'Secular' Is not a dirty word for governments

Carstonio

You wrote, "Dawkins seems to ignore the possibility that gods may be comprehensible for humans and we just haven't discovered how."

Dawkins may or may not have ignored this possibility but what he has pointed out is that God just might be beyond our "comprehension".

Dawkins seems to have also ignored the possibility that God can and does reveal that God Is and that God is capable of doing this in a direct and personal way.

You then wrote, "My response quote is, "If there are gods, then any assertion about what kinds of gods these would be bears the burden of demonstrating why that would be so." "

I have already answered that "assertion" but I will present it again.

God revealed to me that: God Is a Being of Pure Love and that God Is a Trinity.

I know that I can not "prove" this and God did not put that "responsibility" on me, God chose me to speak, it will be God, Who will "prove" that God Is and God will do that in due time, God's Time.

You then wrote, "When believers and atheists talk about "God" as if one being was the only reasonable likelihood, both sides seem to be proceeding from Christian or Abrahamic assumptions."

I would say that when most speak of One "God" that it does come from a "Christian or Abrahamic assumptions", as you put it, but there are many around the world, including here in the USA, that speak of multiple gods or speak of god or gods as being something other than a being or Being, such as a force or energy.

You then wrote, "It was common in the old Westerns to water down the Indians' varied religious beliefs into "Great Spirit" worship, as if they were simply Christians in buckskins."

I know virtually nothing about the various beliefs of different groups of Indians but it isn't only in the "religious beliefs" area that the diversity of our predecessors on these continents have been glossed over.

You also wrote, "And both sides also talk as if the existence or non-existence of "God" can be proven by logical argument alone."

This does seem to be the case with quite a few but I, having met God, believe that God and only God can "prove" that God Is and that all of the logical arguments in the world will never "prove" the existence or non-existence of "God".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas, the quote from Dawkins that I found was, "If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed." I would question even that. Dawkins seems to ignore the possibility that gods may be comprehensible for humans and we just haven't discovered how. My response quote is, "If there are gods, then any assertion about what kinds of gods these would be bears the burden of demonstrating why that would be so."

That includes even the assertion that there are a certain number of gods. When believers and atheists talk about "God" as if one being was the only reasonable likelihood, both sides seem to be proceeding from Christian or Abrahamic assumptions. It was common in the old Westerns to water down the Indians' varied religious beliefs into "Great Spirit" worship, as if they were simply Christians in buckskins. And both sides also talk as if the existence or non-existence of "God" can be proven by logical argument alone.

Carstonio

You wrote, "I wasn't saying you experienced an emotion. I was implying that no one can know what is in another person's mind."

As far as I know, at least concerning us human beings, it is true about "no one can know what is in another person's mind", but meeting God was not something that was in my mind.

You also wrote, "Such people may be using "believe" as a synonym as "accept as factual based on evidence," and not in its actual meaning of "hold a proposition to be true irrespective of evidence.""

Seems as if quite a few use "believe" and "know" as synonyms but they aren't synonyms.

Have you ever heard the "If there is a God..." quote from Richard Dawkins that was printed in Time magazine in Nov of 2006 in an article entitled God vs Science?

It is quite "incomprehensible", at least to me, that Love Is a Being, and yet, it is so.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

eezmamata

You wrote, "How about all the other humans, the vast majority, who have never had this emotion, this revelation, whatever word you choose to call it"

What about them?

Have you not had experiences that others have not had?

You then wrote, "if you are using it as evidence to prove your beliefs in your gods, should we not also pay attention to all the other people who have not had such an experience and use it to refute your proof?"

I am not trying to "prove" anything, I am just stating experiences that I have experienced.

As far as, someone not having an experience, as being proof that someone that has had an experience really didn't seems to be an absurd statement, don't you think?

You then wrote, "Far more people do not have this experience, FAR more, the vast expanse of human existence today and in the past in fact."

I would agree with you, these experiences, individually and collectively, came as quite a shock.

There is even something written in the bible concerning this, that could be pertinent and it comes from Matt 11:27, "All things have been handed over to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him."

This is why I "believe" that it was thru Jesus that I met the Father.

God knew that I needed to "know" some things as opposed to just "believing" and this "fact" could very well be the answer to your insight: "Far more people do not have this experience, FAR more, the vast expanse of human existence today and in the past in fact."

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

How about all the other humans, the vast majority, who have never had this emotion, this revelation, whatever word you choose to call it - if you are using it as evidence to prove your beliefs in your gods, should we not also pay attention to all the other people who have not had such an experience and use it to refute your proof?

Far more people do not have this experience, FAR more, the vast expanse of human existence today and in the past in fact.

If such an experience occurs where a person sees Elvis, or is anally probed by aliens, or sees Ra or Mithra or is told to kill George Harrison ... would we not assume first that he was a nut, that something was wrong with his brain?

We would, and so would you.

"I didn't say that I "experienced an emotion" but that I had a "revelation", direct and personal, from God."

I wasn't saying you experienced an emotion. I was implying that no one can know what is in another person's mind. That's one reason why ESP and psychic abilities can never be ruled out, although one can certainly test the claims of people who insist they have such abilities.

"The reason that I bring it up is because some have said that if they had "evidence" then they would "believe", what I am pointing out is that if one had "evidence" how could they possibly believe?"

Such people may be using "believe" as a synonym as "accept as factual based on evidence," and not in its actual meaning of "hold a proposition to be true irrespective of evidence."

Carstonio Part I

You wrote, "I can't disprove that for the same reason I can't disprove anyone's claim of experiencing a certain emotion at a certain point in time."

I didn't say that I "experienced an emotion" but that I had a "revelation", direct and personal, from God.

Not only can you not "disprove" it, I can not prove it.

As I have said on previous posts, I will not prove that God Is but God will "prove" that God Is in due time, God's Time.

You then wrote, "Still, I don't know that you had that revelation, only that you say that you had it."

This is true and not only is it true but there is not anyone else on the planet that "knows" that I had the experiences that I have had, even if they happened to be with me at the time of these "experiences", as I said they were "direct and personal".

You then wrote, "While that's an important distinction in principle, in practice it's not a major concern unless you're demanding that everyone treat the existence of that god as irrefutable fact."

I am not "demanding" anything, I am just here to speak about the Gospel, and by the Gospel, I am referring to the meaning of the word which is GOOD NEWS, not the four Gospels written in the bible.

And what I mean by this, is that the GOOD NEWS truly is Good News in that it is for ALL to be with God, ultimately, in God's Kingdom.

If the GOOD NEWS were not for ALL, ultimately, then not only would it not be Good News but it would be horrific news.

I wrote, ""Once you get "evidence" it isn't exactly "faith and belief" anymore, is it?""

You responded, "While I would agree in principle, I'm not sure why you bring that up."

The reason that I bring it up is because some have said that if they had "evidence" then they would "believe", what I am pointing out is that if one had "evidence" how could they possibly believe?

They would "know" wouldn't they?

Carstonio Part II

You then wrote, "I would turn that around to ask, if one doesn't have evidence, then why have the belief in the first place?"

As I have said, it there is "evidence" there is no room for belief.

As I have said on previous posts, God sometimes rewards belief with knowledge this side of the grave, at least God did in my case.

Case in point, so to speak, I know God the Father Is because I have met God the Father, I know God the Holy Spirit is because I have met God the Holy Spirit, I know the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus because the Holy Spirit revealed this to me, I do not know that Jesus is God-Incarnate, I do believe this however, but anyone that can change bread and wine into His Body and Blood to feed us, has my vote.

If Jesus was merely a man, like the rest of us, and not True Man and True God, God-Incarnate, of what value would the Eucharist be.

Something that a lot of people do not seem to have noticed is that Jesus instituted the Eucharist on Holy Thursday which happens to be before He went to the cross on Good Friday.

Jesus extended the invitation to "Come follow Me".

Something to think about: Is Jesus feeding us so that we can be "active participants" in God's Plan for the salvation and sanctification of not only the entire human race but of all of creation, by our participation not only in the "Easter Sunday" part but also the "Good Friday" part?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"What I tried to say was that on my part there was no "absence of evidence" in meeting God, only that the "evidence" was a "direct and personal" revelation from God to me."

I can't disprove that for the same reason I can't disprove anyone's claim of experiencing a certain emotion at a certain point in time. Still, I don't know that you had that revelation, only that you say that you had it. While that's an important distinction in principle, in practice it's not a major concern unless you're demanding that everyone treat the existence of that god as irrefutable fact.

"Once you get "evidence" it isn't exactly "faith and belief" anymore, is it?"

While I would agree in principle, I'm not sure why you bring that up. I would turn that around to ask, if one doesn't have evidence, then why have the belief in the first place?

Carstonio

You wrote, ""Scientific method" is somewhat too broad for the point I'm trying to make, since testability and falsifiability aren't exclusively scientific concepts. I have in mind more the methods of Sherlock Holmes, who strove to avoid speculation in the absence of evidence."

What I tried to say was that on my part there was no "absence of evidence" in meeting God, only that the "evidence" was a "direct and personal" revelation from God to me.

As far as "speculation", speculation about what?

You then wrote, "Faith and belief amount to holding a position irrespective of the evidence, even evidence that may support the position."

Once you get "evidence" it isn't exactly "faith and belief" anymore, is it?

I have said that I "know" some things and "believe" quite a few other things, so I have a combination of "knowledge" and "faith and belief".

Seems as if you do not have a problem with what "faith and belief" might be but that some would have "faith and belief" and be thankful that they have "faith and belief".

It does say in the bible that: "Faith is a gift that no man should boast", something to think about.

Seems as if some boast about their faith and it also seems as if some denigrate others for having faith, could this be one of those "two sides of the same coin" things?

You then wrote, "Those concepts disregard evidence as irrelevant."

Sometimes "faith" may be pointing out not that the "evidence is irrelevant" but that the "evidence" is pointing to something else.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"What I have also stated many times or have at least tried, is that the "principle of knowledge", as you put it, or actually knowing something as opposed to just believing something, is not confined to things that can be "scientifically verified" using the "scientific method"."

"Scientific method" is somewhat too broad for the point I'm trying to make, since testability and falsifiability aren't exclusively scientific concepts. I have in mind more the methods of Sherlock Holmes, who strove to avoid speculation in the absence of evidence.

Faith and belief amount to holding a position irrespective of the evidence, even evidence that may support the position. Those concepts disregard evidence as irrelevant. Note that I'm talking only about faith and belief as applied to questions of fact. Having faith in one's spouse or believing in one's country is a different matter.

Carstonio

You wrote, "I'm saying instead that faith and belief do not qualify as knowledge, yet faith and beliefs are regularly presented to others as irrefutable fact."

I agree that many consider "faith and belief" and "knowing" as meaning the same thing and they do not and I have written concerning this many times on these postings.

You then wrote, " That goes against the principle of knowledge, and it also does a disservice to others to claim to possess facts that one doesn't have."

What I have also stated many times or have at least tried, is that the "principle of knowledge", as you put it, or actually knowing something as opposed to just believing something, is not confined to things that can be "scientifically verified" using the "scientific method".

I do agree with you that there are many that claim to "know" something whereas they do not "know" but what they mean is that they believe and maybe even fervently believe.

There are also those that say they "know" and mean that they "know" and yet don't have a clue what they are talking about.

I know, by reading some of the comments about what I write on here, that there are those that do not believe that I have met God and that there are other things that I have experienced that are, to put it mildly, out of the ordinary.

It isn't that I have met God that I am trying to get across, per se, it is that since I have met God, I know that God is NOT the worthless, egotistical maniac that many seem to think (believe), and in some cases want, God to be.

You then wrote, "It may sound like I'm telling people what to believe, but that's only because my personal objection is to other people telling me things that aren't true. As I said, if one side insists as fact that gods exist and the other side insists as fact that gods don't exist, one side is saying something false."

I think that we can both agree that your statement here is true, but I would add, it is my contention, since I have met God, that some of those that say they "know" that God Is, really don't know but believe.

The reason I say this is because the "God", some of these speak of, even some that have God's Name right, is merely their "conception" of God.

You then wrote, "I would prefer if both sides said something like, "I suspect that gods probably (exist/don't exist) but I'm not sure, and I can't prove my suspicion, so please don't take my word for it.""

Before I met God, I would have said that I believed in God but since I have met God there is no way that I can merely say that I believe in God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
AMELIA45
“RELIGION”

IRT:
"I think they carefully and deliberately avoided that designation" [a Christian nation].

ANS:
They avoided a Christian designation, because that would be unchristian. Why? Because Christianity recognized that God endowed man with certain inalienable rights, and a free will. God endowed man with a free will that he might exercise the right to love God freely. If man was forced to believe in God, and man wouldn’t be acting freely.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04347a.htm

“Force, violence, or fraud may not be employed to bring about the conversion of an unbeliever. Such means would be sinful. The natural law, the law of Christ, the nature of faith, the teaching, and practice of the Church forbid such means. Credere voluntatis est, to believe depends upon the free will. Thus, the source of all Christianity is the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that all men are created equal and therefore has equal rights.”

IRT:
"They actually did not intend that any one religion be designated. They spoke of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God. Not once, in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, did they ever refer to Jesus or the Bible."

ANS:
The God of Nature is Jesus who taught that all men, born of the same nature, are created equal. No, they did not mention the Bible but they did mention the God who wrote the Bible. Namely, they were referring to a Christian God, and not to Hindu, Muslim, or Pagan gods like the Sun or Golden Calves, nor was the FF referring to the Buddha, or the Shinto, Fertility, or the Greek gods. Non-Christian religions for the most part failed to recognize that all men were created equal, or had equal rights.

Second, they weren’t going to force anyone to believe in God because, as said, that would be anti-Christian, and fundamentally ant-Catholic. Namely, most religions founded in America were fleeing from religious persecution under many forms in the countries from which they fled.

IRT:
"They did believe religion to be an important part of the lives of the people of this country."

ANS:
The Founding Fathers (FF) believed religion was very important; they believed America was a theocentric nation. In fact, Jefferson and Madison were forced by Christians to add the Bill of Rights into the Constitution, based on man’s God given rights, or there wouldn’t have been a Constitution.

Consequently, though they refrained to force anyone to believe in God, the FF relied on the majority to believe in God. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, “If not the Church, who should we seek for our guidance in our morals and ethics.”

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

"The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious, and ethically-minded group. Four were current or former full-time preachers, and many were the sons of clergymen."

Also, what is not mature about taking no position on a question where one doesn't know the answer? If I didn't see the most recent episode of Mad Men, I can't claim to know what happened to the characters on the show.

"you will realize that not all truth can be proven as fact."

Obviously there are some truths about human experience that aren't facts about objects or phenomena. But those truths are somewhat subjective since human experience itself is subjective, meaning that no two humans' experiences are exactly alike.

"what you want, sir is to have God Himself come down before his time and bludgeon you with his presence."

Not at all. I'm not challenging any gods themselves, but the people who claim to know that they exist (or that they don't) and who insist that I accept that as fact.

"Really is just an excuse to put yourself at the forefront of judging what is true or not, with the real underlying reason is that you don't want to be accountable to the creator."

Don't make assumptions about my motivations. It sounds arrogant when anyone claims that people who disagree with them are in denial, and I've heard that from atheists as well.

The reason it sounds like I'm "judging" is that people are both sides are demanding that I accept their claims as irrefutable fact. In the generic sense, I was minding my own business and they came to me. But we all make judgments every day as to what others want us to accept as fact. When others insist that we believe as they believe, of course we should greet the claim skeptically, not blindly rejecting it but not blindly accepting it, either.

Carstonio-

This is where I see you as a middle aged gentleman that is just not a mature human.

"I hold no such opinion. I'm saying instead that faith and belief do not qualify as knowledge, yet faith and beliefs are regularly presented to others as irrefutable fact. That goes against the principle of knowledge, and it also does a disservice to others to claim to possess facts that one doesn't have."

What you fail to understand is what Paul talks about in the letters to the churches. If you ask God honestly to open your eyes, you will realize that not all truth can be proven as fact.

what you want, sir is to have God Himself come down before his time and bludgeon you with his presence. That will not happen. He presented Christ to you for reason but when people tell you about Him you probably scoff, from your posts that I can tell.

Really is just an excuse to put yourself at the forefront of judging what is true or not, with the real underlying reason is that you don't want to be accountable to the creator.

"So it is your opinion, that by your decree, no one should be allowed to have "faith" or "belief", mighty nice of you to tell everyone else what is better for them."

I hold no such opinion. I'm saying instead that faith and belief do not qualify as knowledge, yet faith and beliefs are regularly presented to others as irrefutable fact. That goes against the principle of knowledge, and it also does a disservice to others to claim to possess facts that one doesn't have.

It may sound like I'm telling people what to believe, but that's only because my personal objection is to other people telling me things that aren't true. As I said, if one side insists as fact that gods exist and the other side insists as fact that gods don't exist, one side is saying something false. I would prefer if both sides said something like, "I suspect that gods probably (exist/don't exist) but I'm not sure, and I can't prove my suspicion, so please don't take my word for it."

Carstonio

You wrote, " Not knowing the answer doesn't give us the excuse to substitute faith or belief, because we could be wrong and not know it. Better no answer than a potentially wrong one."

So it is your opinion, that by your decree, no one should be allowed to have "faith" or "belief", mighty nice of you to tell everyone else what is better for them.

You can believe that there is no god or gods or God, but to tell everyone else that only this "belief" is allowed seems a little pushy and also quite unAmerican, don't you think?

That is at least one of the things that is nice, at least theoretically, about the founding documents of this country and this is that people are allowed to have their beliefs, not just to have their beliefs if their beliefs are allowed by others.

I may have misunderstood what you wrote but it seems to me that you agree with the "freedom of religion" thing more on a theorectical level than a practical level.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, God's Kingdom.

When God gives the "proof" that God Is, as I have stated previously, the "age of faith" will be over.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Catken1

You wrote, "The burden of proof is with those who wish to assert that God/dess/es exist/s, not those who wish to assert that S/He/It/They do not."

I have stated many times that God Is and that I have met God and that the "burden of proof" is not on me but that God will supply this "proof" in God's Time.

As you should know, when this "proof" is given, that will mean that the "age of faith" is over, considering that when this "proof" is given to the whole world, faith will yield to "knowledge".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

shrestbin

You wrote, "That somehow god will send his "son" or "messenger" or "himself" to one corner of the world to teach a section of humanity and will ignore the rest of humanity is at the least unbelievable."

You, most definitely, can not be speaking of Christianity, are you?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

jimjohnd

You wrote, " Making thing up (religion) is the simpleton's way out of having to think. I don't have a problem with 'I don't know'."

Seems to me by what you wrote you do have a problem with "I don't know", since you imply that you KNOW "Making thing up (religion) is the simpleton's way out of having to think", wouldn't you say that this is exactly what you wrote?

How do you KNOW this?

You also wrote, " I take comfort in the fact that the truth exists, even if I don't know what it is."

I take comfort in the "fact" that God knew that I needed to "know", as opposed to believe, some things to even attempt to do the "job" God chose me to do.

I "know" that God is a Trinity because I have met Who is referred to as God the Father and Who is referred to as God the Holy Spirit and it was the Holy Spirit Who revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, here is the Trinity.

I also "know" that God is a Being of Pure Love from the "fact" of meeting God the Father, there are other things that I "know" and there are also many things that I believe.

I have said many times that quite a few seem to think that the words (know and believe) mean the same and they do not.

God's Plan, which God has had since before creation, is for ALL, ultimately, to be in God's Kingdom and God's Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Carstonio

You wrote, "They want the country's culture and institutions, including government, to treat their idea of Christianity as the normal or default religion. That goal is inherently incompatible with the US being a nation of many different religions."

Not only is "their idea" against what the USA is about, it is also against what Jesus is about.

Jesus did not intend for us to set up a "theocracy" in His Name.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

amelia45

You wrote, "But I also think they saw that no one religion could always be right."

I think that it was as simple as they saw that someone's belief should come from the person, not the state.

Also, they saw what forcing one's belief on another did in Europe, other places and also in the very colonies of what was to become the USA.

You also wrote, "The tenets of faith are good to have but not sufficient to provide a blue print for governance in the world of man."

Jesus, Himself, said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Contrary to what has been attempted in Jesus's Name, Jesus did not become One of us, for us to set up a theocracy on Earth or any part of it.

I, personally, believe that the founding fathers were Divinely inspired, whether they knew it or not, in the seperation of church and state, which also includes temple, mosque, whatever, "religion", faith, beliefs, whatever words one may want to use, should come from within not imposed.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

That God is self-evident wasn't directed toward anyone. It was just explaining how God is self-evidnet.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

shafer-family said: She-who-must-not-be-named. Cute. You realize you are putting Ms. Palin as equal to Yahweh, don't you?
Posted by: schafer-family

____________________________

Actually, when I use it I am thinking of Valdemort. She-who-must-not-be-named is certainly a danger to the principles of this republic.

Our founders very carefully did not name the Bible or Jesus in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. If they had thought this should be a Christian nation, they would have said so. There was nothing cowardly in them, nor did they lack the skill to write what they meant.

They were almost all religious men and almost all were Christians. But they were not Christians of the ilk of today's Evangelicals or She-who-must-not-be-named or Huckabee. The founders saw the consequences of too much religion in government - that co-mingling of faith and government led to repression and death as one religion claimed they were closer to G-d or Jesus than the other.

We are not a Christian nation, even though most of us are Christian. We are a nation that welcomes all to worship G-d in their own way, even as a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or to not worship any creator at all, or to worship all expressions of G-d.

In his introduction to the Bill of Rights, James Madison wrote about the greatest danger to democracy being the imposition of the will of the majority upon the minority. That is what She-who-must-not-be-named and Huckabee espouse.

"Well, I do believe it is self evident. At the very least from the Deist's perspective."

Although you were directing that at me, the post to which you were replaying was by WhyYesBrain, not by me.

IS GOD SELF-EVIDENT?

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article1

“The existence of truth in general is self-evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us. A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us, on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man.

"If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all.

As is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition.

"Therefore, it happens, that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space. Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence. Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.

"To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else.

"Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally.

Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SARA121
POSTED FEBRUARY 3, 2011 9:35 PM
"THE BURDEN?"

IRT:
“Well, logically you cannot prove a negative. Religionists are the ones making a positive assertion of a theory, that god exists. That's why the burden of proof is on them.”

ANS:
Can a fool say nothing exist outside the mind, and some have, hence, the burden is to prove something does? To the contrary, even a fool has to have some reason for denying the obvious, the order of the Universe, the concept of Justice, one's conscience delineating right and wrong prove God exists. The burden even for a fool is to use their reason.

“To those who have faith, no proof is necessary; to those who have no faith, no proof is possible.” If an adverse truth was a 2X4 and hit an atheist between the eyes, he’d inevitably find some way to confuse his thought process into denying it ever happened.

There’s no problem or burden proving God exists if you use your reason. Aristotle the Father of Logic did it with his proof of the Prime Mover. He also showed why multiple gods are an oxymoron. Moreover, St. Thomas Aquinas also gave the famous Five Proofs of God’s existence from reason, and unless one is irrational, they are quite indisputable.

Further, we have the Scriptures, and thousands of witnesses who saw God’s intervention into the problems of man. For one, the Pharaoh finally figured it out after 10 plagues and losing his entire army. Sodom and Gomorrah figure it out too late. Elias proved God existed when he challenged 250 prophets of Baal to prove their gods existed.

Kings 8: 6cf.
"The prophets called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, “O Baal, hear us.” But there was no voice, nor any that answered: and they leaped over the altar that they had made. And when it was now noon, Elias jested at them, saying, “Cry with a louder voice, for he is a god; and perhaps he is talking, or is in an inn, or on a journey; or perhaps he is asleep, and must be awaked.

"So they cried with a loud voice, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till they were all covered with blood. And after midday was past, there was no voice heard, nor did any one answer, nor regard their prayers." That sums up the plight of an atheist.

The real God answered Elisa, and the 250 were killed by the people. The prophets realized that God existed too late." A word to the wise should be sufficient.

In spite of the life of Jesus was written some 300-400 years before Jesus’ birth by Isaiah and others, and Jesus fulfilled the prophets writings, Jesus made the lame walk, the blind see, cured the infirm, the leper, controlled the seas and heaven and all in them, and raised the dead, yet the Secularists want proof. No proof for an atheist is possible, they have abandoned their use of reason.

Sara-

If all the truth you ever gain while on this earth is gained only from the "scientific method"....you are a very sad individual.

All facts are truth, but not all truth can be proven as fact.

Carstonio-

"You presume that God's existance is self-evident. While I respect that viewpoint, my "elite 'superior' intellect" requires a more substantive argument in the face of the self-serving nature of religious dogma and the weight of all supposed religious explanations of natural phenomina that have been contradicted over the past 4000 years."

Well, I do believe it is self evident. At the very least from the Deist's perspective.

I challenge the doubters and you to read through the N.T. and ask themselves- does this world view describe what is wrong with mankind? Did Jesus claim to be doing what Paul said he did? Does sin exist in mankind? Does mankind have a issue within himself that only God and Christ can solve?

It is not the miracles people should suspect, they are few and far between and in this age God does not like to intervene overtly when a miracle occurs. It is that point in time where Christ was on the cross. What does that really mean? Can , if you ask the God you don't believe in, can he enlighten you as to what the words in the NT are saying to you?

tell Him why He dosen't exist
I repeat, I take no position on whether gods exist, and nothing in my posts should be read as implying otherwise. I've acknowledged repeatedly that the existence of gods is possible. Why would you care what I believe or don't believe, unless my stances are motivating me to hurt others?
I'm not asking any gods to prove their own existence. I'm asking any humans who claim that gods exist to prove this. Huge distinction. I also ask any humans who claim that gods don't exist to prove that contention as well. Why? Because both sides are demanding that I simply take their word for it, and it's their credibility on the line, not the gods they claim to represent or not represent.
Posted by: Carstonio | February 3, 2011 9:05 PM

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Fair enough, I understand your stand as you have stated it above. my bad.

Sara121 wrote in part.

Well, logically you cannot prove a negative. Religionists are the ones making a positive assertion of a theory, that god exists. That's why the burden of proof is on them. If they could do this, I would accept it. It would however, as I posted earlier, have to be with the same intellectual rigor and standards of reliable information development that we use in every other aspect of our lives. Since this has not been done, I see no reason to accept the claim as true.

::::::::::::::::

The Scriptures have many prophesies that have been fulfilled, unless you truly embark on a personal journey to find God,no one can convince you. It is a personal relationship with God that will reveal Himself to you.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

The difference is in what counts as reliable information. Scientific method counts as reliable information in every aspect of our lives - except religion. To me, that's not acceptable. If you want me to accept the assertion as true, scientific method has to count there too, and be public, repeatable, and critiqueable. 2,700 year old books (the first several books of the bible were written in the second iron age) are not scientific method.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Science cannot prove existence of the supernatural, how can science prove God? they have by admission admitted that the universe does show evidence of "intelligence design" they just refuse to call the "intelligence"God.

God did not create us to be here alone to do what we want for ourselves. He created us so that we may have a relationship with Him, He gave us the freedom of choice to accept Him or not.

Every year the Bible is proven to be accurate not only as a historicaly correct but archeologically as well, and theologically there's all kind on evidence to His existence. miracles are not parlor tricks, they were proof of His power over provision,over sickness,over nature, and over death through His resurrection.

After all is it so inconcievable that the God who created the water could cause the water molecues to hold His body weight as He walked on top of it???

God is supernatural, He created time,space,matter. science trying to prove the existence of God, is no diffent than explaining to an amoeba the theory of relativity.

God is the ultimate intelligence not us.
Seek Him and you will find Him with your heart and your mind. It's your choice.

Posted by: Sara121 | February 3, 2011 9:35 PM

"I also ask any humans who claim that gods don't exist to prove that contention as well."

Well, logically you cannot prove a negative. Religionists are the ones making a positive assertion of a theory, that god exists. That's why the burden of proof is on them. If they could do this, I would accept it. It would however, as I posted earlier, have to be with the same intellectual rigor and standards of reliable information development that we use in every other aspect of our lives. Since this has not been done, I see no reason to accept the claim as true.

Let me clear. These standards apply to science. Take dark matter for example. I am not that read up on it, but for the sake of argument we'll say it is still in the mathematics stage. There was an observed phenomenon: there appears to be more mass in the universe than we can account for. Someone came up with the idea of dark matter (this is the creative part of science). However, to my knowledge (and for the sake of argument) no one has yet come up with any observable indicators that support an idea like dark matter. If you don't have observables, you can't design a hypothesis or a research program. Given that you can't yet go anywhere with it, no matter how intriguing the idea might be (and I happen to think it is, but I'm kind of a nerd that way), there's no reason to think that that is the correct explanation for the phenomenon.

That's not to say that no one will ever come up with a set of observables for either case, god or dark matter.

The ability to observe the indicators is another point. Every time we increase our ability to conduct observations, we might get a new answer. You can take the history of the discovery of the other planets in the Solar system as an example. Even if we had a set of observables for god or for dark matter, if we have no way to actually look for them, it doesn't matter. You still can't confirm or deny the hypothesis.

The difference is in what counts as reliable information. Scientific method counts as reliable information in every aspect of our lives - except religion. To me, that's not acceptable. If you want me to accept the assertion as true, scientific method has to count there too, and be public, repeatable, and critiqueable. 2,700 year old books (the first several books of the bible were written in the second iron age) are not scientific method.

tell Him why He dosen't exist

I repeat, I take no position on whether gods exist, and nothing in my posts should be read as implying otherwise. I've acknowledged repeatedly that the existence of gods is possible. Why would you care what I believe or don't believe, unless my stances are motivating me to hurt others?

I'm not asking any gods to prove their own existence. I'm asking any humans who claim that gods exist to prove this. Huge distinction. I also ask any humans who claim that gods don't exist to prove that contention as well. Why? Because both sides are demanding that I simply take their word for it, and it's their credibility on the line, not the gods they claim to represent or not represent.

The problem is not whether "secular" is a dirty word but rather whether "religious" is a dirty word. Many commentators do equate religiosity in a politician with a lack of realism and even with a lack of compassion.
This equation is made without any real consideration of the matter, and examples of religious people mentioned are always people from the extreme right, and not people like Gandhi or King.
Let me suggest a truce. Let secular people stop abusing religion and let religious people stop attacking atheists (and adherents of different religions).
Then we can try to get along and work on our problems.
Posted by: rjpal | February 3, 2011 9:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

rjpal, one thing is for certain this is not a place where people are going to change in what or how they believe.

I don't mind listening to different points of views, beliefs. But I agree with you when one comes across rude and condecending it closes ones mind to listen to that persons point of view and does not accomplish anything.

As for politicians, I do not trust any of them blindly, I see how they perform their jobs and how they vote on issues. No one party has all the answers to all the problems we face, but they do have to do what the american people want done, after all they work for us, supposedly.

The issue at hand is whether god-beings exist, and THAT is a question of fact. It's simply inaccurate to compare an object like a being to a concept or feeling like love. Either gods exist or they don't. One doesn't prove or disprove the existence of an object through feelings. That almost sounds like ESP, an ability that that could be possible but still needs evidence to prove its existence.
From my perspective, I have one side insisting that gods exist as a matter of irrefutable fact, and another side insisting that gods don't exist as a matter of irrefutable fact. One side is saying something that isn't true and I have no way of knowing which, so I have no basis for taking a position either way. Neither side deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: Carstonio | February 3, 2011 3:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
''''''''''''''''''''''''

Not to fret my friend, when your time comes and you stand in front of Jesus at the judgement seat, tell Him why He dosen't exist.

John Adams said,
"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams, to the Officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798.

It could not take an amendment to the Constitution to change it, but a clarifying statement that our nation is to be ruled by the word of God As Written, not as taught. That gives unity and security.
The primary message through the prophet Muhammad was to follow the whole Bible. Jesus said to live by every word of God. Other religions are told to do all things according to God's laws. There is no separation.

We must want God's wisdom to guide and protect us. We are going the wrong way and are enslaved most of our lives. We need a Savior, the Word of God.

There is One God and One Law that God gave to all nations. Their holy books point to following the Law of Moses.

Most of God's guidance is secular to show us how to live on this planet without destroying each other, our health, our freedom and our land. There is no separation of state clause in the US Constitution; but if there were, it would not mean ignoring God's wisdom.

"Faith, hope, love. They can't be proven through formulas, scientific study or any other method that many atheists would probably use. But they exist, and are powerful attributes that people need in life."

I wasn't arguing the opposite. My point had nothing to do with feelings and concepts. Those aren't matters of fact so being right doesn't matter there.

The issue at hand is whether god-beings exist, and THAT is a question of fact. It's simply inaccurate to compare an object like a being to a concept or feeling like love. Either gods exist or they don't. One doesn't prove or disprove the existence of an object through feelings. That almost sounds like ESP, an ability that that could be possible but still needs evidence to prove its existence.

From my perspective, I have one side insisting that gods exist as a matter of irrefutable fact, and another side insisting that gods don't exist as a matter of irrefutable fact. One side is saying something that isn't true and I have no way of knowing which, so I have no basis for taking a position either way. Neither side deserves the benefit of the doubt.

To build on the last couple of comments, we require a certain degree of intellectual rigor to be applied to all kinds of assertions, be they economic (trickle down, redistribution, or something else?), legal (beyond a reasonable doubt), health (will this drug make my headache go away?), governance (more of it, or less of it?), and many other things. When an assertion in made, we require that intellectual rigor be applied and reliable information be presented in support of that assertion. What atheists, and certainly agnostics, ask is that the same intellectual rigor and standards for reliable information be applied to supernatural assertions for phenomena. If such evidence can't be provided (such as because you can't even develop a research program around it in the first place) then there is no reason to believe the assertion.

Love for example. It's a phenomenon we experience. To say that god causes it is not a testable hypothesis. But we can understand how the brain and other organs process chemicals that lead to us to feeling good emotions like love. But just because we understand that process doesn't make love less wonderful, beautiful, or fulfilling. Unweaving the rainbow doesn't make the rainbow less amazing.

whyyesbrain

Absence of evidence of a God is important. If there was evidence of a God it would change everything. If such evidence existed there wouldn't be any atheists, and no quibbles amongst the religious about which God to pray to.
While absence of evidence doesn't 'prove' there is no God - it strongly suggests that there isn't one - just as absence of evidence of fairies at the bottom of your garden doesn't necessarily mean there aren't any fairies down there somewhere. But it's a good reason to doubt such claims.

Absence of evidence for a God - tells me that there probably isn't one. I feel that if there was a God we would KNOW about it.

CounterWW, I was with you right up to the point when you wrote:

"God exists my friend, its just that your ego and elite "superior " intellect stops you from accessing a part of you that is dead."

You presume that God's existance is self-evident. While I respect that viewpoint, my "elite 'superior' intellect" requires a more substantive argument in the face of the self-serving nature of religious dogma and the weight of all supposed religious explanations of natural phenomina that have been contradicted over the past 4000 years.

One's political views can and should be influenced by their core religious beliefs and the moral code that it implies. However, their also needs to be respect for other's beliefs (or lack thereof). This is why secularism in the political sphere is always preferable.

I wonder how many people are aware of the fact that before Newton we were not actually aware of gravity. Everyone knew that things fell, but we did not know that it was the earth's gravitational field which made things fall and which also kept the moon in its orbit around the earth.

Our perceptual systems are attuned to change. Something which changes represents either a danger or an opportunity. So we notice it. But something which is always there is less likely to be noticed - just like gravitation.

Perhaps fish do not know that they are in water because water is always there. we know that they live in water because we live in air. We know what it is like NOT to be in water. They don't.

So at least in theory it is possible that God exists, but we do not see God because he is always there.

Christianity has two quite different conceptions of God. One is that of God as a sort of super-king. I doubt that this super-king exists.

But a quite different conception of God is that of something which underlies everything. Like a movie screen which lies behind all movies which we see.

Such a conception is there in the Hindu Upanishads which are motivated more by curiosity and a scientific spirit rather than by dogma. I would recommend people to look at them to get some sense of religious journeys which are different from the dogmas of Christianity.

When we think of Science vs Religion, we think of Science vs the Bible. But religion is much more than the Bible. People should be aware of the enormous variety.

If Science wants to disprove Religion, it must disprove ALL of it, and not just some scattered statements in the Bible.

The problem is not whether "secular" is a dirty word but rather whether "religious" is a dirty word. Many commentators do equate religiosity in a politician with a lack of realism and even with a lack of compassion.

This equation is made without any real consideration of the matter, and examples of religious people mentioned are always people from the extreme right, and not people like Gandhi or King.

Let me suggest a truce. Let secular people stop abusing religion and let religious people stop attacking atheists (and adherents of different religions).

Then we can try to get along and work on our problems.

As a matter of interest, does Lynn who doesn't agree with an Islamic Egypt or a Christian USA condemn a Jewish Israel? If not, why not?

Another thing: I will take what our first President said about religion, morality and politics over Lynn anyday. Political prosperity needs religion to be prosperous.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Carstonio says:

"Not knowing the answer doesn't give us the excuse to substitute faith or belief, because we could be wrong and not know it. Better no answer than a potentially wrong one."

That is a interesting perspective. If you all you have in life is to rely only on truth you can "prove" to yourself, that you can only find with empirical evidence with your five senses, I have to say , I really do pity you.

Some truths don't come to people from proving it but by the gift of faith.

Faith, hope, love. They can't be proven through formulas, scientific study or any other method that many atheists would probably use. But they exist, and are powerful attributes that people need in life.

God exists my friend, its just that your ego and elite "superior " intellect stops you from accessing a part of you that is dead.

And can be made alive.

Pretty sad that people can't give up their selfish natures.

Atheism is a belief system, you believe there is no God. Your God as it where is that everything came into being from "nothing" it just happened by chance in essence.
POSTED BY: GREENSTHEMAN
---------------------------
Is not believing in Santa also a belief system?
It may be part of your belief system if you are a child, if you are an 6 yr old child, it may well be that you believe in santa if it's part of your culture.

Is not playing football a sport?

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

these two you are comparing apples to oranges. compare apples to apples please.

My point is that both a Christian and an Atheist view the world through a certain belief system, that is obvious because we don't see the universe through the same lense. Atheism is the exclusion of God's role in creation in the world.

Wether, i call atheism a religion or not is irrelevant, regardless of what you or I want to call it, it is a belief system.

Posted by: stevie7 | February 2, 2011 6:39 PM

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

It is amazing that secular progressives in the US are routinely derided, often as Nazis by the right yet they whole heartedly support and give aid to secular progressives in the Arab world. Why? Cause religion is the problem.

If the US was to impose biblical punishments, do you really think it would be much different to Iran? What would Huckabee say when homosexuals are put to death?

The fact is progressives bring far more justice to socities than the right. Palin and romney can deride them but secular progessivism has allowed a Morman to run for president and indeed a woman. If left to the likes of Huckabee, you would have to be of a specific christian denomination. exactly what the founding fathers wished to escape. See the irony?

Atheism is a belief system, you believe there is no God. Your God as it where is that everything came into being from "nothing" it just happened by chance in essence.

POSTED BY: GREENSTHEMAN

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

Is not believing in Santa also a belief system?

Is not playing football a sport?

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

Atheism is not a religion. Religion is the taking on faith of the existence of god or gods, without any evidence. Atheism is saying prove it. Atheism is based on the total lack of evidence for god."
Much as I agree with the article and many of the comments, I have to point out the logical fallacy here. Absence of evidence of god does not imply evidence of absence of god.
Posted by: whyyesbrain | February 2, 2011 1:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Atheism is a belief system, you believe there is no God. Your God as it where is that everything came into being from "nothing" it just happened by chance in essence.

Egypt has erupted with protests and their current government may very well be coming to end. While there is hope that democracy might take root, we have to realize that democracy is only part of the solution.

One thing that makes America great is of course democracy. The idea of one person, one vote is very important, but democracy alone is not enough. This is what America learned when Hamas won the parliamentary elections in 2006 and took control of the Palestinian Authority. Sometimes the people you don’t like win elections.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://exm.nr/hlKujv

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

No, the burden of proof rests with the side asserting gods existance or non-existance...period."
Those are two different sides, and I'm saying that the existence side has the far greater burden of proof as compared to the non-existence side. Similarly, a paleontologist who asserts that prehistoric elephants had short trunks has a far lesser burden of proof than a colleague who assets that prehistoric elephants had the power of flight.
"However, given the inability to prove or disprove a gods existance, that point is moot."
The point is relevant for two reasons. First, it matters what constitutes fact, and both the existence side and non-existence side are making claims of fact. Second, millions of people use such claims to guide or justify their behavior.
Posted by: Carstonio | February 2, 2011 5:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
'''''''''''''''''''';;;;;;;

i remember when I was a non-believer i asked the same questions and had the same doubts about God and Jesus. When I truly decide to find out and studied the bible, I found that there's plenty of evidence to the existence of God.

God does not need us to prove that He exists he has given us plenty of evidence, where it all hinges is on wether or not you decide to believe the evidence He gives us in His word.

If you honestly seek Him you will find Him, but if you do not seek Him you will deny every bit of evidence that He has given us, He gave us the freedom to believe Him or not.

"No, the burden of proof rests with the side asserting gods existance or non-existance...period."

Those are two different sides, and I'm saying that the existence side has the far greater burden of proof as compared to the non-existence side. Similarly, a paleontologist who asserts that prehistoric elephants had short trunks has a far lesser burden of proof than a colleague who assets that prehistoric elephants had the power of flight.

"However, given the inability to prove or disprove a gods existance, that point is moot."

The point is relevant for two reasons. First, it matters what constitutes fact, and both the existence side and non-existence side are making claims of fact. Second, millions of people use such claims to guide or justify their behavior.

No, the burden of proof rests with the side asserting gods existance or non-existance...period. However, given the inability to prove or disprove a gods existance, that point is moot. I think South Park does this point a fair hearing in its conclusion on Mormonism:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154259/garys-vindication

"I disagree that the burden of proof lies with those who assert the existance of god."

That side carries the burden of proof because of the extraordinary nature of the assertion. According to the claim, one or more beings exist who cannot be detected with the senses and who created the universe and everything in it. The claim doesn't explain how, for example, one being can hear and understand millions of prayers simultaneously in hundreds of languages. The assertion doesn't explain how gods came to exist, or why they possess such abilities.

Faith shouldn't be involved at all in such questions. Whether or not gods exist is strictly a factual matter, since the answer is either yes or no. Not knowing the answer doesn't give us the excuse to substitute faith or belief, because we could be wrong and not know it. Better no answer than a potentially wrong one.

OK, but the same is true of the Invisible "Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Giant Invisible Sentient Trebuchet of Doom. At least we can say that there is no more reason to assume God exists than to assume that any of those things or a million other unlikely possible beings exist."

This is exactly my point. Arguing the existance or non-existance of god (or the great pot of noodly goodness) from the basis of pure logic and science is oxymoronic. One cannot prove the existance or non-existance of god. So, rather than arguing this point, like the essay states, it best to approach matter of religion in both the political and scientific spheres from the perspective of neutrality.

I disagree that the burden of proof lies with those who assert the existance of god. One needs to approach these topics with an understanding that neither side can meet that burden of proof. Hence, these are matters of faith.

"Absence of evidence of god does not imply evidence of absence of god. "

OK, but the same is true of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Giant Invisible Sentient Trebuchet of Doom. At least we can say that there is no more reason to assume God exists than to assume that any of those things or a million other unlikely possible beings exist. The burden of proof is with those who wish to assert that God/dess/es exist/s, not those who wish to assert that S/He/It/They do not.

Well Said. If we are to keep on progressing as we have so far, there is no doubt that we should leave organized religion behind us. Belief in GOD is different from believing in any particular religion. All religions have sets of beliefs that make no sense. A lot like encouragement to help others do make a lot of sense. That somehow god will send his "son" or "messenger" or "himself" to one corner of the world to teach a section of humanity and will ignore the rest of humanity is at the least unbelievable. Beliefs however cannot be changed easily. The second best option is letting people live their personal lives according to their personal and religious beleifs and the society as a whole and the country be governed by laws that are not influenced by any particular religion. Do we have any other choice unless we want go to the dark ages where we fought and killed each other in the name of GOD?

GARAK, I think you might be confusing Atheism with Agnosticism. Atheists, as the word implies, believe as firmly in the non-existence of god as Theists believe in the existence of god. Agnostics believe that there is a possibility, although small, that god exists; we would not presume to know something of this magnitude with certainty.

Something I have learned over the years (and I am not refering specifically to you, GARAK about this,) is that arguing with religious people is ultimately pointless because in the end, they can just pull out thier supposed trump card, and say, "Well, God says so." And there is no recourse to that. That is why we need to keep Religion out of Government as much as possible.

"Atheism is not a religion. Religion is the taking on faith of the existence of god or gods, without any evidence. Atheism is saying prove it. Atheism is based on the total lack of evidence for god."

Much as I agree with the article and many of the comments, I have to point out the logical fallacy here. Absence of evidence of god does not imply evidence of absence of god.

Barry Lynn is 100% correct. We are hearing many in the U.S. express fear about Islamic extremists taking control of governments in north Africa, Pakistan, and in other countries. What about the push by many in the U.S. to create a Theocracy here? Is that not at least as dangerous for the U.S.?

Even current government officials such as Sarah Palin, Rep. Bachmann and other members of Congress, as well as Mr. Huckabee, have called for the application of Christian theology in government policy. This is mostly justified through a false claim that the U.S. was "founded" as a Christian nation. Anyone who looks squarely at the beliefs and words of the founders of our contry and the writers of the Constitution can see that the creators of the Constitution recognized the danger of establishing religion through government action. That's why the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution.

Keep up the good work, Barry!

There are very few true secular governments in the world - and the US is not one of them. Religion - and by that I mean right-wing Christian religiosity - infects almost all of America's laws and policies. Take the plight of gay Americans, for example, who daily face state-sanctioned discrimination as a result of concentrated and focussed religious persecution. The attack on illegals in religious-based, the abortion debate, and for that matter, the whole Republican party is based squarely on southern Baptist fundamentalist principles. There is very little that is truly secular about the American form of government or the laws it enacts; it's just disguised a little better than Islamic fundamentalism. It may be a pig with lipstick, but it's still a pig.

"She-who-must-not-be-named"

Cute. You realize you are putting Ms. Palin as equal to Yahweh, don't you?

Posted by: schafer-family
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Actually, the tetragrammaton is referred to as 'Ineffable', 'Unutterable' or the 'Distinctive Name' of G-d. Never referred to as "He who must not be named." The distinction is significant. Many Jews use alternate names because the Name of G-d is considered holy, and not to be used lightly. There are many names for G-d, and they are used out of respect and honor.

In contrast, substituting "He who must not be named" for Valdemort meant that those who needed to refer to Valdemort needed to do so without summoning his presence or invoking him.

Study up.

And as for secularism, I'm all for it. We don't want religion under the control of government, or the control of government by religion. Either is the road to disaster.

you are wearing religious blinders by constantly using the word "secular" - which by definition is definied in relation to the relgious. The word that you should be using - and the way that government should be looked at is "civil" - value all of its own with absolutely no reference to religion.

Yes - there is a whole world out there that manages to exist fine without any need for or reference to relgion. It is only the small-minded who think everything only exists in relation to and part of religion ("Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity or Judaism. The mere fact that they don't believe in the existence of God doesn't diminish the fact that they still have a theology" - jeeze - you need to take a helping tablespoon of getoveryourself). In case of fact, that is not true. Civil government happens to be secular - but that isn't it's defining trait - except only to those who can only think and see through the prism of relgion. Talk about blinders!

Atheism is not a religion. Religion is the taking on faith of the existence of god or gods, without any evidence. Atheism is saying prove it. Atheism is based on the total lack of evidence for god.

To say atheism is a religion is like saying that not believing in the tooth fairy is a religion. Failure to believe in anything is a mere belief in it's non-existence.

This is nothing but a shallow attempt to bring down atheists into the gutter of religion.

Religion is a socially acceptable form of psychosis. It should not be allowed anywhere near government policies. Religion is given a free-ride in the USA.

The truth IS out there, you just have to ask the right questions. Making thing up (religion) is the simpleton's way out of having to think. I don't have a problem with 'I don't know'. Not every question has an easy answer, like "what is beyond our Universe?" I don't feel the need to make something up to a question we can't possibly know. I take comfort in the fact that the truth exists, even if I don't know what it is.

Hey Shafer Family "She-who-must-not-be-named" refers to Voldemort, not Yahweh.

"The problem with having completely neutral laws regarding religion is that Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity or Judaism. The mere fact that they don't believe in the existence of God doesn't diminish the fact that they still have a theology (or atheology). "

Would you explain? I agree that believing that gods don't exist is still a religious belief (but still different from a lack of belief either way). When laws are neutral regarding religion, they treat atheism the same way as they treat the organized religions. It cannot be stressed enough that this neutrality is NOT atheistic.

"She-who-must-not-be-named"

Cute. You realize you are putting Ms. Palin as equal to Yahweh, don't you?

The problem with having completely neutral laws regarding religion is that Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity or Judaism. The mere fact that they don't believe in the existence of God doesn't diminish the fact that they still have a theology (or atheology). Therefore, imposition of atheistic ideals thru government action is no less intrusive than imposing religious beliefs

Regardless of that, the Islamic world does not appear to share our view that governance should not be affected by religion. If we want democracy to evolve in those countries, we'd better be ready for democracies that are significantly different than ours.

". . . folks who think they know all the truth in the universe have no problem convincing themselves they know every solution to "mere" policy questions as well - and usually this answer can be found within their (often narrow) definition of religion."

Very well said. This is really the problem with religious people running things. They make bad decisions because their basic assumptions are wrong. I doubt that George W. Bush ever actually reasoned anything through. He would just ask his God what to do and then whatever he imagined his God was telling him became the not-to-be-questioned Plan. This is not a good way to run a country, or anything else.

Rev. - Love your post.

Just to expand and support the comment from Amelia45. Washington during is farewell address said this:

"Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion."

Seems to me that Huckabee and others do not understand the peanut butter/chocolate argument. If they allow religion to enter into government, then what is to keep government from entering into religion. How about places of worship being forced to display verses from their particular holy book that might support the paying of taxes?

"The United States' policy of separation of religion and government has given us great diversity and inter-faith peace."

Exactly. The separation means that the US government maintains a position of neutrality among religions. The religious right is religiously wrong when it treats "secular" as a synonym for atheistic. (They seem to believe that one can either be for their idea of Christianity or against it.) What they want is not just religion in general to be important in people's lives. They want the country's culture and institutions, including government, to treat their idea of Christianity as the normal or default religion. That goal is inherently incompatible with the US being a nation of many different religions.

Well said.

Many like to think that because most of the founders of our nation were Christian, they intended this to be a "Christian nation." I think they carefully and deliberately avoided that designation.

They actually did not intend that any one religion be designated. If they had wanted to do so, they would have. These were not shy men, afraid of declaring themselves. They certainly were not inarticulate, unable to say what they meant. They spoke of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". Not once, in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, did they ever refer to Jesus or the Bible.

They did believe religion to be an important part of the lives of the people of this country. I think they recognized that religion can bring good into the world, can help define what is good. But I also think they saw that no one religion could always be right.

Haven't we learned that the Bible does not tell all we need to know? Slavery is evil and wrong - we ended it but it was not condemned in the Bible or by Jesus? Freeing women from the limited and oppressed position that they held in ancient times was not accomplished by looking to the Bible or the leaders of most Christian faiths. We still have faiths that won't let women preach or hold leadership positions, because of what is in the Bible, Qur'an, or out of the inertia of other traditions.

What gave us these freedoms was holding to the ideals of liberty and equality, not holding to Christian values or precepts of the Bible. The tenets of faith are good to have but not sufficient to provide a blue print for governance in the world of man.

That is why I don't want what Huckabee or She-who-must-not-be-named want to do to this country. We will be going back to conditions that existed in Europe hundreds of years ago, the conditions that caused people to leave those countries by the millions and come here to escape the oppression of a government that bound itself to a religion.

We don't need that. We need to keep faith in God in our hearts and in our churches or mosques or synagogs, or temples, so that we can live our own lives and find the promised after-life. We need to respect the necessity of having civil laws based on liberty, equality, and justice, in how we deal with each other on this earth.