Belief is Harder than Disbelief

There is sufficient evidence of, at the very least, a non-physical or spiritual realm. The problem that we face is that science is discrediting the scientific evidence that exists. Once we realize this evidence it is not hard to realize that God does exist, so belief is more easy than disbelief. What scientific evidence? In drug trials a double blind is used and it is used precisely to create relational distance between the parties. The reason is that where there is relationship there is a phenomenon that we may call insightfulness or insightful perception. It is a non-sensory or direct mental perception. It is this perception that blinding destroys by removing relationship. There is no way a person in a drug trial can know what the researcher knows (ie if they have received a drug or a blank) insightfully if the mind was not a non-physical realm. This evidence can also be seen in what is known as precognition experiments. Basically the subject in these experiments knows and reacts to an image that is about to be viewed but has not yet been viewed, and their reaction is very obvious where the image that they are about to see is a distressing one. Once again they cannot be perceptive if the mind is the brain and /or brain function. This evidence however is being suppressed or explained away in terms that deny a non-physical reality. The notion that is being presented as science is that there is only a material reality. In effect what is being done is to suggest that science supports atheism and that by default God and a spiritual realm are nonsense. This is far from the truth and it has a bad effect because many people, based on this presentation of science are calling themselves secularists and question what faith they had. Indeed there are enormous implication in the reality of a spiritual realm and they go beyond religion and affect health as well. If you are interested visit my website at http://annavictoria.net where I discuss all of these matters in depth. You will see that belief is well founded.

Believing in God has to be a belief that originates in the mind and\or the heart because nothing about the belief can actually be proved by something tangible. Therefore, it takes true faith (not fake) to believe in something whose existence is questionable. It's easier to say "theres no proof of a God" than to say "I believe in something and i don't even know if it exists."

Believing in God has to be a belief that originates in the mind and\or the heart because nothing about the belief can actually be proved by something tangible. Therefore, it takes true faith (not fake) to believe in something whose existence is questionable. It's easier to say "theres no proof of a God" than to say "I believe in something and i don't even know if it exists."

Believing in God has to be a belief that originates in the mind and\or the heart because nothing about the belief can actually be proved by something tangible. Therefore, it takes true faith (not fake) to believe in something whose existence is questionable. It's easier to say "theres no proof of a God" than to say "I believe in something and i don't even know if it exists."

Believing in God has to be a belief that originates in the mind and\or the heart because nothing about the belief can actually be proved by something tangible. Therefore, it takes true faith (not fake) to believe in something whose existence is questionable. It's easier to say "theres no proof of a God" than to say "I believe in something and i don't even know if it exists."

Believing in God has to be a belief that originates in the mind and\or the heart because nothing about the belief can actually be proved by something tangible. Therefore, it takes true faith (not fake) to believe in something whose existence is questionable. It's easier to say "theres no proof of a God" than to say "I believe in something and i don't even know if it exists."

Believing in God has to be a belief that originates in the mind and\or the heart because nothing about the belief can actually be proved by something tangible. Therefore, it takes true faith (not fake) to believe in something whose existence is questionable. It's easier to say "theres no proof of a God" than to say "I believe in something and i don't even know if it exists."

Believing in God has to be a belief that originates in the mind and\or the heart because nothing about the belief can actually be proved by something tangible. Therefore, it takes true faith (not fake) to believe in something whose existence is questionable. It's easier to say "theres no proof of a God" than to say "I believe in something and i don't even know if it exists."

Believing in God has to be a belief that originates in the mind and\or the heart because nothing about the belief can actually be proved by something tangible. Therefore, it takes true faith (not fake) to believe in something whose existence is questionable. It's easier to say "theres no proof of a God" than to say "I believe in something and i don't even know if it exists."

Believing in God has to be a belief that originates in the mind and\or the heart because nothing about the belief can actually be proved by something tangible. Therefore, it takes true faith (not fake) to believe in something whose existence is questionable. It's easier to say "theres no proof of a God" than to say "I believe in something and i don't even know if it exists."

I agree with you Anthony I beleive that it is harder now then ever to beleive in God or a religion with some of the things going on in the world today. It is true that people think if your religion isent perfect than its evil. But since religion is your beleifs and everything in this wolrd is not perfect than what do people expect? People shouldnt go through life not experencing this love and listening to politicians because faith and religion is all about what you beleive in and not what anyone else beleives in. The points you make on mother Tereasea are good i beleive how she went through pain and suffereing and providing love for people all for god but how can they call her a fool for that its all based on her beleifs. She didnt know herself if God was real but she did those this anyway as an act of a good person and having trust in something she beleived in.

Considering that Prof. Stevens-Arroyo, in other writings, vaunts his virtues as a scholar, it is surprising to see him indulging in a description of atheism which is, at best, a caricature instead of a characterization. Even if we grant his point -- which is itself eminently debatable -- that belief is "harder" than unbelief, the appropriate response is "So what?" To use Sam Harris's analogy, believing that frozen yogurt makes me invisible is probably "harder" than believing the opposite. But that is certainly no sign that frozen yogurt has miraculous properties. Believing that a UFO was hiding behind Comet Hale-Bopp was probably "harder" for the Heaven's Gate cultists than believing otherwise, but I hope the good professor will not argue in favor of that. This is a frivolous argument from someone who ostensibly values intellectual integrity. JIM

"I prefer to have someone like Mother Teresa nearby rather than a solipsistic spoil-sport, spouting the silly cant of militant atheism."

Now really, I haven't seen any armed Atheists organizing anywhere. Is there any reason you believers have to resort to such low-brow name-calling? With your education and academic credentials, surely you're able to come up with some argument that would convince the average non-believer of the truth of your "god". Come up with ANYTHING AT ALL that would serve to sway our opinions instead of resorting to unfounded insults and character assassination. Frankly, we're pretty well sick of it.

Ayo:

"The mere fact that she persisted in her life of devotion and service..."

But that's the question, isn't it? Was it a life of devotion and service, or was it something else altogether? By all reports, including of a woman who worked with her, she didn't care at all about the people she was supposedly serving, but rather seemed to be dedicated to increasing suffering. Indeed, one man states that millions died because of her, and millions more were made, poorer, stupider, sicker....

Well, check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q1m-8npkJ4

I can't beleive that after a life of devoted service to ALL mankind....and after her death and canonization that people feel they have the right to question Mother Teresa's life . The mere fact that she persisted in her life of devotion and service despite having doubts tells me that not only is she a human being but an exceptional one at that. Religion these days has to mean one form of extremism or another...but to doubt is human and if you have the fortitude to continue on your chosen path knowing or not knowing what the but still wondering other options are speaks of the kind of strength that more people could use.

Mary Cunningham:

"And atheism is a belief-system just like any other, although some atheists deny this saying that they merely have "no beliefs". "

Another religious person trying to define us in her terms. Look, smart girl: a-theism. No theism. That isn't a belief system. That's the rejection of a belief system.

And who said they have no beliefs? I assure you I have a ton. I just have no beliefs in mystical entities.

"Communism was actively atheist, believed in no God, and sought to make human beings conform to an economic system: Marxism. It was a political religion, a perverted religion, worshipped the proletariat rather than God."

That's pretty much what I said, except that atheism was incidental to communism. Marx himself said it wasn't necessary to the system. The atheism was merely about destroying the churches, whose dogma opposed theirs. It's pretty much like Roman Christians burning Gnostics, in the early days of the church. One religion fighting another.

"Using that definition (which I agree with) Godfrey thus cites it as proof to condemn *all* religions."

I didn't do any such thing. I merely tossed in the assertion that all dogma is wrong. No proof of any kind was attempted. I assumed you would know where I was coming from.

I have demonstrated for the separation of church and state in Florida, Alabama, Washington D.C., etc. and in doing so, I have debated evey type of person. After I have exhausted every argument, the final words I usually hear are "well, you have to believe." or, "you have to have faith.".
Although the religious have their definition of belief and faith, it simply means you must "pretend"

Atheism was one aspect of Communism, but Communism had much more to do with class and economics; the religious element only comes into because of the Church's often militant support for the status quo and coziness with the powerful.

Don't worry about some atheist objecting to religion here, Ms. Cunningham, none of us would advocate sending you to a Gulag. As others have pointed out atheists are now described as "militant" when they write books, while the religious militants are setting off bombs and invading other people's countries. You have no more reason to fear a modern, Western, non-communist atheist than I have to fear from your Church. At least I don't think I have anything to fear, or are you considering a return to the burning of heretics?

--------

Jihadist, I'm not sure where I'd fit on your spectrum of atheists; I don't think that religious believers are delusional people, although I do agree that the thing they believe in could properly be described as a delusion. Does that make me a militant? On the other hand you and I have had an interesting conversation about what it means to be a "spiritual atheist." Could I be both?

---------

And finally, I want to add my voice to those objecting to Prof. Arroyo's despicable characterization of atheists as people who think love is unimportant. I'd like to see where he gets that idea; I don't think even Hitchens or Harris (with whom I have a number of disagreements) would say that! It's one thing to disagree with what people actually say, but this inventing of non-existent attitudes should be beneath someone who carries titles like "Professor Emeritus" and "Distinguished Scholar."

Regards

A Hermit

It seems that ol' Tony has a few axes to grind.

'atheists and non-believers in the modern world have opted for the easy path. ... it is harder today to have faith in God that to lapse into disbelief.'

I agree - it is harder to maintain a belief system when so much of reality contradicts the core beliefs. I disagree that it is a 'lapse'. Perhaps it is better described as a growing awareness that there is something basically wrong with the belief system.

'The shrill voices of militant atheism – including contributors to this website, both as columnists and as bloggers – have never understood faith and probably never will.

Lots of loaded language here and a nugget of truth. As an atheist, I can not understand the ability of the faithful to ignore or deny what can be measured and observed. From ID to Young Earth to contraception to genetics to prayer... when ever what we know conflicts with what is held by the faithful, it is reality that loses out.

'...in the modern United States, virtually every public institution promotes separation of church and state as well as secularism over religion. That’s fine in my book because it proves that believing in God is the harder thing to do today.'

Well, actually, given that the faithful hold all the levers of power and the move to give even more money and influence to the faithful, I'm amazed that all those godless folks are not in some version of GitMo.

'She spent most of her life providing love to people facing suffering and death.'

Nice, but perhaps she would have been better off working without the constraints of her faith. I mean - smaller families might have been a good starting point for example. She also sounds to be more than willing to judge the worthiness of those in her care.

'They make much money writing snide comments in glossy page magazines, ridiculing a person who spends their life alleviating suffering. Their argument pretends to be sophisticated but rests on a single premise: If religion is not perfect, it is evil.'

Ahh - more loaded language and a clear misunderstanding. Perhaps the good lady was not as saintly as the faithful want to believe. Once again, reality loses to what is needed for belief.

'The alternative proposed by some self-satisfied atheists is to live by yourself in a world where love is unimportant because it is not based on a rational premise...'

This is so silly it hardly merits response. All atheists do not value love? Emotions are part of the stuff we bring along as humans. It seems clear that humans have had this baggage long before there was even a glimmer of Christianity.

'When I am sick and dying, as inevitably I will be one day, I don’t care about the politics of the people in the room. I prefer to have someone like Mother Teresa nearby rather than a solipsistic spoil-sport, spouting the silly cant of militant atheism.'

So Tony - how do you really feel about those who are not among the faithful? For my part, I'll take a good atheist doctor over a room full of the faithful praying.

And atheism is a belief-system just like any other, although some atheists deny this saying that they merely have "no beliefs".

Active atheists "Deny the existence of God" (an accurate definition, not Wikipedia). Now this is a positive argument and rules out any notion of passive unbelief.

Examples of active athiests above:

Jeremy:"I dont believe in God, and i am willing to spend the rest of forever (and ever, and ever, and ever, etc.) in the damned pits of Hell? NAY! One must have STRONG convictions (and faith) to be able to live by such a statement."

Anon: "Faith as strong confidence and belief in something,[wrong definition of faith for this discussion] also drives atheists - as in their hope, faith and belief that all believers of the supernatural will stop believing in God"

TJ believes that religion is poison: "If your mind wasn't poisoned against your fellow man by religion, you wouldn't even ask that question."

Now for a religious person *this* assertion is scary. What is the best action for a poisonous substance? To exterminate it! Gulag anyone?
Yet although it's clear that the ideology of active atheism leads directly to the prohibition of religion (at best) and the extermination of religious people (at worst)...

Regarding the relationship between atheism and Marxism Godfrey can still say (with a straight face?):..."Where do I begin? Communism wasn't about forced atheism. It was about making human beings over in the image of Marxian dogma. It much more resembled religion than it did atheism."

Look at this fake logic! What a feint! Communism was actively atheist, believed in no God, and sought to make human beings conform to an economic system: Marxism. It was a political religion, a perverted religion, worshipped the proletariat rather than God.

Using that definition (which I agree with) Godfrey thus cites it as proof to condemn *all* religions. Now that is just grossly false. I know a particular man named Godfrey that is mean to his dog. But that doesn't mean *all* Godfreys are mean to dogs. There's Godfreys and there's Godfreys.

Prof Arroyo-Stevens is correct in decrying "militant atheists"...but he makes a mistake by placing his views on "No Faith" (the man who set the title was dyslectic) for it is OWNED by atheists. Just look at the respondents here--atheists almost to a man (and woman). Still, I enjoy reading his comments & hope he continues--someone has to object to Ms Jacoby! But "No Faith" itself favours the athies, no doubt about it...disappointing. Very disappointing.

Doubt in God. It depends who you call your God:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Do you see “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
Look at “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” These are the children of God.
What does their God say “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”
What does God say about what he created, “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” This is the good God, he created heaven first then the earth. This is the God of the world

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Look at “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,” this is the creation of the LORD GOD. He made earth first then the heavens. What the LORD GOD created is over what God created. Now to “Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” What the LORD created has a living soul. What does the LORD say, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” What does God say, “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” God says you can eat from any tree including the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine,. the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect
And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Look at “the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect” what the LORD creates is perfect. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” Look at “And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,” Abram’s face is to the ground what God speaks to him. This is the promise of the LORD to Abram, “And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.” This is the promise to Abram from the God below, “As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.”

After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Look at what the LORD said to Abram“After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.” Next try to understand, “And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” Who does Abram believe, the LORD, “and he counted it to him for righteousness” You believe in the LORD’s Words not God’s words. The LORD is LORD of lords God of gods, He is the LORD GOD of Israel, He is their LORD and God.

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Try to understand “God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.”? God tempted Abram, “here I AM”

And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Do you see “angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said Here am ,I.” Do you not understand “angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven” His Words came from Heaven. Try to understand the LORD, “Here am ,I” and the God of the world “here I AM”

And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
And the Lord appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Do you not see, “and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” What does it say, “Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Who appeared to Isaac, “And the Lord appeared unto him”

And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Look at “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” Now you know the name of God. Look at “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord God hath sent me unto you” Moses never mentions this God to Israel.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

Listen to MOSES, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:”

Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.
This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.
And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give you into our hands.
now look at what DAVID said, "I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts" It is DAVID who will show you the way. DAVID comes in the name of the LORD, JUDAH Remember, "And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the Lord: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing." Do you not see "Now will I praise the Lord: therefore she called his name Judah" One praises THE LORD, JUDAH, not DAVID who comes in HIS NAME. This is the LORD GOD of Israel, the God of the Hebrews.

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Look at “And Jesus, when he was baptized” “the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:” “, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” Satan of the Spirit of God is of beasts. “I send you forth as sheep” “ye therefore wise as serpents”
“harmless as doves”

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Do you see “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Remember these words, “And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above; And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.
And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob.” What does Esau say “The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob.” Remember the words of the God of this world, “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son” The God of this world is always trying to destroy the Jews.

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

What does by God’s son say “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

These are the Commandants Israel keeps

I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Look at “And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.”

“Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” What the LORD created has a living soul.

"The Lord is their strength, and he is the saving strength of his anointed. Save thy people, and bless thine inheritance: feed them also, and lift them up for ever."

Look at “And Jesus, when he was baptized” “the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:” “, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven”

Satan of the Spirit of God is of beasts. “I send you forth as sheep” “ye therefore wise as serpents” “harmless as doves”

The sinner creatures of the so-called christian and catholics faiths have not salvation nor are they saved. They were never chosen by the LORD. Prove ME wrong

khote defined faith in the general sense as: "faith, the willing suspension of disbelief."

Wrong in this context. We need a better definition, one that we can use in a religous context..

Since Prof. Arroyo-Stevens is writing as a Catholic and since we are discussing the faith (or lack thereof) of M. Theresa, another Catholic, I think it appropriate to use the definition of faith in the catechism of the Catholic Church (Part I, Section 1):

"Faith is man's response to God, who reveals himself and gives himself to man, at the same time bringing man a superabundant light as he searches for the ultimate meaning of his life."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8.HTM

Nothing about unbelief, or disbelief there--(although what follows is what Catholics believe about the Revelation.)

But faith starts with God. God reveals himself; God proves his own existence, and faith is man's response. The true religious person believes because God reveals himself to that person; and so he believes *because* he has knowledge. Khote's def. of "belief without knowing" or "disbelief" as the primal state is thus utterly false. We willingly suspend belief when we enter a theatre or read a novel. This phenomenon has nothing to do with religion; here, since God reveals himself, the natural state is belief.

The true definition of faith. Whether Mother Theresa remained faithful is a different discussion. But first we should get a good definiton.

By the way, here's another story on MT. I was in New York City when this was in the papers:

She bought a building in Manhattan (some of the most expensive real estate around) to convert to a shelter for homeless men. She couldn't get a certificate of occupancy because the building was tall enough that it was required to have elevators, but she wouldn't put elevators in, because, "these men don't deserve elevators." She abandoned the project. God knows who owns the building now.

"The alternative proposed by some self-satisfied atheists is to live by yourself in a world where love is unimportant because it is not based on a rational premise that I get some advantage for myself."

As an atheist and a poet, I resent this. This is not just a straw man, this is ad hominem. This is a statement that atheists are inhuman, animalistic, and evil. I most seriously resent it. And as for "self-satified," I think someone needs to look in the mirror.

Jihadist:

"Scary is it not non-believers? So many of us still, and so little time for y'all to convince us otherwise."

Note: We try to convince. You try to subject. Big difference. And yes, it's damned scary. Some have tried to subject me with direct threats of violence, some have attempted to subject the whole nation with actual violence (Word Trade Center, e.g.), and the only thing that keeps you from killing us all is rule of law. That's awful thin protection.

"Surely you are not denying from reading On Faith threads that there are believers who relate "militant atheists" at its worst, most extreme and brutal forms of forced atheism as in Soviet Union, Maoist China and Pol Pot's Cambodia as part of the state ideology that includes rejection of belief in God and suppression of any public and private practice of religion?"

Jeeze. Where do I begin? Communism wasn't about forced atheism. It was about making human beings over in the image of Marxian dogma. It much more resembled religion than it did atheism. They were only atheist in that religious dogma contradicted their dogma. Both were wrong. Dogma is always wrong.

"Let's face it, atheists still define themselves by what believers believe in, do and don't do. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else."

I resent this, too. This arrogantly reduces me to some negative mirror of religion. Atheism is not a definition of myself. It is merely a statement that I decline to join you in your dogma. There is certainly much more to me than disagreeing with you. When I sign off this site, I don't think of you at all until I come back.

"Be careful my friend, various faux perceptions are forming on atheists and they are being labelled too. "

And Stevens-Arroyo is one of the worst practitioners of this, which is why atheists call him on his bigotry.

'The second point is that, definations as given is based on perceptions. It may not be true but perception is everything, just as the perception that all gays are stylish and rich, all Hindus are vegetarian etc.'

I understand what you are saying. Word definitions change when their usage changes. But the phrase "militant atheist" meant literally what I said it did when it was first used. My assertions as to the reasons for its use are valid, and you have not made a rebuttal on those points.

'But you can call on all atheists with a battlecry:

Atheists of the world unite!
We have nothing to lose but God and religion!

Let's face it, atheists still define themselves by what believers believe in, do and don't do. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. '

You say atheists should unite in one sentence then explain why that would be stupid in the next...

If there was no religion, there would be no atheists or theists of course much less anything organized.

I am with the most atheists when I say that organized atheism is self-destructive for our movement. I have no problem with atheists that do gather, and I like to go see the speakers they bring around from time to time. But I don't think atheism belongs in the same trivial battles that theists participate in. Atheism speaks for itself.

My dear Andrew :)

Such a simple point I was making! Never mind. While Hamas, Hezbollah may be enforcing religious dogma as part of their political identity, atheists in democracies have no coherent political ideology or organisation. They may have concerns about ensuring and pushing for seperation of church and state, or religion to be out of the public square and state affairs, but fundamentally, atheism is merely non-beaief in God and organised religion.

The second point is that, definations as given is based on perceptions. It may not be true but perception is everything, just as the perception that all gays are stylish and rich, all Hindus are vegetarian etc.

Be careful my friend, various faux perceptions are forming on atheists and they are being labelled too. Don't be so paranoid of everyone who are not atheists. We don't have an agenda or a conspiracy against atheists. We are too busy dealing with our own fellow believers.

But you can call on all atheists with a battlecry:

Atheists of the world unite!
We have nothing to lose but God and religion!

Let's face it, atheists still define themselves by what believers believe in, do and don't do. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Anything to say about what atheists can agree on apart from non-belief in God, seperation of church and state, religion out of the public domain?

All the best, it's been fun
and.........see you in another thread.

J

Jihadist said:

'Militant theists like the IRA, Tamil Tigers, Hamas, Hezbollah have political genesis with the overlay and threading of religion to accentuate the difference between "us vs them" in whomever they are fighting against.'

Yes, the purpose of the political movement is to enforce their religious dogma. So I don't understand your point here.

And those definitions you claim are from atheists does not change the fact that they are not accurate definitions. My accusation of your (and other theist's) true motives still stands.

Jihadist said:

'Militant theists like the IRA, Tamil Tigers, Hamas, Hezbollah have political genesis with the overlay and threading of religion to accentuate the difference between "us vs them" in whomever they are fighting against.'

Yes, the purpose of the political movement is to enforce their religious dogma. So I don't understand your point here.

And those definitions you claim are from atheists does not change the fact that they are not accurate definitions. My accusation of your (and other theist's) true motives still stands.

Hello Andrew

I'll be gentle in case I offend anymore of anyone's delicate secular humanist sensibilities.

What I put down in those categories and niches of atheists in my previous post are what atheists themselves wrote in this On Faith threads. I deliberately left out - moronic, idiotic etc as how atheists paint believers.

Surely you are not denying from reading On Faith threads that there are believers who relate "militant atheists" at its worst, most extreme and brutal forms of forced atheism as in Soviet Union, Maoist China and Pol Pot's Cambodia as part of the state ideology that includes rejection of belief in God and suppression of any public and private practice of religion?

Surely as an American, you would have heard and come across phrases being used by the American media as "militant feminists" and militant gays" to describe what is regarded by their enemies and detractors as "strident"?.

Militant theists like the IRA, Tamil Tigers, Hamas, Hezbollah have political genesis with the overlay and threading of religion to accentuate the difference between "us vs them" in whomever they are fighting against. They are also the armed branches of the bigger organisation in most cases. Those are political organisations. What is atheism if not a private belief of non-belief in any "supernatural entity" made very public? Atheists certainly don't like to call their non-beliefs ideology.

By the way, I just read a post by Minimalist complaining in the thread of Susan Jacoby's latest essay re alleged "libel" by Arroyo.

Are we to say that atheists can call anyone else anything, say anything about their beliefs but they themselves should not be subject to even a wee questioning on what they think, believe in, or to even ask what their ethics and values are?

Now, what has that got to do with what Arroyo term some atheists and the wounded reactions by some atheists here?

Are we now going to have a new term - Atheistphobia to be used for Arroyo and others like him?

Thank you and best regards
J

Another bad faith commentary from this Stevens-Arroyo guy. I knew I disliked something about his used-car-salesman grin.

Jihadist said:

"Militant atheist"

Those who stridently espouse "there is no God and all believers are delusional" and to quote from the Politburo atheists incessantly, and that religion is a cancer. Quite insistent that believers are mentally in shackles, unfree from fear of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

end quote

I already understand the definition of militant atheist as you use it. The fact is that the phrase "militant atheist" literally means a militarized atheist. Someone who uses military tactics to support their atheism.

For example:
Religious terrorists are militant theists. They use violence as a tool to support their respective religious movements.

The reason for the use of this phrase is obvious. Theists like yourself want to paint atheists as just as bad as crazy religious types. Their intent is to undermine the legitimacy of atheist arguments by making the atheists themselves appear to be intolerant. This is obviously not the case, and the continued use of this phrase by hypocrites like Dr. Stevens-Arroyo and yourself is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty and rather childish behavior.

I can honestly say I've never met an Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo I could like.

Wow. This post comes across as fairly ignorant, bordering on the offensive. Mr. Stevens-Arroyo clearly dislikes atheists, yet his broad brushstrokes of what atheists do/don't value are strawman arguments based on little more than stereotypical prejudices. "Live by yourself in a world where love is unimportant"? Sure, that's silly, but it's also fictional. Atheists aren't borg-like robots, they're human beings, and like other human beings, of course they seek love and nurturing and comfort.
Stevens-Arroyo falls into the same trap regarding Mother Theresa, using stereotypes and media images rather than facts. If he did some research, he would know that Mother Theresa herself raised millions of dollars (some even ill-gotten) for her mission, but rather than use any of it to improve the conditions of her mission or her clients, she gave it all to the Mother Church. In her own letters, she admits to not seeking to alleviate her clients' suffering, but reveling in it as a "purification" rite to prepare them for Heaven. (The use of dull needles and the refusal to provide pain-deadening medication should turn anyone's stomach.) I can't imagine anyone, even Stevens-Arroyo, looking forward to such gruesome pre-mortem treatment. Stevens-Arroyo would do well to read Christopher Hitchens' book, "The Missionary Position."

Isn't this "On Faith" project supported with public monies? Why are these funds being used to let ideologues spout baseless, ignorant claims and bash atheists? Who, exactly, is the "militant" one here?

This article by Steven-Arrovo is boarders on hate speech. "Militant atheists?" Theists are called militant when they kill people. However, we get called "militant" just by using our voice. The more you try to silence us, the more we will SHOUT. And please, what is this "silly cant" of "militant" atheism?

What I have against Mother Theresa is that she is a hypocrite. She even called HERSELF that, in one of her OWN letters. She had doubts, but lied about it to the world, at the urging of the church. Do you guys really need God or a book to tell you being a hypocrite is wrong? How can you defend hypocrisy? If she doubted God, she should have been honest and admitted it. I ensure you, as an atheist, she would have felt better just being honest to herself and everyone.

"The alternative proposed by some self-satisfied atheists is to live by yourself in a world where love is unimportant.."
WHO?!? Which atheist EVER proposed to live in a world where love is unimportant!

Waybeyondsoccermum
Andrew
Minimalist

As a Muslim, I've got plenty of labels applied to Muslims of various stripes - extremist, militant, fundamentalist, fanatic, liberal, traditional, conservative, progressive, Islamofascist to name a few.

Is this why some niche labels of atheists comes into used:

"Politburo atheist"

Those who espouse "religion is the opiate of the masses" a quote from Karl Marx. Could be for the chief articulators of atheism too who sets guiding principles on lines of thinking and arguments for atheism - Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al. Some catchphrases - God is a Delusion, God is Not Great.

"Militant atheist"

Those who stridently espouse "there is no God and all believers are delusional" and to quote from the Politiburo atheists incessantly, and that religion is a cancer. Quite insistent that believers are mentally in shackles, unfree from fear of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

"Spiritual atheist"

Those who are easy-going, more arts inclined, into meditation and personal development, wants peace for all in gist.

"Shrill atheist/atheist harpie"

This is a new one from "WayBeyondSoccerMum". But better not to use it perhaps. Let's go for Virago atheist instead. Sounds more interesting and has the threat and element of violence too - sending a message, "Think before you mess with me!"

From reading the On Faith treads, atheists are as varied as believers are in their personal values, attitudes and life. How can even an atheist tells the difference between an atheist and a believer until and unless belief or non-belief is stated?

Certainly, in politics, atheists can be either Republicans or Democrats. In economics can be pro-globalisation or for protectionism etc.

On labellings, while those outside a group do label those of another group for sociological categorisation and political characterisation, those within the same group do also label others within their same group for the same purpose in inter-group competition for primacy.

Some day, it will happen to atheists too. With Arroyo using terms such as "militant atheist" and "Politburo" atheist, atheists are already reacting to define what kind of atheists they are. Do you really want to?

Thank you and regards
J

Hello TJ

Good to see you in a better mood.

Not "touchy" but sometimes doing a combi Ann Coulter/Maureen Dowd/Susan Jacoby, but not as well as them, to get some people come back with more clarifications on their post at best, or riled them enough at worse and be the happy recipient and learner of American invectives I've never heard of.

You " Your comment about all the zillions of believers that we unbelievers have to contend with is an implicit appeal to popularity. Observe that I didn't note the large numbers of unbelievers."

Moi: Stating a fact my friend, and carefully saying at least 3 billion, on the number of believers (not zillions) as opposed to non-believers as per stats of many countries. Even in so-called Maoist "godless" China, a recent survey found about 300 million Chinese out of a billion identified themselves with some sort of belief.

You : On Robertson and Falwell "I didn't accuse you of being one in the first place. At the same time, do you deny that such people exist. Do you deny that such people in positions of power
exist?"

Moi : They exist. They never die. They permute in new forms. Their power is derived from the number of fellow believers willing to follow and to support them. Ask why are they popular? What human needs did they fill? The majority cannot be wrong all the time. The minority cannot be right all the time. Or, is the majority right after all?

You : Yes, but explaining logic to those that value it not at all gets a bit tiresome.

Moi : Logic is merely the ability to reason correctly at its most basic. It is rather tiresome to expect some people to have that, in spite of access to schools, to be reasonable, when they are angered or frustrated about something. Try reasoning with a child who don't get the new computer game as promised, or a man unjustly and illegally expelled from his land. Or a person vilified for his/her sexual preference, or for his/her belief or non-belief. They will throw back their own logic and reasoning at you.

It is, more often than not, cross-currents of logic and reasoning from the perspective of one's own beliefs, values, ethics which seems logical and reasonable from one's own perspective. Little effort to understand the logic and/or reasoning of the other sometimes. Even what is allowed in law (Roe vs Wade) is sometimes over-ridden by personal beliefs and values articulated as reasons and logic such as all human life is sacred, life begins from the moment the sperm swims up a woman's womb etc.

TJ, I like your first post in this thread.
What you stated is from the heart and personal experience in recognising the harsh realities of non-believers being in a world of believers who are judgemental of non-believers.

I read a post by someone who use the handle "Stone" in one of Susan Jacoby's thread telling me why s/he is an atheist and why.

I just like to know more about atheists here - hopes, fears, beliefs, values.

All the best
J

here are a couple of quotes from Eric Hoffer's The True Believer. A truly remarkable book by a man with the most amazing insight into the mind of the believer.

Tell me, does this describe somebody we know?

The vanity of "a Seeker"

The act of self-denial seems to confer on us the right to be harsh and merciless towards others. The impression somehow prevails that the true believer, particularly the religious individual, is a humble person. The truth is that the surrendering and humbling of the self breed pride and arrogance. The true believer is apt to see himself as one of the chosen, the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a prince disguised in meekness, who is destined to inherit this earth and the kingdom of heaven, too. He who is not of his faith is evil; he who will not listen shall perish. (p. 99-100)

The burning conviction that we have a holy duty toward others is often a way of attaching our drowning selves to a passing raft. What looks like giving a hand is often a holding on for dear life. Take away our holy duties and you leave our lives puny and meaningless. There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless. (p. 14-15)

How very odd!
A comment that appeared in Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's essay earlier today has now disappeared:
"In fact, the atheist columnist on this site had so few arrows in her moral quiver that she found nothing objectionable with child molestation: really! Do-overs don’t count." It was here on the Washington Post website, but now it is gone. Maybe God recognized how dishonest it was and removed it himself. Or maybe he changed the past, making the statement something that never existed in the first place. (After all, he IS all-powerful....)
What is more likely is that Mr. Stevens-Arroyo (or the Washington Post itself) recognized this statement for the libel it was, and removed it. Stevens-Arroyo was obviously referring to Susan Jacoby's piece on Mother Teresa that was published last week. Here are Ms. Jacoby's comments in their entirety; note that she never makes reference to child molestation:
Since I never had a high opinion of Mother Teresa in the first place, this shameless publicity ploy to foster her candidacy for sainthood--in the form of a collection of tormented letters to her spiritual advisers over the years--does not make me think more or less of her. The media frenzy over Teresa's apparently unending crisis of faith offers a spectacular and comical example of the irrationality, credulity, and unwillingness to face facts that inform all conventional wisdom concerning religion and holiness.

Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light is already No. 3 on the Amazon nonfiction bestseller list even though the book's official publication date is not until next week. The collection of her letters, edited by the Reverend Brian Kolodiejchuk (one of the chief promoters of Teresa for sainthood) reveals an inner life that belongs in a psychology textbook. I have no doubt that excerpts from the letters will appear in future case studies of well-known individuals who combine masochism with narcissism.

In 1951, Teresa wrote that Jesus's crucifixion was the only aspect of his life that compelled her. "I want to drink ONLY," she emphasized, "from His chalice of pain." In another letter, she declared, "I want to love Jesus as he has never been loved before." What is striking about both statements is their vanity and self-centeredness. The book might better be titled, Stalking Jesus.

Yet Teresa began to doubt Jesus's love--and the very existence of God--almost as soon as she began her ministry to the poor of Calcutta in 1948. "So many unanswered questions live with me afraid to uncover them -- because of blasphemy -- if there be a God --please forgive me...I am told that God loves me -- and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul."

Of course, all people--religious or nonreligious--have doubts about their beliefs. And I would think that someone who observes extreme human suffering on a daily basis would have more doubts than most about the existence of a benevolent deity. But what is striking about Teresa's doubt is that it is all about her: it has nothing to do with the dissonance between belief in a loving God and the suffering she sees. She is concerned about the destiny of Teresa.

"If I ever become a Saint," she wrote, "I will surely be one of `darkness.' I will continually be absent from Heaven--to [light] the light of those in darkness on earth." Then she declared, "I am willing to suffer...for all eternity, if this [is] possible." She is going to outdo Christ himself.

In a reverential and sanctimonious cover story in last week's issue of Time magazine, psychonanalysts and priests are quoted. Guess what? Both the shrinks and the reverends think that Teresa is even holier because of her overwhelming doubts. Father Kolodiejchuk, of course, thinks Teresa's pain only enhances her saintly credentials. (She has already been beatified.) Dr. Richard Gottlieb, of the New York Psychoanalytic Society & Institute, said of Teresa's doubt, "What is remarkable is that she integrates it in a way that enabled her to make it the ongoing center of her personality, the beacon for her ongoing spiritual life." As a psychiatrist should know, all sorts of disturbed people are adept at making dubious premises and outright delusions the organizing centers of their personalities.

The agreement of priests and psychoanalysts is not, after all, very surprising. Both Freudian psychoanalysis and Roman Catholicisms are faiths whose central tenets have nothing to do with evidence. What does a rational person, as opposed to someone who has a deep need to believe in the unprovable or the obviously false, do when doubt raises its insistent head?

When a rational human being is confronted by evidence that contradicts his or her beliefs, then the belief must be modified. Many classically trained Freudian anlaysts, for example, no longer believe in the theory of "penis envy" that was the product of a 19th-century society in which women were considered inferior to men in every way. These analysts have altered their views to accommodate the fact that much of what Freud considered innate in women was the product of a society in which women were systematically denied all of the worldly opportunities available to men.

An irrational person--let us say, for the sake of argument, someone dedicated to becoming a saint who suffers for eternity--refuses to acknowledge that there may be good reasons for her doubts. And she may, like Teresa, redouble her efforts to present a saintly and smiling face to the world--to show herself in public as the embodiment of a love she does not experience in private.

So we come to the Mother Teresa who accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979--after having done nothing at all to further the cause of peace. (That of course does not make her unique among Nobel peace prize recipients. After all, Henry Kissinger also received the Nobel for his wonderful works in southeast Asia.)

In her Nobel acceptance speech in Oslo, Teresa declared, "Abortion is the worst evil, and the greatest enemy of peace...Because if a mother can kill her own child, what will prevent us from killing ourselves or one another? Nothing." A woman who considers abortion the greatest enemy of world peace has no business lecturing anyone about the importance of loving one's neighbor.

Teresa was also a tireless crusader against contraceptives. That one of the causes (and results) of poverty is having too many children seems never to have entered her muddled brain.

These creepy letters, notable for their joylessness as well as their narcissism, are entirely consistent with Teresa's works, which amounted to putting band-aids on sores rather than attempting to fight poverty itself. It is obviously a good thing to but band-aids on sores, but doing the job does not make you a saint or even a particularly fine human being.

Teresa raised millions from right-wing Catholic donors (including Charles Keating, who robbed thousands of his fellow Americans in the savings and loan scandals of the early 1990s). Her "Home for the Dying" in Calcutta provided no modern medical care--not even modern painkillers--for the terminally ill. Indeed, Teresa's true mission seems to have been the glorification of suffering. Perhaps the most psychologically revealing statement in her letters is that she was interested only in Jesus's passion. The amiable Jesus who changed water into wine to please his mother at a wedding held no interest for her. Jesus seems to have enjoyed making people happy, which I have always considered a great point in his favor in comparison to certain other gloomy prophets.

Teresa never showed any concern, in India or elsewhere, about the root causes of poverty--including lack of education, corrupt dictatorships, inequitable distribution of wealth, bigotry against social, ethnic, or religious underclasses, and contempt for women.
-Susan Jacoby

I guess expecting honesty from a religious activist is a futile as expecting the Catholic priest who is about to rape you to use a condom....

Waybeyond...:

I don't think the esteemed hypocrite meant to say that being an atheist was easier than being a Christian in our society. I think he meant that it was easier to disbelieve just in the context of one's mind than to believe.

Oh, goody. Another religious person using the invective, "militant atheist" without providing any kind of example of what is meant by that.

Please. I would rather be called "shrill atheist" or "atheist harpie" than "militant atheist", since I can wrap my head around the adjective.

And, oh, it's so much easier and simpler to be an atheist. Hah. Breaking away from the Catholic faith, upsetting my dear grandparents and parents and extended family, yep, that was easy.

Raising my kids as atheists in North Carolina. Yep, easy as pie.

Challenging priests and nuns and CCD teachers throughout my childhood, when their only answers were "just take it on faith and don't question everything, you're too young to understand the ways of God". Yep, that was easy, too.

Gosh, if I had known how easy it was to be an atheist, I would have done it so much earlier in my life.

I see the offensive paranthetical quote has already been removed. I have somewhat mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, I'm glad a vicious libel has been effectively retracted.

On the other hand, though, it would have been a prime opportunity to expose Arroyo's dishonesty in terms even a theist would have to accept.

That's, of course, assuming Arroyo would have ever had the strength of character to stand by his assertion, name a name, and let everyone see the author's own words.

...

Pierre JC, thanks for handling Arroyo's strawman argument as well. Indeed, no atheist believes as Arroyo would like is to believe. We are not nihilists, we just do not believe in invisible, unevidenced gods -- gods who are apparently okay with Arroyo's reprehensible behavior.

"We atheists feel love as readily as we feel pain, so both are quite real and important to us." Well said.

Sure, it's hard to believe in something that seems ridiculous upon objective inspection... You'll get no argument from me on that assertion.

It sounds like you have given up on actually putting up a sound defense of your beliefs and instead give us: "...have never understood faith and probably never will" a sad cop-out.

I was very religious for decades. It took years of self-introspection and reading to become the person I am now. In retrospect, I was blinded by my "faith". It didn't allow me to look at the world as it truly is. Instead it offered up hollow words and myths that made me feel better solely because that is what I was trained to feel.

I understand people, like you, who feel they need this comfort. I merely accept this comfort for what it truly is - a self-delusion.

And please spare the we (all religions) vs. them (atheists) routine. Your faith believes that those practitioners of other religions are just a "doomed" as atheists are.

Well said Pierre JC. In their attempts to dehumanize us (and I use 'us' -very- loosely), they only succeed in displaying the depths of their own dehumanization. Misery loves company I guess.

Columns by believers like Mr. Stevens-Arroyo tend to reveal far more than their authors realize. For example, Stevens-Arroyo makes this amazing assertion: "The alternative proposed by some self-satisfied atheists is to live by yourself in a world where love is unimportant because it is not based on a rational premise that I get some advantage for myself."
Wow! Where in the world did he get that idea? He conspicuously fails to cite a single atheist writer when he makes this statement, probably because the idea originated in a believer's mind (his own) and not in an atheist's mind. He pretends to accurately state what atheists think, when he is actually distorting the atheist perspective until it both incoherent and unrecognizable.
No intelligent atheist has EVER asserted that anything that is not based on a rational premise (such as love) is unimportant. Apparently, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo knows that he cannot plausibly refute the actual, verifiable assertions of atheists, so he makes up a false assertion to refute. How intellectually dishonest! How pitiful, as well.
No, what atheists really assert is this: Any idea that is not based on rationalism, or supported by reliable, verifiable evidence, exists only in our imagination, and not in the world outside our minds. This applies equally to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and God. We atheists feel love as readily as we feel pain, so both are quite real and important to us.
The author also makes reference to child molestation. I assume he is trying to remind us that the organization to which Mother Teresa belonged, the Roman Catholic Church, systematically protected child molesting priests for decades (if not centuries) from criminal prosecution; and the Church continually transferred known child molesting priests from parish to parish, thereby providing them one pool of victims after another to exploit. Thanks for reminding us of that disgusting Catholic legacy, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo. You have unintentionally drawn attention to one of the manifold dangers of religion. Bravo!

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo,

Please give a direct quote and reference in support of this statement:

(In fact, the atheist columnist on this site had so few arrows in her moral quiver that she found nothing objectionable with child molestation: really! Do-overs don’t count.)

If indeed you are referring to Susan Jacoby, this is certainly at odds with my familiarity with an author who has spoken out eloquently against child abuse and rape. I might even go so far as to call this libel, had you matched a name and a reference to this revolting allegation.

She has also quite vocally denounced the child molestation and coverup by the Catholic Church -- your Catholic Church -- is that what this is about?

I strongly suspect that you are misrepresenting her position, whether due to dishonesty or poor comprehension. Please clarify this statement of yours.

Jeremy, what is the difference between you having faith that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning and you having faith that your religion is true?

It's you that sounds a bit touchy Jihadist, but let's see how it pans out.

You wrote: "I touched a raw nerve somewhere in you forgetting to put in your handle ..."

No, I simply forgot. It's easy to do here. You can search for signs and omens and pray about it for guidance if you wish. It's your time to waste.

and then continued: "and stating, among others, ..."If your mind wasn't poisoned against your fellow man by religion, you wouldn't even ask that question" instead of arguing against what I've written on Mother Teresa and atheists?

Surely you can do better in your arguments instead of just stating your position don't need the weight of "popularity", whatever that means."

Well, let's think it through. Slowly. You asked if I could see the shining example that MT set without regard to religion. I've answered you. What kind of person couldn't see it? I'm sorry that you don't like the answer but that's a reflection on how you view your fellow man, not on my answer.

As for my comment about popularity, in logical argument there is a fallacy known as an 'appeal to popularity'. Simply put, when you argue that something is correct and give as evidence the number of people that believe it to be correct, you are employing fallacious argumentation. Your comment about all the zillions of believers that we unbelievers have to contend with is an implicit appeal to popularity. Observe that I didn't note the large numbers of unbelievers.

You continue: "And "Apocalyptic"? Err... I'm not an evangelical of the ilks of Pat Robertsons who call for the hastening of Armageddon."

I'm doubly glad then. Firstly, I dislike such people and secondly, I didn't accuse you of being one in the first place. At the same time, do you deny that such people exist. Do you deny that such people in positions of power exist?

You continue: "Come on TJ, cool reason, logic and humanism of atheists is said to be the best panacea for all of mankind's ills."

Yes, but explaining logic to those that value it not at all gets a bit tiresome.

Sure Jeremy, sure you're right.
I have great faith that should I step on a crack it won't break my mother's back, despite the little rhyme so many say when we're young.

But you're right, I am taking that chance that it will break her back.

BTW, which of the many thousands of gods humanity has and continues to worship should I be most worried about? I mean, I was born here in the west, should I worry about the christian gods the most? Or should I curse my parents for having me here in the west when they could have moved to sauid arabia where I could have been infected with still another true faith?

Anyway, I sure do appreciate you're making my point for me. Though I did try, I could not have said it better than you.

The idea that being an Atheist requires no faith, or less faith than being a Christian is absurd. As many others have said before, being an Atheist requires just as much faith as being a person of religion or theology. Just look at what the Atheist wagers with his/her stance (eternity). Do you really not think that it takes a LOT of faith to say, "I dont believe in God, and i am willing to spend the rest of forever (and ever, and ever, and ever, etc.) in the damned pits of Hell? NAY! One must have STRONG convictions (and faith) to be able to live by such a statement.
It seems to me that you believe the basis of faith comes from participating in religious traditions, and to express love for a metaphysical being. Obviously, neither of which are completely true of the essential being of faith. When you get down to it, faith is believing in something which neither you or anyone else can factually prove.

Personally, I think what I'm *really* cynical about here is *believers* *using* MT's personal and spiritual suffering to 'prove' their religion should be obeyed, while no one said she had to live in that kind of despair *because* of her religious expectations.

I'm not sure turning other people's deaths into a religious exercise of *her* devotion and *her* religion was necessarily this great kindness to *the Hindu people luckless enough to be in that situation, either,* but I don't think she, herself had to suffer like that to render care, either.

I don't think it 'proves' anything about atheists, except that just cause someone doesn't *believe* doesn't mean they're bad people.

Maybe *trying* to believe when you don't leads to this kind of awkwardness, though. Not really gonna judge, but I don't think it *proves* anything.

I'm waiting to see if Professor Arroyo-Stevens would really go to a center like those "provided" by Mother Teresa when he is dying. I may adamantly disagree with him on his characterization of atheism, but even I, an atheist, don't wish upon him the magnitude of suffering experienced by those who had the "opportunity" to suffer at the hands of Mother Teresa. Was she a saint? Sure, why not. Nothing wrong with being a sadistic saint, right?

Definition:
Sadistic saint: someone who gets pleasure out of watching other people suffer in the name of god.

faith, the willing suspension of disbelief.

disbelief, the willing suspension of ... what?

In one sense it is true that belief is harder than disbelief, I mean you have to swallow all sorts of crap without chewing. Disbelief? you just spit it out.

but believers have all sorts of support structures out there, churches and mosques and synagogues and the boy scounts and republican governments are among that list. There is no church of atheism, why?

Because it's not an "ism" for one thing. the 'a' prefix means 'not', not theism, do you get it? Disbelief is not belief in the opposite, it's just "not" belief.
The fact that so many believers confuse atheism as an "ism" says so much about their understanding of the language. Since we are not using the same words in the same way, I don't know that we'll ever be able to communicate.

It's harder to hold your hand in a blender every morning than to not -- this makes it a more noble thing to do.

Or maybe difficulty in doing isn't much of a criteria.

And once again Stevens-Arroyo takes time out from his busy schedule to mindlessly slam "militant" atheists (notice that "militant" is applied to Muslims and Christians and Jews and Hindus if they kill people, but it's applied to atheists if they advocate atheism? If Muslims or Christians or Jews or Hindus advocate their religious views, they're just called Muslim/Christian/Jew/Hindu...)

I don't consider Teresa's treatment of sick people to be very laudable, since she didn't even give them painkillers (because she thought their suffering was good for them, spiritually). But when she herself was ill, she went to GOOD hospitals.

Disbelief is harder than believing, because with creation it takes a lot of disbelief to think that there is no Supreme being.

Hello TJ

I touched a raw nerve somewhere in you forgetting to put in your handle and stating, among others, "If your mind wasn't poisoned against your fellow man by religion, you wouldn't even ask that question" instead of arguing against what I've written on Mother Teresa and atheists?

Surely you can do better in your arguments instead of just stating your position don't need the weight of "popularity", whatever that means.

Faith as define in discussions in On Faith is re religious faith and beliefs - belief in the the "supernatural", non-believers like to call it. I prefer "meganatural" for the Creator and Originator (a.k.a. God) of the earth and the heavens - the whole universe and every lifeform therein.

Prof. Arroyo is issuing a challenge. What he call "militant atheists" are no better than extremist/literalist/inerrantist believers who want to impose their views on others at the personal and/or state level and goes around name-calling and labelling others who don't agree with them or see things they way they do. Believers are most capable and do call even their fellow adherents heretics and/or to excommunicate them too.

And "Apocalyptic"? Err... I'm not an evangelical of the ilks of Pat Robertsons who call for the hastening of Armageddon.

Come on TJ, cool reason, logic and humanism of atheists is said to be the best panacea for all of mankind's ills. There are spiritual atheists, there are hardcore atheists, there are secular humanists, there are agnostics, there are freethinkers.

As for me, I am, after all, one of the delusional, moronic and idiotic believers and all too, too happy to play that role in On Faith threads.

Best regards
J

That was me above.

Jihadist writes: "I am beginning to understand what Prof. Arroyo meant by "militant atheists". Faith is not specific to believers and particular to religion only. Faith as strong confidence and belief in something, also drives atheists - as in their hope, faith and belief that all believers of the supernatural will stop believing in God, the devil, demon, Satan (both Great and Little versions), heaven and hell etc."

This is incorrect, in my view, at least twice. Firstly, to attempt to blur the line between religious faith and more mundane types of faith (like our collective faith in the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, for example) is intellectually dishonest. Secondly, If you enjoy believing in your religion, that's great. It doesn't bother me at all provided that you don't attempt to drag me into it. My position doesn't need the weight of popularity for its arguments.

and then continues: "Can atheists ever go beyond the beliefs of Mother Teresa, both public and personal, as well as her doubts, which is vaunted by atheists, and to look at her as a very human being who gave the better part of her life for the sick and poor?"

If your mind wasn't poisoned against your fellow man by religion, you wouldn't even ask that question.

and then continues: "Scary is it not non-believers? So many of us still, and so little time for y'all to convince us otherwise."

It's scary in the sense that many religious people seem to be actively doing their best to usher in their own apocalyptic view of the end of the world. As a citizen of a secular nation, it's scary that religious people want to impose their fantasies on me in a legal sense.

TJ and E Favorite

Interesting posts from both of you.

Easier to say to an athiest in On Faith that you don't believe rather than you believe. Voila! You are regarded as smart and non-delusional and and other non-psycho and liberating feelings of mind and body and such. Just like that.

And why would any "believer" chose not to express his/her private disbelief here (in the anonymity of "handles") if it is easier for them to do so rather than a public declaration to "say" s/he don't believe to family, friends and colleagues?

I would have thought there would be more publicly declared believers saying they don't believe in private here in On Faith. Instead, what I read mostly are former believers who declared their disbelief and why, and believers who asserted their beliefs and why.

Trying to make all that religious stuff sense, is ironically, what develops the intellectual tradition of eastern and western civilisations for centuries now. It is the human capacity to wonder and speculate on the unknown that sets man on his adventure of physical and mental discovery of this world and beyond. Even for Einstein, it takes a great deal of personal "faith" to put forth his Theory of Relativity without proof until proven.

I am beginning to understand what Prof. Arroyo meant by "militant atheists". Faith is not specific to believers and particular to religion only. Faith as strong confidence and belief in something, also drives atheists - as in their hope, faith and belief that all believers of the supernatural will stop believing in God, the devil, demon, Satan (both Great and Little versions), heaven and hell etc.

Perhaps we do forget that a "saint" is also someone who is caring and unselfish, not only just the ones who lead a holy life or to perform miracles. Isaac Asimov, an atheist who called himself a secular humanist, can also be called a "saint" for being caring and unselfish in his activities for fellow humans regardless of their faith and beliefs.

Methinks atheists doth tend to seperate themselves too much from the mass of humanity who believe by distinguishing themselves as a seperate class of, well, humans, and balked too much at using innocous generic words and terms as if they would infect atheists with "belief" if applied to them. As if using such words and terms will re-infect them with belief in the "supernatural".

Mother Teresa certainly seem to choose a vocation freely within her church - to help the poor and sick in the slums of Calcutta. No one ask her to stay on and on for decades there. She made that choice. Better her helping the poor and sick. Better her very human doubts that shows she's thinking and evaluating who she is and what she believe in, rather then the splendidly robed bishops and archbishops engaged in stately rituals as testament of their belief and long discoures on "reason in faith".

Like Mother Teresa, humanitarian workers in non-religious affiliated NGOs working in poor areas, in conflict wrecked areas or areas devastated by either natural or man-made disaster do experience doubts and depression as Mother Teresa do, even if they don't believe in God. No one call look at human miseries and pain and not feel any doubt at all at one's personal capacity to deal with it.

The faith of humanitarian workers in whatever they believe in and their values are, whatever reason they get involved in humanitarian activities, do keep them going ahead, even in the alieness of being in an environment so difffent from the one they grew up in and live in, even when situations gets personally depressing for them, and are seemingly untenable and hopeless. Not giving up regardless is also faith in oneself and fellow men.

Can atheists ever go beyond the beliefs of Mother Teresa, both public and personal, as well as her doubts, which is vaunted by atheists, and to look at her as a very human being who gave the better part of her life for the sick and poor? Or are they saying whatever a person does, it is to be invalidated if that person is a believer who show how human s/he really is?

More fun to be a believer in the supernatural, demented demon, deal-making devil, Satan (both Little and Great), heaven and hell too and to see non-believers dying to put one in a straightjacket, but they can't. Over at least three billion believers in the world is one too many to put in insane asylums.

Scary is it not non-believers? So many of us still, and so little time for y'all to convince us otherwise.

Thank you and best regards
J

TJ - in my experience it's easier from a societal point of view to "say" you believe, but easier from a personal point of view to not believe. Trying to make all that religious stuff make sense was hard - impossible, really, so that's where faith came in. What a relief - no need to think anymore.

Doesn't add up? doesn't play out in real life? no problem - just have faith!

As a former, and devout, Lutheran and as a current atheist, it's my experience that my former belief was considerably easier than my current disbelief is. If you persist in doubting this professor, then I suggest you try walking the proverbial mile in an atheist's moccasins in 'modern' America.

Simply put, the biggest group is the easiest for social animals (that would be you and I) to go along with.