All Comments (223)

I would say that you are right that some or many parents would not bother for their child as it happens in practice but it is best to give the child what is there so that he or she and the parents are not swallowed within the big pharmaceutical research industry (psychiatry) as test subjects. Prevention would do more than keep you and your children well it will cure big pharmaceutical money grubbers and their allies.

Bush was elected because the opposition built up a reserve that was spent before the election

I think you are at it medical help preys upon children who have no adequate support nor rights in any laws natural and not. Your children’s ills will be cured with another child's life. Do you remember the pregnancy test with the rabbit? I have met people who advocate non cruelty to animals and some are desperate adults and children because they know people make better test subjects than animals which to a Christian you will see more clearly are further detached from the human physiology than a human child and adult.

Only legislation has put in place the moral pillars necessary to make a moral society.

The religions have been a complete failure since the invention of "faith".

Witness that the "good christians" in Southern States stopped lynching blacks as laws were enacted to exact a price IN THIS LIFE for immoral behaviour.

Note that even the "good christian" mormons toed the line when the Great Society legislation was enacted. Now black males can "hold the priesthood". (well as long as they pay their money).

Nooses?

They have never been out of style among the hypocritical, southern and midwestern, "good christian", rednecks; but, Blacks are now protected from these "good christians".

The point.
Legistation is responsible for raising the bar of morality, i.e. conservatives are forced to be moral via threat of prosecution.

Health Care?
"good christians" have done nothing to provide for children's healthcare except as it has provided a tax deduction for the wealthy.

The "inconvienent truth"?

The churches use donations to further their existence, not for charity as Jesus encouraged.

Sadly, an immoral society tends to vote for immoral candidates, e.g. George Bush and the majority of republicans.

Nevertheless, little by little, we achieve a more moral society via legislation (FDR, JFK, LBJ) - not faith (we also lose morality via legislation Hitler, Lenin, Reagan, Bushes 1 & 2).

Jason:
**I'll thank the first politician who leads these issues away from children. Is it more important that children get treated rather than adults? No. Is it more devastating when children get no treatment, rather than when adults don't? No. It's a human. In either case. The only reason the politicians use children is for the emotional appeal.

And they're wrong.

Poor health care for adults is as bad as poor health care for their spawn.**

While it's true that health care for adults is important, I think there is a certain level of assumption that adults have the capability of providing at least basic health care for themselves,and if they don't then it's on them to deal with the consequences. . Granted, that is not always true, but there is an expectation that adults can fend for themselves to a large extent.

Child health care is treated as a more critical issue for the simple reason that if an adult does not provide health care for a child, whether due to inability or unwillingness to do so, the child has no other options. Children cannot fend for themselves. At that point, we have two basic options - allow the child to suffer for the irresponsibility or inability of the parent, or step in and provide what the child needs.

George,

If that was a jab at me, you misunderstood the point of my last post to you. I pointed out that your double-dare of "gimme one good reason" was false because you've been presented with many.

P.S. I am not an Atheist.

I can imagine a world in the future where gods are seen as relics of our weird religious past.We are not yet quite ready,but getting there,especially since the religious insanity of September 11,2001,which no doubt prompted atheists to come out of the closet and add their voices to the current conversation on the relevance of religion.
Those of us who overcame, or avoided,religious indoctrination,are no longer comfortable being silent on this issue,which is the biggest issue of our time.
The supernatural world is the world of our imagination.We have to understand that our imaginings have nothing to do with reality.
The future of our civilization may depend on it.

George Evanick

You only show up when your strongest critics are absent.
You avoid responding to them because they have logic on their side,and you have superstition and wishful thinking.
You are not only deluded.you are also chicken.

Waldo Turner

Anonymous: and Einstein didn't agree with Bohr all the time, but just ask the people of Japan whether they would bet on them to build something or the "scientists" who gave us the creation museum and think the world is 6000 years old.

The Moderate:

Robespierre, like most of the Jacobins, was a Deist not an atheist. There was a nasty little contingent of atheists among the Jacobins led by Hebert and Chaumette, and they wrought some havoc with the Catholic clergy for a short time, but Robespierre executed virtually all of them in April and May of 1794. In fact, on June 8, 1794, Robespierre proclaimed that the Deist 'Supreme Being' was an integral part of the Revolution.

Pontificating can be good, but only if your facts are straight. Yours aren't.

If you lived in "this world" without war, you wouldn't be allowed to write these opinions or to respond to them without government approval - the same government that will let you know when your child is sick. You know, sort of like your local school district.

And here we are right back where we started with the Atheist argument; the scientists have thousands of reasons, which are too elusive for anyone to comprehend except the Atheist. And so they don't bother to mention any because it would be a waste of their time on us simple folk. You disagree with their interpretation of the evidence and their rebuttal is that you're delusional. That's some science you have there. Well, I've had enough fun for one day. I need to get started on my ark, I heard about this guy Al Gore and some scientists that said the sea level is going to rise twenty feet within the next 100 years. Oh, and then there is the NASA scientist, James Hanson I think, who told us it was Global Cooling in the early 70's and now it's Global Warming and anybody that disagrees with him is a court jesture - a scientific method only an Atheist could appreciate. Good luck and thanks for the responses.

Fellow Atheists let us think. People who disagree with us are delusional; amen.

And here we are right back where we started with the Atheist argument; the scientists have thousands of reasons, which are too elusive for anyone to comprehend except the Atheist. And so they don't bother to mention any because it would be a waste of their time on us simple folk. You disagree with their interpretation of the evidence and their rebuttal is that you're delusional. That's some science you have there. Well, I've had enough fun for one day. I need to get started on my ark, I heard about this guy Al Gore and some scientists that said the sea level is going to rise twenty feet within the next 100 years. Oh, and then there is the NASA scientist, James Hanson I think, who told us it was Global Cooling in the early 70's and now it's Global Warming and anybody that disagrees with him is a court jesture - a scientific method only an Atheist could appreciate. Good luck and thanks for the responses.

Fellow Atheists let us think. People who disagree with us are delusional; amen.

UUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
UUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Dear Mike:

"We get it folks. You hate Christians and America. Kudos. It's sad to think that so many devote so much time to their obsessive hatreds.

Tell me again why your hateful zealotry is any different than the most radical fundamentalist."

Well said. Many of the posters here should read this and understand that it describes them perfectly. More reason and less hate speech would do these blogs a lot of good.

One more post by a moronic Atheist who says: "Bugga! Bugga! The Spanish inquisition!" and who cries "foul" when it is rightly pointed out that the patron saints of Atheism (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Robespierre) murdered about sixty-five thousand times more will be one too many. After which sophomoric display, they claim to be "logical" and go off in high dudgeon.

So stick to your opinions. You have something to add here.

Let us pray.UUMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmUUUUMMMMMMMMmmmmm
uuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmUUUUuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Arminius: "And can you imagine, or give another example of, a major religion growing out of a complete fabrication?"

Yes, Judaism. But I’d call it mythology, not fabrication. Also Roman and Greek Paganism, which has been accepted as mythology for centuries.

Meanwhile, back in (virual) reality, liberal and moderate Christians are needed on the Gerson (guest) thread. It’s not nearly as rowdy over there and sure could use your input. Right now, it’s mainly St. George and the dragons, I mean atheists. Come on over and bring some of those nice Episcopalians from your church group with you.

Arminius,

I think part of that may be that none of those religions or philosopies claim that a mortal was God.

The other reason might be that none of them prolesyze like Chrtistians do.

Yet, another reason might be the moral majority ministers that tried and still try to cram their beliefs down everyone's throat.

I also don't think this is an issue in other countries, notably European ones, this appears to be an American dilemma.

I don't really have an asnwer for it, I can only surmise this might be part of the puzzle.

Best wishes,

Gaby

Gaby,

RED ALERT! We are both replying on Starhawk's thread. Something in common here....

Arminius

George,

That is the first reasonable thing you've said! And to throw Pink Floyd into the mix...well...now we're talking!

There is nothing either side can say to the other to sway them in any major way. To ask something like "Give me one reason I should believe in what you say and not what is written in the first four books of the New Testament" is dishonest. All the Atheists on this board and all the scientists in the world could give you thousands of reasons to not believe the Bible. But you are so certain that you hold the truth, not a lick of it would sink in.

If atheists fear religion,and are always going on about it,as some commenters complain,one reason is 9/11. It was all about religion.
I wonder if George S.believes the September 11 terrorists are now in Paradise with Allah.
The terrorists believed it otherwise they would not have blown themselves up.They had as much faith as George has. And now where are they? I would say dead.Just dead.The terrorists were scammed;despite their education,and their high intelligence.Religion is a scam.That's why there's not a scrap of evidence to suggest otherwise.There is no God,and no Hereafter. Its time we grew up.

Gaby,

As to raising kids, well, when I was raising my two, I was an agnostic/atheist (depending on how I felt that day). I intentionally let them know that religion was their own decision. Since then, I have returned to Christianity. Yes, my kids are puzzled, but they have their own journeys to make up that Mountain.

There are historical references to Jesus, notably in Josephus. All are disputed. But..... the Gospels seem to hold together, and, despite the differences, come across as, on the whole, genuine history. And can you imagine, or give another example of, a major religion growing out of a complete fabrication? And why is it that no one disputes the existence of Buddha, Mohammad, Confucius, etc.? Or Zoroaster? Any historical documents there?

Oh, well. Enough is enough.

With respect,

Arminius

On another thread,a commenter suggests taking religion out of schools and replacing it with classes in general philosophy.
It would seem a wonderful idea to teach children how to think,and reason critically;which is the opposite of pushing religion into their heads,when we don't even know ourselves for certain that there are gods.
To teach kids to believe in the supernatural,and gods,and devils and such,is really outrageous,when we haven't the faintest idea if it's all true or not.
And it is likely not.

George,

Unlike the mythical Jesus Christ, we know what Caesar looked like and we have a complete history of his life. In turn, general, orator, historian, statesman and lawgiver. We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by both his friends and his enemies. Artifacts confirm his life and death, as do his successors. We also have that knid of information about Plato.

Jesus, in turn, has left nothing behind. His birth and death dates are resconstructed based on which historical figures as named in the gospels. We take the word of some guys, who can not be historically substantiated, to be the word of God? Does that sound logical to you?

Here are my thoughts on "brain-washing" , also called mental conditioning. We tend to brain-wash all the time. The way we educate our children is nothing but instilling our own morals and beliefs. If you say something often enough, and perhaps even put a little threat in there (i.e. no TV, no allowance, etc.) they will obey (hopefully). And sooner or later it will become second nature to them. Some call that child rearing, others call it brain washing. I am a firm believer that we are mostly a product of our upbringing.

I chose not to teach anything about religion in my house but neither did I prohibit it. It was simply a non-issue. When my daughters got older and started inquiring I told them to do their own research and choose whatever they are comfortable with. One decided there was insufficient evidence to believe anything, the other is studying Buddhism. I have developed my own theories about a "god" and feel very comfortable with it.

Like I said before, I am not bashing or anything, but I truly believe that the reason so many people are so deeply devout is because they have been conditioned from early childhood. I think that if you did not introduce religion into the life of a child before they are around 15 years old, they would be vastly less religious people.

As far as your initiative to help the children goes, I shal contact you via e-mail.

Hello, Gaby,

I am sorta in agreement. A $1 tax increase I have no problem with. But if it approaches the $7 a pack as in NYC, I will begin looking for the black market. There are limits.

George Evanick;

I posted this in response to your comments on another thread to which you never returned.
I just wanted to say that most atheists were once
Christians of one stripe or another,and got over it;and you could too.(to use a Colbertism)
I fear for your daughters.They are doomed to be indoctrinated it would seem,no matter what you call it.
Why don't you let your offspring choose for themselves what to believe about gods,existence and the supernatural? Why push into their heads primitive mumbo-jumbo that is almost certainly misguided?
After all George,as 'far as we know', there are no gods.
If you insist on keepin a compendium of atheists' comments,for their edification,as you say you do,you might want to call it
"Open Minds; Thoughts of Those Who Overcame Religious Indoctrination."
Actually George,it seems like a wonderful idea;and I dare you to do it. It would counteract your indoctrination in a very fair way. You would at least be showing them what the opposition believe,
and do them the world of good.
Most religious parents would rather their children not know about the existence of atheists. So I hope you follow through on that wonderful commitment. Your daughters could grow up to be very special.

Andrea,

Exactly my point; I don't expect you to believe what I say. Don't take anyone's word for it. Understand what you believe in; otherwise, how can it possibly mean anything to you. I don't put my faith in Christians, I put my faith in Jesus Christ and his message. I don't expect anyone to automatically believe anything I say as wholesale truth, including my daughters. I'm just another Earth bound misfit. The Atheist are launching an all out assault on hundreds of millions of people of faith, not just Christians, and simply lumping them into a category as delusional. The claims have been made; where is the premise? The Atheists fall short on this and call themselves reasonable. Is Darwinian Evolution the final answer to our origins? I don't know - do you? Still looking for an answer....

George

Hi, Arminius!

I am a heavy smoker as well and I also don't mind to pay SOME extra tax. But the way it's going in my state, it'll soon be $2/pack. I find that excessive. To overtax one segment of society for the benefit of the whole is wrong.

This thread seems to be turning into the verbal equivalent of a bar fight. So I thought I should put in a few words before it gets completely out of hand.

First, as an American, I do not consider the Shrub a bigot. (n.b., Shrub = Bush = Darth Dubya.) He is a sad, ineffective fool, the best living example of the Peter Principle, which states that most people are eventually promoted beyond their level of competence. Apparently the Shrub's level of competence was pretty low, he seems to have screwed up nearly everything he ever touched. Sort of a reverse Midas touch. The mob of clueless neocons around him, well, that's another matter....

Next, smoking. I am a heavy smoker, but I have no problem whatsoever with paying more for my stupid habit. As long as I know that it will be spent to provide better health care for children, it will be money not wasted, but invested in our future.

Arminius

Gaby,

What is the intellectual statute of limitations for how long ago something was written to be believeable and where does this standard come from? Was Jesus brain-washed? I think he paid a huge price for not agreeing with the popular consensus, of course that's if he really existed. I guess there's no proof Julius Caesar, and Plato existed either.

Are you brain-washed? Are we all brain-washed? You don't need to have faith in anything? If you don't need faith in your life I guess there's nothing left to say.

Nonetheless, if anyone is seriously interested in raising money for the children in need of access to medical care in the US now, let me know what I can do to contribute, regardless of your faith. Or you could just wait for the Government.

Mike: "Further evidence that atheist zealots are no different the religious zealots. You both are assured that you know the truth about the nature of the universe and that any who don't share your enlightened view is flawed. You guys remind me a lot of Jerry Falwell"

Please consider that your determination to write off atheism as just another form of zealotry prevents you from looking at it logically.

There is no evidence that the stories in the Bible are factual. They read like myths - because they are myths. That's why faith is required to believe in them.

Well, Mike, that is your prerogative, but you know what they say about assumptions, don't you?

You got it in YOUR narrow-minded head that I am telling you how to live. Far from it. This is a discussion board, and I tried to have a discussion with George Evanick, when you butted in.

All of your statements were assumptions and you were wrong in all of them. So there's nothing left to say.

Mike,

do you read a newspaper once in a while? Or only watch Fox News? Bush talked about WWIII in his recent speech.

What is "passive nonsense"? My English knowledge is limited.

I don't think a prominent US university would have invited me to teach if they had thought that I am contemptuous of America.

I call a bigot a person who claims he is talking to god to start an unprovoked war (Hussein was an enemy of al Qaida and, supported by the US, had fought a 10 years' terrible war against Iran). I feel comfortable with this definition of "bigot" and in unison with most Americans.

Putting me aside, I think you could catch up a bit on your logic potential, comparing Gaby to Falwell - where is the common denominator? Is that what you would call "passive nonsense"?

Is "passive nonsense" everything that differs from your unfounded opinions?

Please, don't call me hostile to America only because I think you produce a lot of ruibbish

George E has laid down the gauntlet on the Gerson thread too. Check it out - pretty good discussion over there, I think

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/11/gerson/allcomments.html

Mike - how do you know what atheist parents do?

and what are atheist beliefs? Atheist means non-belief in Gods. did you know that? Atheism is not a religion with a set of beliefs.

Mike: the difference, which I admit is not always clear, is that I am not trying to prove anything with my points, because I know I can't and shouldn't try. I am just poking holes in what I believe is the equally illegitimate effort by the faithful who are not content to just believe and leave me alone, but who rant about all the supposedly obvious reasons I am a fool.

Robin:
"However, I do not feel that anywhere in teh Constitution does it require the government to pay health care for its citizens."

In a sense, it does. The Preamble states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

One could convincingly argue that the extending better health care to children and pregnant mothers does help to promote the "General Welfare."

I agree that the government should not do this if the people could resolve the issue, that charity should rule. However, since the people have demonstrated a marked inability to address the problem, it falls to government. Personally, (speaking as a disabled veteran) I have my doubts that government can effectively care for anyone.

Let's face it. Neither you nor I can deal with the rapaciousness of the Insurance industry and that is at the root of the problems in our health care system. The very power of insurance companies is why there cannot be any meaningful reform.

Tax smokers to pay for health care? Of course. Smoking causes a variety health problems and exacerbates others. My asthma, ear and sinus problems, and scarred lungs are from others who considered it their right to smoke.

Finally, it's not guns or butter. We have enough wealth that we can underwrite both.

Mike

Joet:

I'd agree that the majority of athiest were not brainwashed. However, that does not address my point, which is that athiest parents are just as likely to pass their beleifs on to their children as religious folks, either through "brainwashing" or simple osmosis.

Why are you so concerned about "pointing out logical problems with how the faithful behave". If you are an athiest, than fine. If you want to evangelize your beliefs, than that's fine too. Just understand that you are behaving much in the way as the faithful people you seem intent on improving.

Your logic question is a good (albeit obvious) one. I even tend to agree with your answer. However, I just don't understand why people get so crazy when someone comes up with a different answer.

Mike: I dare say the majority of atheists weren't brainwashed by their parents. An atheist parent has no need to do that. I also suspect most atheists are like myself - brought up in the faith of their parents only to lose that faith later in life. I was raised Catholic, and even joined Opus Dei. I don't bash anyone, let alone the faithful. When I point out logical problems with how the faithful behave, it is in response to the faithful trying to prove their faith with logic or authority, which is illegitimate (if faith could be proved, it wouldn't be faith, it's an insult to god to argue for his existence with mortal tools). I don't pretend to be able to prove his non-existence, I fully admit that that's impossible, in fact, I insist that it is. but the opposite is also true. I just ask for intellectual honesty. I have yet to hear anyone respond to my point about the implications of the faithful all claiming to have been luckily born to parents of the true faith. of course the bible could be divinely inspired despite its dubious origins and history, but don't act like there isn't an issue.

Gaby:

No, I don't feel silly comparing you to Jerry Falwell. You both think your spirtuality is the right one and you are both contemptuous of those who dont share your narrow and bigoted views.

Thanks for telling us how we should live to be correct. I am taking copious notes, Madame Falwell.

I have heard of NATO. It is the milittary alliance that European nations particapte in nominally. Depsite teh fact that Afghanistan seems to be deemed a legitimate war, the failure of Europe to participate in a meaningful way is illustrative. Your troops are there, but refuse to participate in combat missions. Thanks for the help.

Please send us a list of your demands so Europe can "regain the respect they once had towards the US of A." Would you like our list of demands so we can can respect Europe? I doubt it.

Your remarks throughout the board are contemptuous of America, not just Bush, so spare me your passive aggressive nonsense.

I called you a hysterical ranter because your blitehring post about Bush beign a bigot, the imminence of WW3, etc is just that: a hysterical rant.

BTW: what country are you a citizen of? I'd like the opportunity to criticize it.

Thanks

Well, Mike, you are making a lot of assuptions here.

First, whoever said I was an atheist??? I have my own set of beliefs (non-Christian) but ususally do not discuss them publically.

Second, faith is like an addiction, there is no doubt about it. I never said anything about drug addiction. There are plenty of other addictions around.

Third, we brain-wash all the time. The way we educate our children is nothing but instilling our own morals and beliefs. If you say something often enough, and perhaps even put a little threat in there (i.e. no TV, no allowance, etc.) they will obey (hopefully). And sooner or later it will become second nature to them. Some call that child rearing, others call it brain washing. I am a firm believer that we are mostly a product of our upbringing. I chose not to teach anything about religion in my house but neither did I prohibit it. It was simply a non-issue. When my daughters got older and started inquiring I told them to do their own research and choose whatever they are comfortable with.

Now don't you feel silly, to compare me with zealots and Jerry Falwell.

Mike,

it will surprise you that in the age of globalisation I do care what Americans think of Europeans: We are in the same boat, as even you might have noticed. Ever heard of NATO? And I wish Europeans could regain the respect they once had towards the US of A.

And I repeat: I don't hate America, how could I, having partly been brought up there, learned your language etc., taught there at a university. I, like the majority of your countrymen, despise your present administration, which I regard as a threat to world peace, and which has a mentality unfit for the 21st century. It certainly and fortunately is NOT America!

There is a first time for everything: Being name called a "hysterical ranter" for lack of an argument is a linguistically welcome premiere for me. "It helps to increase my word power"...

George,

You did not address the part of my post where I questioned the timing of your "throw-down." It seems to me that you chose a discussion in which minimal barbs were being thrown on a topic that has little to do with religious beliefs to set up an argument where you had thought up rebuttals to responses that had not yet been posted. Instead, you dismiss my “magical insight.” Tell me, George, where does your magical insight come from? Give *me* one reason I should believe what *you* say.

Gaby:

Do you think that kids brought up in athiest households are any less "brainwashed"?

Spare us your silly plea fro "the courtesy to disbelieve what you believe" as you compare other's faiths to drug addiction and brainwashing.

Further evidence that atheist zealots are no different the religious zealots. You both are assured that you know the truth about the nature of the universe and that any who don't share your enlightened view is flawed. You guys remind me a lot of Jerry Falwell.

George,

"Give me one reason I should believe in what you say and not what is written in the first four books of the New Testament. If I shouldn't have faith in God, then whom should I have faith in?"

Well, George, for one why would you want to believe something that was written approximately 2000 years ago by some guys you can't even verify they existed (other than what the bible calls them). Modern scholars differ on precisely by whom, when, or in what original form the various gospels were written. I kind of compare it to reading the gossip magazines versus reliable news.

Plus, I don't understand your whole obsession of having to place you faith in something. Why? Is it not enough to place your faith in the here and now? Or do you need to believe in some supernatural being because you need an afterlife? Unfortunately, the real world can't give you that assurance.

On the other hand, maybe you were "brought up to be a Christian", in which case you were brain washed from early childhood on that one MUST have faith. I understand that for many people that is a hard thing to shake, much like an addiction.

I am not faulting you, far from it, you have every right to believe whatever you wish. But please give me the courtesy to disbelieve what you believe.

Tim Mac:

Thanks for proving my point, which was that, reagardless of the subject, these boards untilmately turn into excuses for angry liberals to ply us all with their boring polemics about how bad America and/or Christians are.

Your post is a fine example. Like most liberals, you cant address any question or issue without going off on a "Bush/Chrisians/America bad" rant.

Ask an angry liberal what time it is and he'll bend your ear for an hour about how bad America is. Yawn.

Gerry:

I'll say it again. We care about as much about your opinion of us as you care about our opinion of you. Do you care what Americans think of Europe?

Great. You hate us and you are a hysterical ranter. Am I supposed to care?

Andrea,

Is it possible to not allow someone to make up their own minds? How do you do that? Enlighten us with your magical insight.

A. Thorn,

The Atheists are the one's arguing Christians are delusional and the Bible is nonsense. Prove it. Impress me with your profound and elusive knowledge. Your response is typical of Atheists; you respond with questions or you refer me to read someone's book.

None of you dare balance your arguments with any references to the tyrannical ramblimgs of Mr. Dawkins or the simple minded correlations of Sam Harris, whose great scientific mind can so quickly evaluate the depth of people with red state - blue state statistics and calculate them as either competent or delusional. Of course only those that dare not refute evolution are competent. Both of these guys must rank as Atheists team captains at least.

I think Charles Darwin was an immensely insightful and somewhat courageous man who dared to question the answers and challenged the popular consensus of his day. But now his magnificent work has suffered a hostile takeover by passive-aggressive zealots that have abandoned true science and embraced the popular consensus and anyone who doesn't accept their dogma are simply labeled delusional, regardless of anything else. In their perspective Sam Harris is an insightful intellect, and Dr. James Dobson a delusional threat to mankind, reason and free thought. In his prose on C-Span, Mr Harris asserts with his immense and profound analytical mind that the embryo that evolved into each of my beautiful daughters could not be considered a human life and my disagreement with him is obscene. I loved my daughters from the day my wife and I learned of her pregnancy and I thanked God for such a wonderful gift. But to Mr. Harris and his highly educated distinguished colleagues, this is just another chapter of my sad delusion. And yes I've heard all the arguments about if God were so loving and if God were so perfect - the crux of the argument being that even if such a God does exist, he doesn't meet my standards of what God should be. I believe Mr. Dawkins or Mr. Hitchens would be so kind to fill you in on that one. I don't know why God allows suffering. Why do we humans allow suffering - natural selection?

Should I reconsider evolution? After witnessing the persecution that evolves out of the mouths of its most respected champions - I really don't see any REASON to.

Regarding getting serious, the ball is in your court. If you want to contribute to helping the children, I'm with you. I believe we are all "fearfully and wonderfully made" and all capable of doing good or evil. It's our choice.

George Evanick

Well, Mike, I don't hate America nor do I hate Christians even though I disagree with your general tone and rhetoric.

I happen to think that people actually matter. And from that, I think that taking care of people is actually important. I think it's OK to pay taxes in order to make sure that the resources are available to take care of people. I learned those things from the Bible, oddly enough.

I've seen firsthand the consequences of government on the cheap, on 8/1/07 when the I-35W bridge collapsed into the Mississippi River injuring many and killing 13. The bridge was allowed to go without maintenance and repair for nearly two decades because cutting taxes was more important.

I see firsthand the consequences of government on the cheap every single day at work. I see people whose lives could have been much, much better if they had had good access to affordable health care throughout their lives. And I see the condition of those people now costing taxpayers far more than making that good health care available decades ago. In the long run, a sane health care system will save taxpayers billions of dollars in health care costs a year.

George: are you going to tell your daughters to thank God they weren't born to your Jewish or Muslim neigbor because if they were they would be denigrating your kids? that they just happen to have the true faith because you were lucky enough not to have been switched at birth with a Jewish parent? are you going to illustrate to them the logical absurdity of everyone believing that they were just luckily born of parents who passed down the true faith for generations? the very fact that almost everyone practices the faith of their parent, and the utter capriciousness of this fact to the faith of the child should alone give the faithful pause.

This argument about spending on war versus spending on domestic issues is tiring. We are a militarist people who for most if not all of our existence have chosen war over other more pressing needs. Yet we try to delude ourselves that we are a loving bunch. Ask the Native American, the Mexican, the Phillipino, the Cuban, the Columbian, the Nigarauguan, the Iraqi. We do what we want, when we want because we have the power and we don't care about the consequences. Agree or disagree with how your tax dollars are spent, yet please be honest about who we are.

Mike,

my friends and family and I are personally afraid that a bigot US president, who speaks with god, will lead the world into WWIII, which he has already talked about, and some of us are old enough to remember what WW means. He uses fear to reign, read the most recent musings of Rumsfeld. His latest stunt comparing the Democrats to the Hitler appeasers is a deadly proof of my point. (Iran has about 1% of the US military strength). As I said, I was partly brought up in the US and loved it very much, therefore I regard myself as half American. Today, I feel a lot of solidarity with the many American friends I have (actually in step with the US majority, finally!), and with quite a few posters, American and others, on this thread, who have the same feeling. That's why.

Otherwise I don't hate anybody, which does not prevent me from doing my own independent non-religious thinking.

Let's not quarrel about xenophobia in the light of your illegal Latinos quandary. It seems to be a general human problem. It will not be solved through religion.

I don't post in Postglobal.

George,

That reminds me of a quote from the great film "Dances with Wolves." I might be paraphrasing here, but it went something like this...

"Pffffft. Put that in your book."

Seriously though, George, your double-dare is conspicuously misplaced in this discussion. It would better suit your premeditated pursuits in a discussion that is more heated on either side. This is a social issue, not a religious one. I do hope that when your daughters are old enough, by your standards, to receive this book of opposing viewpoints, you'll allow them to make up their own minds.

So funny!

"Unlike you, I would not be as arrogant as to speak for my entire country, let alone my whole continent.

That being said, le me speak for the large number of Americans who are as deeply unipmressed with Europe as many there are with America."

Speaking "for a continent" is arrogant, but only speaking for a "large number of Americans" isn't?

Is less arrogance better than more arrogance even though it's still arrogance??

Is it arrogant of me to think it's really just hypocracy?

George:

"Give me one reason I should believe in what you say and not what is written in the first four books of the New Testament. If I shouldn't have faith in God, then whom should I have faith in?"

My I respond to this with a question of my own? Do you believe everything you read?

The Bible was compiled 1-2 centuries after Jesus died. We have no idea if what we have no is actually the teachings of Jesus, or just a nice story. Worse than that, the documents we DO have have shown tremendous changes throughout the various transcriptions and translations that they have gone through. While it is fine to believe the larger picture of what the Bible says, I wouldn't take a whole lot of stock in any individual line being correct.

Also, why don't you believe in what the Quran says, or just the Torah? Why the Bible? We're not trying to convert you to atheism. If you wish to believe in God and Jesus Christ, more power to you. However, don't try to convert us, either. That's really all we ask. Well, that and the fact that science should trump matters of belief when it comes to a person's health and well-being.

"Please also bear in mind I'm collecting all of your communication, verbatim, and including them in a compendium on Atheism for my daughters to read when they're older. Thank you for sharing your thoughts."

Good. I hope you're also collecting a compendium of sayings from Fred Phelps, Chuck Colson and the like about what Christianity is about. And I hope you show this to her at the same time as you show her what atheists have been saying here. I mean, good for you to let your daughter see what other people's points of view are, but don't sugar-coat your own point of view.

"If anyone wants to get serious about this and knows of or wants to start an organization to help ensure our children have basic health care please email me at G.Evanick@comcast.net."

Now, given what you say after this, I have to wonder, would atheists, pagans, muslims, etc be welcome to help you start this up? Or are we too evil and sinful to want to help out?