation."[20] To explain this finding, it has been proposed that male fetuses provoke a maternal immune reaction that becomes stronger with each successive male fetus. Male fetuses produce HY antigens which are "almost certainly involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates." It is this antigen which maternal H-Y antibodies are proposed to both react to and 'remember'. Successive male fetuses are then attacked by H-Y antibodies which somehow decrease the ability of H-Y antigens to perform their usual function in brain masculinisation.[18]

See Wikipedia for the specific references.

Members of the very Christian "pro-life" movement not only committed murder in their "knowledge" of what "God" wants, they used mass justification for it, as in, these people were murderers themselves, God wanted them dead. Sounds pretty vigilante to me, but if you wrap it up in God and some non-existent scriptural passage, it's just religion excusing murder, and there's nothing new in that, it's been done for centuries. Pick your religion, there's nobody like God to justify the worst behavior. Pro-lifers, pedophile priests, Islamic terror, India's caste system, there's nothing that God can't excuse.

Daniel, No Kant proposed a construct called the "Universal You". The essential argument is that we are all in this together and immoral or unethical behavior is bad for all of us, and therefore for each individual as well. Real simplistic and incomplete, but that in a nutshell is what his massive work was about.

"From the beginning of the Papacy, until the present time, it is estimated by credible historians that more than 50,000,000, men and women have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy charged against them by Papal authority of the Holy Inquisition, which lasted for 605 years."

The credible historians are???

Jhr1

Did Kant say anything like this?

In the local landscape of personal experience, people inherit, and subsequently form, their moral beliefs from their parents, care-givers, and teachers and from the culture of their time and place.

And they just live according to these principles; for the most part, they do not require a rigorous moral justififiation for belieing what is right and what is wrong because that is a philoosphical question, seeking to find out a greater meaning of life, beyond the local landscape of physical experieince. But most people are not philosophers and do not worry about it; it is moot.

Atheists, for the most part, do not commit murder for the same reason that Christians do not; basically no reason, they just don't. Except, rarely, sometimes, they both do.

Thanks for the correction of the Wehrmacht misspelling. That "God With Us" was on the belt buckle of the German army before the Nazis, however, does not negate the point I am making. Hitler's approporiation of both Christian and pagan symbolism is well-known. And the basic point I made was that anyone who considers himself in possession of absolute truth is, in fact, practicing totalitarian religion. That is what monotheistic religion is: an absolute truth claim.

The thing that works best in the world is science.

And why does it work?

No one knows.

How can it be justified and defined? how can scientific consensus just form, itself, without government control, without rules, ungoverned, but just happening?

No one can say; no one can put their finger on it.

Nevertheless, on such a flimsy foundation, it is the thing that works best in the world.

In order for personal morlaity to have any validity, why do religious people insist on laying out the fundamentals, before there can be any understanding? Only God says it should be this way, and if God never said it, then how can anyone know what way it should be?

Oh, it just be, that is the answer.

People, people, people, give it up. It's been covered. Read Kant, it's been done. It's settled. If anyone has topped his analysis, refer us all to that person. The article and the comments are useless.

Why does calling it religious make it fundamental? If God said "thou shalt not kill," why is that a more fundamental rule against murder, than if it is merely a rule of law that people agree with?

Why, if Jesus said, "love your neighbor" is that more fundamental than if you just DO love your neighbors?

If the Bible says that God separated the night from the day, how do you understand any better about anything, by having heard this saying?

If the Bible says that a man lying with another man is an abomination, then how does that give a fundamental justification to the mistreatment of gay people? Even if something displeased God, maybe God could be wrong; maybe God should try to get along more genially; maybe God could learn something from Man. Is that blasphemy? Why? It is only a suggestion, and a wondering thought. After all, I am not the one who believes that God is so unreasonable.

Religious people gain very little over atheists, by believing in God. Everything is the same; the same sun; the same air; the same ground; it is only their feeling that they know more; but it is only a feeling, because they do not know more.

They do not know why something is moral and something else is not moral. We acquire our standards or morality from the previous generation, from our parents, teachers, and personal care-givers. And this inheritance is taken to our hearts, some of which are good, and some of which are bad.

If someone has a good heart, he cannot say why; it is not because Jesus told him to have a good heart; because right there sitting next to him in the church pew, is a fellow Christian with a dark and rotten heart.

So again, I would like to ask, why is a rule or commandmant from God a fundamental principle? Is it wrong to wonder and to ask this question?

Matthew_DC

"... what is labelled as "good" can probably be reduced to: 1) what the social consensus believes is "good" and 2) what we personally feel is "good" or conducive to our survival. "

That makes alot of sense; thanks!

PewResearch, June 26, 2007
"Opposition to the death penalty is lowest among white mainline Protestants (13%) and white evangelicals (15%), while it is notably higher among white Catholics (27%). Opposition is highest among seculars (29%)."

A contributor here said the state (government) is the atheist's church. If so, the above poll would seem to contradict that.

If the death penalty is a function of the state then, according to those who say atheists "pray to the state", the majority of support for it would come from the atheists (secularists). But the poll shows the opposite.

There have been many such polls concerning life and death policies including the willingness to go to war. It more often than not shows believers more supportive of state sponsored killings (death penalty, wars and assassinations) than do atheists.

Blasmaic

A few corrections:

Statism is your made up "ism." The state is modern government; it exists; it happened; we have inherited it from history; it is here to stay. The only way that reverence for the state is remotely religious is in unreasoning patriotism, and nationalism which is a conservative Christianity, isnt' it?

The state does not seek to run all religioun out of every aspect of life. There are churches, churches, churches, everywhere, and there is religion, religion, religion, everywhere, all over the place; your problem is then, not that there is no relgion, but that religion does not control literally EVERYTHING. But if it did, which religion would it be? One that you approved of? More than likely, not.

Likewise, you have made up another "ism" with evolutionism. Evolution is science; there is no evolutionism; it is not taught in any public schools that I have ever heard of, but only mentioned in Biology class, because a biology student would be considered ignorant without some basic information about evolution. You can be ignornat if you want to be, and probably be perfectly happy, but do not expect the goal of school to be ignorance.

It is the consensus of science that evolution is true and truth is what schools should seek to teach. The subject of atheism or God is irrelevant what should be taught in science class.

1.
In any response to a god-believer, particularly a christer, who asks an atheist what morality there is in his atheism that would prevent him from committing murder, I would respond by asking him the same thing about his christer-beliefs. And I would follow with a few facts:

America's christer culture has spawned many serial killers. 75% of the USA is christer, yet the US produces 80% of the world’s serial killers. And we are only 5% of the world’s population.

2.
Howard Barton Unruh killed 13 people as he walked the streets of Camden NJ in a psychotic 1949 shooting spree that was the nation's worst mass murder at the time. Unruh spent most of his days reading the bible and playing with his guns like so many fundi-christers do. He faced 13 counts of "willful and malicious slayings with malice aforethought" and three counts of "atrocious assault and battery."

For anyone who has seen Anthony Powell's (aka Tony48219) videos on YouTube it's apparent that the man was suffering from a serious mental illness. He would often rant incoherently about the virtues of his christer life, evolution and the immorality, anger and stupidity of atheists. He has been convicted of killing a 20 year old girl on April 10, 2009. Interestingly, the christers on YouTube are frantically trying to distance themselves from this as if the only important thing here is the reputation of their silly little pagan cult.

From the beginning of the Papacy, until the present time, it is estimated by credible historians that more than 50,000,000, men and women have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy charged against them by Papal authority of the Holy Inquisition, which lasted for 605 years.

A middle-aged father of 5, Robert L. Yates Jr., a decorated military helicopter pilot, and National Guardsman was convicted of 15 murders but suspected of as many as 18. He came from a solid, loving home with encouraging support , a moral upbringing and Christian teaching from the time he could walk. He liked to cruise through the red-light district in a white Corvette, where the Army veteran murdered 8 of at least 13 of his victims.

Remember Jim Jones? He is responsible for more than 900 deaths, all in the name of god, of course.

3.
John Wayne Gacy was a good, god-fearing Polish roman catholic. I think they estimated he killed something like 40 boys…

Adolph Hitler, and most of the Third Reich’s hierarchy, were roman catholics. 90% of German civilians were christers, divided pretty evenly among protestants and roman catholics.

Ted Bundy was a good student at Woodrow Wilson High School, in Tacoma, and was active in the local Methodist church, serving as vice-president of the Methodist Youth Fellowship. He was involved with a local troop of the Boy Scouts of America. He killed between 30-100 women.
When one looks to the bible, many quotes inciting, condoning and demanding murder in the name of “god” can be found throughout the pages of both the old and the new testaments. Here are a few examples:
•Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

•A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

• They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

this is egregious:
"This is hate-motivated nonsense. Why should Hitchens, and a few others' attacks on religious people be generalized to all other atheists? That is like assuming that all Christians are child-molesters, based on what some members of the clergy have done. Bigoted nonsense that doesn't speak very well for the morals of those who look for these stupid excuses to hate people who are different."

the attempt to minimize the assault on religion in America would be laughable if the atheists had any sense of humor.

Come now, the atheists have earned their unsavory reputation. Heck, there is a group that is working to prevent the production of a stamp honoring Mother Theresa. That's just plain small.

Liberals have relied on certain epithets to end conversations that make them uncomfy. In the above case the chose magic word is "bigot" but that's probably because "racist" wouldn't work quite as well!

Kinda too bad that this sort of discussion ending magic no longer works in America. We must have conversations about race and religion even if the liberals don't enjoy them.

In addition, the godless left is facing a new fact of life: people of religion are fighting back! The usual tricks won't work now. I doubt that the left is up to the debate or the fight but hey, as they say in the school yard: they started it.

4.
•If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.
(Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

•Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

•"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

•jesus said, But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence. (Luke 19:27 NRS)

These quotes and many others have been used by christian serial killers in order to justify their crimes. This is in direct contradiction of christian claims that christianity is a religion of “peace” and “love” and “morality”. In fact,there is not even one instance in the bible where Satan ever incited any kind of murder.

Jeffery Dahmer was a son of a fundamentalist-creationist.

More examples of christian serial killers are Andrea Yates, James Kopp, Dennis Rader aka the BTK killer, and many more.

To all those “moral” christers who claim these people are not “real” christers, remember they are literally following christianity by the book. These ARE the “real” christers whose ‘god’ required ritual blood and death for his personal honor – something the equally-mythical Satan never once asked for.

Another issue is that it's possible for gods or transcendent beings to exist who are NOT moral authorities or who did NOT create the human moral sense. Perhaps gods exist who are indifferent to morality or unaware of morality's existence. Or perhaps such beings aren't even aware of humanity's existence.

Ken16 said:
"A logically consistent and coherent atheism is reductively ontological, that is, it necessarily confines itself to what merely is. There is no logical way to get to a "should be" from what simply "is." To deny the very idea of transcendence, is to deny the existence of transcendent criteria for making moral evaluations. If the existence of a transcendental morality is denied, all talk of morality devolves to a discussion of personal preferences. No warrant can be offered for privileging any personal preference over another. The irony of a Dawkins or Hitchens "putting God in the dock" for His perceived moral failures exposes the critical failure of atheism. In practice, atheists sucha s Dawkins or hitchens are not atheists at all. They are autotheists, elevating their own moral reasoning as absolute and transcendent, a code under which they would indict the God of the Bible."
--------------------------------------

Ken: you're missing the point. Atheists are not claiming that atheism is a complete moral system for living one's life. They are simply trying to point out to theists that theists are also elevating their own moral reasoning as absolute and transcendent, a code by which they would indict all who do not share their personal religious beliefs. So, your criticism of atheism applies also to all varieties of theism, according to the view of all who do not believe in the particular creed that one believes comes from a "higher power."

If the existence of a transcendental morality is denied, all talk of morality devolves to a discussion of personal preferences.

That's the mistake of authoritarianism. Humans are capable of valuing principles over their own individual comfort or pleasure. (Too many humans don't do so, but that's another issue.) Those principles need not exist in a transcendental realm. Although it's possible that they do have such existence, any notions of a transcendental realm are purely speculative since we have no testable evidence for or against its existence.

Susan Jacoby refuses to answer questions....because she is insulted.....an because she is an atheist and doesn't have to answer questions....and because Quinn and Meacham have turned their "On Faith" column into a forum for atheists and anti-American Christian ranters. Go figure.

"News flash! The average Christian? (that includes the Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc.) - we don't really give that much thought to atheism. It's a small group that really doesn't show up on our radar - so they can do what they want, but they shouldn't expect warm hugs from church-goers when they have become defined by the hate-filled diatribes they write about us."
--------------------------------------

This is hate-motivated nonsense. Why should Hitchens, and a few others' attacks on religious people be generalized to all other atheists? That is like assuming that all Christians are child-molesters, based on what some members of the clergy have done. Bigoted nonsense that doesn't speak very well for the morals of those who look for these stupid excuses to hate people who are different.

There is no question that those who claim to be atheists believe in morality and act morally. The question is not whether people can believe and practice morality without religion. The question that Ms. Jacoby misunderstands, is what warrant exists for atheism to evaluate, or even discuss morality?

A logically consistent and coherent atheism is reductively ontological, that is, it necessarily confines itself to what merely is. There is no logical way to get to a "should be" from what simply "is." To deny the very idea of transcendence, is to deny the existence of transcendent criteria for making moral evaluations. If the existence of a transcendental morality is denied, all talk of morality devolves to a discussion of personal preferences. No warrant can be offered for privileging any personal preference over another. The irony of a Dawkins or Hitchens "putting God in the dock" for His perceived moral failures exposes the critical failure of atheism. In practice, atheists sucha s Dawkins or hitchens are not atheists at all. They are autotheists, elevating their own moral reasoning as absolute and transcendent, a code under which they would indict the God of the Bible.

Atheists unwittingly cede their atheism when they attempt to discuss morality. They must import moral categories from some system of thought that, unlike atheism, admits of a transcendal realm.

"Jacoby's central problem is that Statism is the religion of the athiest. While others view murder as a sin and a crime, the athiest views it as only a crime. Hence, the highest moral authority for the athiest is the state -- Statism.
The state is the athiest's church, synagogue, and temple. Who will feed the starving child? The state. Who will care for the sick and the elderly? The state. Who will protect the athiest from the Christian? The state.
But 90 percent of the world population believes in some form of religion. Religious belief is as natural and undeniable as the lepoard's spots. When the state seeks to run all religion out of every aspect of life in a country, it isn't protecting the minority viewpoint. It is waging a de facto war against a competing institution, and seeking to supplant the role of Christianity or Judaism or Islam or Hinduism or Buddism with... Statism.
Richard Dawkins believes that Evolutionism should be taught like religion to children. That's a sign of his own evangelical crusade to usurp the role of religion in the lives of people. Dawkins and his intellectual running dogs aren't advancing science against ignorance. They're practicing religion."
-------------------------------------

Except for the assertion that Dawkins has a religious point of view, the above is all nonsense. Atheists do not worship the state or see the state as the arbiter of right and wrong-- that's an outrageous lie. Moreover, soviet or China-style anti-religious statism is a different phenomenon than an individual person's atheism.

You can't accuse me of being against religion when it comes to the choices of other people- that's just a bigoted lie. The atheists I know in person are compassionate toward others, including others' religious beliefs.

How do we know the line is not straight if the master carpenter does not instill in the human psyche a sense of right and wrong behavior?

We can't assume that the human moral sense could only have been deliberately designed. That's merely the argument from incredulity. We don't have any basis for making any conclusions as to the origins of the moral sense.

Imagine someone from Mars being confronted with different religions' claims about unseen powerful beings setting rules for moral conduct. There's no way for the Martian to determine which claims are factually accurate. I'm talking not about the merits of such rules, which is a separate issue, but solely about the claimed authorship.

I agree with most of friendenemy's suggestion that there is a real need for atheists to explain to most people that we are not without a solid, rich sense of right and wrong. We simply can't live freely in a world where people assume that atheists are immoral, because they are so narrow-minded that they assume the worst about us and our behavior.

As friendenemy said, "humanist's and atheist's, by our silence, let the religious make up any tale of how we behave."

We should not allow the many bigoted people out there to use their own anti-atheist propaganda to try to eliminate our belief-systems and marginalize us.

aswnylaw wrote: "How do you define what is "good" if you do not have a standard by which to measure?"

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

aswnylaw,

Atheists also have standards by which to measure good and evil but just like Christians, we don't all agree on what those standards are.

Despite the fact that the murder question Ms. Jacoby recounts is ignorant, it still deserves an honest answer from any atheist. Religionists will not like the answers they get, of course, since there are so many possibilities (from self-preservation to a sense of community/species solidarity). No one likes to be told that what they saw as a binary, right and wrong, question is really multiple choice with hundreds of possible responses. Every chance an atheist has to challenge such binary thinking is worth taking.

I have a better scenario for you.

A woman falls to the ground in seizure, face down, she starts smacking her head on the ground, there's blood and saliva all over the place. People all over the place.

What do you do?
Is it obligatory? permissable? or forgiven?

and for religious scholars, how do you feel about God after?

Atheists shouldn't assign the title of "arbiters of behavior and morality" to religious believers, but to the Word of God as revealed to us in the Bible.

How do you define what is "good" if you do not have a standard by which to measure? Without God, man will "reason himself to hell". If you don't believe that is the case, pick up a history book and read about some of the atrocities that have been justified by either humanism acting in the "common good" and moral relevance.

Cthulhu3 wrote: "Thanks for the answer. So atheism is no better than any other position in its ability to provide ethical or moral guidance, because all it requires is non-belief in supernatural beings? That doesn't really offer much to counter religious or theistic based philosophical claims. How vapid."

-----------

Cthulhu3,

That's correct but what's really vapid is to expect to glean any sort of ethical system solely from an absence of belief in the supernatural.

The religious claims about atheism are correct. Atheism by itself offers no moral compass at all because it's not supposed to. That's not to say atheists don't have morals. Every atheist most certainly does. It just means we don't base them on the absence of belief.

Susan,

Not only does your statement contain a misspelling, it should be "Wehrmacht", but you didn't check your history. The Wehrmacht preexisted the Nazi forces and the uniform piece, Gott mitt uns, was carried over from the German imperial army days, long before the Nazi's rise. You are trying to tie two things together, Hitler and a belief in God, and you are stretching historical facts and connections to do it. I thought you were a defender of reason who doesn't play loose with historical facts to make her point?

John

Jacoby: "(In fact, the latter's Christianity is much more certain than the former's atheism. Every member of the Wermacht wore a belt buckle with the motto, "God With Us.")

Susan: What gives anyone a sense of morality? How is it derived? How do we know the line is not straight if the master carpenter does not instill in the human psyche a sense of right and wrong behavior? CS Lewis in Mere Christianity has nailed the question of God's existence so emphatically that further discussion is useless.

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

Freestinker,

Thanks for the answer. So atheism is no better than any other position in its ability to provide ethical or moral guidance, because all it requires is non-belief in supernatural beings? That doesn't really offer much to counter religious or theistic based philosophical claims. How vapid.

I think people ask this question because they haven't met any humanists or atheists and are ignorant of the answer. They have already been provided the answer that we are not moral people.

I say we educate anyone curious enough to ask where our morality comes from. Why be angry or offended by someone's ignorance of it?

Humanist's and atheist's, by our silence, let the religious make up any tale of how we behave.

More than anything, we should live as our principles demand and set the example of a good, honest, aware life.

Posted by: Schaum: Agreed! And it could only be by heterosexuals (whether atheist or non-atheist) agreement to stop breeding that homosexuality could be eradicated, since homosexuals are created by heterosexuals, not by other homosexuals.
--------------------------
Wow. That actually makes a lot of sense. It is the heterosexuals who are breeding homosexuals. And if it is not brought about by genetics, it is being 'taught' in the 'penitentiaries' (places to do religious 'penance'). A very unpopular line of thinking indeed.

People, people, people, give it up. It's been covered. Read Kant, it's been done. It's settled. If anyone has topped his analysis, refer us all to that person. The article and the comments are useless.

Danta23,

The way you state it reveals an dilemma for the atheist position in one way. You say: "I suggest using the question as an opportunity to educate, as in, 'Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I don't have moral beliefs.'"

Then your moral beliefs are just that--beliefs--and are as groundless as religious beliefs, likewise an internal a capacity of being human given the context of your statement that you "believe that all goodness and evil exist within human beings - the rest of the universe is inert and doesn't care if we live or die."

Countering one person's belief with another's doesn't help your argument, it weakens it.

Also I am troubled by this reponse: "As a life-long Secular Humanist, I think the best response to the question is not to take offense and bluntly refuse to answer."

Well, if you are certain that your position is correct, couldn't you come up with some compelling summation, reason, or statement? I mean, to bluntly refuse to answer is like a Creationist being asked to explain evolutionary evidence and giving no answer to a "damned atheist." If your viewpoint is correct or superior to your questioners, shouldn't you be able to express it and enlighten the great unwashed masses?

I don't have all the answers, I admit, but there are so many holes in the atheist position that it seems that agnosticism is really more intellectually honest.

Was Hammurabi (1700 BCE) an atheist? Apparently not!!

From his Code:

"When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind. "

Before Hammurabi, there was the Egyptian Book of the Dead (origin ~2000 BCE):

"Hail to thee, great God, Lord of the Two Truths. I have come unto thee, my Lord, that thou mayest bring me to see thy beauty. I know thee, I know thy name, I know the names of the 42 Gods who are with thee in this broad hall of the Two Truths . . . Behold, I am come unto thee. I have brought thee truth; I have done away with sin for thee. I have not sinned against anyone. I have not mistreated people. I have not done evil instead of righteousness . . .
I have not reviled the God.
I have not laid violent hands on an orphan.
I have not done what the God abominates . . .
I have not killed; I have not turned anyone over to a killer.
I have not caused anyone's suffering . . .
I have not copulated (illicitly); I have not been unchaste.
I have not increased nor diminished the measure, I have not diminished the palm; I have not encroached upon the fields.
I have not added to the balance weights; I have not tempered with the plumb bob of the balance.
I have not taken milk from a child's mouth; I have not driven small cattle from their herbage...
I have not stopped (the flow of) water in its seasons; I have not built a dam against flowing water.
I have not quenched a fire in its time . . .
I have not kept cattle away from the God's property.
I have not blocked the God at his processions."

Then there is this bit of blog wisdom:

"There are many commonsense rules for good behaviour but be cognizant of the embellishments, falsehoods, and fiction surrounding the formulators and "rocks" of said rules of life."

Wonderful essay Ms Jacoby. Of course only the religious believe that nonbelievers are bad and immoral people. Maybe it's because many religious people are restrained from cruel and immoral behaviour because they think that God is watching their every move from somewhere up in the sky, and could mean they won't go to Heaven if they're caught being naughty.

But their religion didn't stop those hundreds (perhaps thousands) of priests from raping all those children though - did it? Is it because these priests don't REALLY believe anyone's watching them from above, or is it because they think they can explain themselves to God when they're dead?

Personally I believe that many priests know as well as I do that there is no god. But it's a comfortable living, and there's unlimited access to little children.

Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you does not require a belief in a deity. To me it simply means behaving in a manner that respects the rights of others and treat them as you would wish to be treated. As I prefer not to be killed, robbed or disrespected, that is how I try to treat the rest of the world. It's as simple as acting on the good manners that our mothers taught us. Manners and laws that societies create are the lubricants that keep those societies from coming apart at the seams. My preference is to live in a society and culture that respects each individuals right to live their lives as they wish. Just don't try to shove your beliefs down my throat, I'll do the same, and we'll all get along just fine.

Cthulhu3 asks: "What fundamental ground does atheism base its ethics upon?"

-----------

Cthulhu3,

None because all atheists do not share a common system of ethics.

The only thing all atheists have in common is that none of us has a belief in supernatural beings. That's it.

Misterguerilla:

"I would think it would be the duty of the Atheist to change society in order to get humanity to stop breeding even though that would be very unpopular and even considered 'bad.'"

Agreed! And it could only be by heterosexuals (whether atheist or non-atheist) agreement to stop breeding that homosexuality could be eradicated, since homosexuals are created by heterosexuals, not by other homosexuals.

As a life-long Secular Humanist, I think the best response to the question is not to take offense and bluntly refuse to answer. I suggest using the question as an opportunity to educate, as in, "Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I don't have moral beliefs. I believe that all goodness and evil exist within human beings - the rest of the universe is inert and doesn't care if we live or die, if we are happy or sad. I believe that all people are equal, that each person is a unique and irreplaceable venue for good and evil to be realized. Hence, I believe that murder is evil because it diminishes human experience and shows contempt for the human equality that I hold so dear."

I think one reason Secular Humanism is not as popular as it should be is because we haven't done a good job of expressing what we DO believe. That's why I recommend Greg Epstein's new book "Good Without God".

By the way, although Peter Singer's question (Are you morally obligated to save a child drowning in a shallow pond even if this would ruin your pants?) seems simple-minded, in other writings he uses this as a springboard to ask questions like: Are you morally obligated to send money to charities that are saving the lives of dying children overseas even if you would have to give up some personal luxuries (e.g. buying a new pair of pants)?

To Singer, the two questons are essentially equivalent. If you can save a child's life, why should it make a difference whether the child is right in front of you or (for example) in Africa? But while 97% of respondents say they feel obligated to save the drowning child, 97% of people don't send money to reputable charities saving children overseas (e.g., Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam, CARE).

If we concede that we are obligated to save lives overseas, the next question is: How much money should we give? 5% of our income? 10%? All of our income above a level of bare sustenance? So what seems like a simple-minded question has complex moral ramifications.

Kant has already dealt brilliantly with this situation. If anyone can top his analysis, I'd like to hear about it.

What fundamental ground does atheism base its ethics upon? If the universe has no purpose and all phenomena are merely the results of time plus chance and blind, purposeless matter and physical forces, I do not see how "pure" atheists can go from this "fact" to "values" (ought's and ought not's). I am not denying there are good atheists, but the philosophical position seems to offer little more than "there is no God and the material universe is all there is." Ok, I'll concede that point, but what about the existence of the universe mandates any particular moral point of view, moral axiom, or duty? Necessity might dictate our desire to avoid certain consequences, but many people believe they can and do avoid those consequences and go on to do despicable acts. I think all we have left are "communities of solidarity" (a la Richard Rorty) that share languages and cultures and mores, but what makes our Western Enlightenment culture and better or worse than Radical Islam et al.

By saving the human child, that will mean destroying other life-forms. The child will consume about 365 chicken's lives a year adding up to a possible 29,200 total chickens that will be 'murdered' in that human's lifespan of 80 years. Since humans are destroying the environment, is it wise for the Atheist to 'be good' like everyone else is supposedly being 'good?' I would think it would be the duty of the Atheist to change society in order to get humanity to stop breeding even though that would be very unpopular and even considered 'bad.'

If you're a Utilitarian or the like. Other ethical theories will say very different things about what's moral and what isn't. Read some Kant.

Or are you trying to assert without argument that Utilitarian/consequentialist understandings of what morality is are the right ones?

I know nothing about Kant or those isms. What do the other ethical theories use as a basis for morality?

"The state is the athiest's church, synagogue, and temple. Who will feed the starving child? The state. Who will care for the sick and the elderly? The state. Who will protect the athiest from the Christian? The state."

Nice strawman, Blasmaic. Unfortunately, and I don't know why this is so hard to fathom, but all an atheist is is someone who sees no evidence for a deity.

Beyond that, it's as mixed a bag as your likely to find, with libertarians, liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, etc. etc.

But if it makes you feel better to think otherwise, why let facts get in the way?

"No, "moral" describes behavior that alleviates the suffering of others or does not cause suffering for others."

If you're a Utilitarian or the like. Other ethical theories will say very different things about what's moral and what isn't. Read some Kant.

Or are you trying to assert without argument that Utilitarian/consequentialist understandings of what morality is are the right ones?

Religion does not seem to prevent their followers from commiting murder (as in the case of War, which is supposedly 'justified murder' for whatever reason, the acts are the same). It actually seems to make people MORE murderous since the bible books are formulated that way (breed lots of children, then go to war when you start starving because of overpopulation). An atheist would surely also get caught up in that mob formula as well from not understanding what is going on, or from pure starvation.

In the purely secular sense, it seems to mean "good". And what is labelled as "good" can probably be reduced to: 1) what the social consensus believes is "good" and 2) what we personally feel is "good" or conducive to our survival.

No, "moral" describes behavior that alleviates the suffering of others or does not cause suffering for others.

We atheists should never attempt to engage religious morons in any kind of serious discussion. The mere fact that these idiots believe in something that they cannot touch, feel, see or smell is the antithesis of rational humanity. You can trace all the ills of the world to one thing: Religion.

Screw them all.

Actually, the three percent who responded that they would not save a child drowning in a pond in order to preserve their dry clothes might be the only ones who can spot a rigged question!!

Jacoby's central problem is that Statism is the religion of the athiest. While others view murder as a sin and a crime, the athiest views it as only a crime. Hence, the highest moral authority for the athiest is the state -- Statism.

The state is the athiest's church, synagogue, and temple. Who will feed the starving child? The state. Who will care for the sick and the elderly? The state. Who will protect the athiest from the Christian? The state.

But 90 percent of the world population believes in some form of religion. Religious belief is as natural and undeniable as the lepoard's spots. When the state seeks to run all religion out of every aspect of life in a country, it isn't protecting the minority viewpoint. It is waging a de facto war against a competing institution, and seeking to supplant the role of Christianity or Judaism or Islam or Hinduism or Buddism with... Statism.

Richard Dawkins believes that Evolutionism should be taught like religion to children. That's a sign of his own evangelical crusade to usurp the role of religion in the lives of people. Dawkins and his intellectual running dogs aren't advancing science against ignorance. They're practicing religion.

Do we think that we're better than religious believers because we are capable of being good without the hope of eternal life or the fear of eternal punishment?

Well, I don't think I'm better than someone else is because I disagree with him on matters of religion, no.

But if he tells me that the only reason he is good is because he's terrified of Hell, and that if he weren't terrified of Hell he would do bad things, then... yes, I do think the grounding of my morals is superior.

People who claim that only terror makes them moral creep me out, because they're basically saying "I'm awful. Someone keep me in check."

I know I am not awful. I know that I want and try to be good, and that I would want and try to be good whether I was proven wrong on the God question or not.

The word "moral" is very hard to define objectively and without reference to theism. It comes with a lot of religious significance attached to it, even if that is now denied.

In the purely secular sense, it seems to mean "good". And what is labelled as "good" can probably be reduced to: 1) what the social consensus believes is "good" and 2) what we personally feel is "good" or conducive to our survival.

All cultures and all religions, for example, have prohibitions against murder but they define murder quite differently. When I said that it never occurred to me to murder anyone, I was not thinking of helping someone with a terminal illnes to die on his own terms--because I do not consider it murder to aid a person with a hopeless prognosis and a sound mind in his wish to end his suffering
---------------------------------------
So then it just becomes an argument on the definition of murder...

One other comment - was it really necessary to race-bait again? Susan - when you make snide comments about whites - you perpetuate the insecurity. When someone is always at fault, pretty soon they give up on trying to play nice. If you want better race relations, bring people together, don't box them up in nice little stereotypes. Sheesh.

Perhaps if their leadership could lay off the firey rhetoric by O'Hare, Hitchens et. al. they might find more friends and fewer foes. I've read Hitchens' articles and rather than a defense of atheism, they're always an attack on religion. People tend to respond to hostility with hostility.

News flash! The average Christian? (that includes the Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc.) - we don't really give that much thought to atheism. It's a small group that really doesn't show up on our radar - so they can do what they want, but they shouldn't expect warm hugs from church-goers when they have become defined by the hate-filled diatribes they write about us.

I see nothing offensive or objectionable in Susan's essay, even though I consider myself a Christian. But I can't help but wonder why she was offended by the talk-show host's question about what keeps atheists from committing murder? Obviously the host was trying to elicit (albeit in a less-than-hospitable manner) an explanation for the logical construct of atheist morality. Christians and other religions can easily support their views logically. Premise: belief in deity and belief that the deity commands certain behavior; reward or punishment follow. Conclusion: life activity should be consistent with premise. Whether some do it for the "reward" or to avoid punishment, or whether they do it for love of the deity, depends on the religion, denomination of religion, and to a lesser extent, personal mindset. But even if you think the premise is flawed, the construct is logical.

What is the atheist's logical construct? The question is not whether atheists are good or evil, but why are they good or evil? Why don't they feel free to murder whomever they wish? Why isn't that a logical conclusion for the premise that there is no God? Is the logical construct based on biology (i.e., we're hard-wired to be "good")? Something else? Susan assiduously sidesteps the entire issue by arguing that history contains examples of good atheists and evil believers. Fine, but it adds nothing to the question she introduced at the beginning. If her vignette proves anything, it's that she's easily offended and doesn't like to be challenged to explain herself. Which is also fine, but then I would recommend a profession other than the public airing of her views.

Atheists have no agent or proxy of, and no direct channel to an ethereal spirit upon which to unload the burdens of their consciences. Which means they take personal blame, maybe even in a grownup way. That is, of course, if they are not pestering other people with their guilts.

They have a distinct disadvantage to their religious others. Atheists cannot excuse themselves by simply telling their (F)ather they are sorry. Rather, their absolutions require a some measure of hard, and honest, work.

Susan Jacoby's argument is supported by a logical point that to my mind trumps all the other arguments. That an atheist is even able to engage in moral arguments, and that a religious person defends his religion on moral grounds, both prove that the moral statement is the basic premiss of humankind. Religions defend their positions on moral grounds because morally is intrinsic to the human condition.

People lacking a moral sense are not called atheists. They are called pyschopaths.

I'm suprised that Susan does not use the Natural Law theory to support her contention that atheists have as great a sense of morality as believers. Could it be because the Natural Law theory, based wholly on reason and nature, was promoted by great Catholic philospers such as Thomas Acquinas and Suraez? With her erudition Susan should take a course in rhetoric where one learns to persuade without offending. Hitchens and Dawkins could sign up for this class also.

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. - Mark Twain?

"I certainly see ample evidence that humans--at least as soon as they become aware of the existence of other humans--manifest a kind of empathy that predates maxims like the Golden Rule, which appear in one form or another in all decent ethical systems. Darwin called this the "instinct of sympathy," which he described as something that cannot be checked "even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.""

I believe the idea tha your blindly fumbling in the dark for is known as "natural law." Most of us have known about it for a millennium or two, but its nice that you and Pete are catching up.

Just for the record, Singer is widely acknowledged as the most immoral ethicist of our age -- not sure how much an alliance with him is going to do for you, but you go, girl!

Finally, you might want to review the Deist-Christian debates in 18th century English intellectual history, where Berkley, Law, and Butler are generally recognized as answering most effectively the shallow reasoning of the Deist hierarchy. It'll save the rest of us some boredom if you can skip the usual yada, yada and look for an original argument. That should keep you busy!

When I came 'out of the closet' a few years ago there was some turbulence regarding my atheism. But what my friends and family soon noticed was that I hadn't really changed at all and that I didn't want to tear down their make-believe world. Our actions speak louder than our words thus I leave most of the intellectual debate on atheism & religousness to those that have the mental capacity and time for determining how many atheists can dance on the head of a crucifix. I still live a moral life, I'm even a member of our corporate ethics committee. Like Susan, I'm tired of the jaded conversations where I'm cornered into proving what I don't believe. I often respond, "Can you tell me why you don't know all about Sumo wrestling?" which illustrates the silliness of their inquiry of why I don't understand their bible -although I lived in Japan for a decade and do like the sport. Perhaps my version of a make-believe world where there is no debate of atheism is about as real as 'bipartisian' legislation.

the claim to absolute truth--and the certainty that anyone who challenges that truth is a traitor who deserves to be punished--is common to religious and secular totalitarian ideology. Such ideology overwhelms both the naturalistic "instinct of sympathy" and the restrictions, both religious and secular, designed by civilizations to guard against the worst human impulses.

Good point. Part of the problem is that authoritarians and absolutists seem to use a definition of morality that has nothing to do with a moral sense or with general principles of help and harm. They seem to define morality as simply about following rules for the sake of following rules.

The idea of rules created by gods is inherently flawed, because anyone could come up with rule and claim that these were dictated by gods. There's no basis for saying that gods would be more likely to create some rules and not others. Obviously it's possible that rule-setting gods exist. The burden of proof is still on anyone, such as an author of scripture, to prove that his writings came from gods.

I think it IS necessary to promote awareness of objective measures of morals simply because we live in a society in which many people don't believe it.

Sam Harris has been arguing recently that we shouldn't even talk about "atheism" in the same way we don't talk about non-witches or non-astrologers. That would be true if our society didn't assume the opposite, such as holding a prayer at a large public meeting.

Facts like there being few atheists in prison are an important tool in educating the opposition.