The Atheist Wager

Oh, you spectacularly silly man. Just about everything you say here is wrong. Since when was it ever "en vogue," as you say to disbelieve in God? Where is the evidence for this? Certainly it's not in the numbers.

I know for my part that I don't not believe because my hippie friend told me it's the cool thing to do, I don't believe because I don't believe. Seems to me that if anything, atheists often find themselves in the closet.

If an atheist is pro-life, then it is because they base their belief that a mammal's life begins in the embryonic/fetal stage on a scientific basis. Why should religion have a monopoly on when life begins?

Then you go to imply that atheists somehow value life less, or that any such a value that they would have is misplaced because without faith or God or something, life is meaningless. Such a tenuous and tired old argument is that to make. In a word, the answer to that is philosophy. I won't rant on about that here. Life isn't meaningless if you don't believe in God - if anything, it's all the more meaningful, because it is the one shot; there is no eternal afterlife to fall back on.

This segues into your point on intellectual laziness, which is just wrong on so many levels. If anything, an atheist could hurl that epithet on the religious believer to better effect. Is it not the very, ah, steadfast believer who chucks science and intellectualism when it conflicts with what they learned long ago?
If anything, it takes more to square with oneself that there is no God, no divine retribution, but that it's good to be good for goodness sake. It takes responsibility. It takes a different kind of belief, my friend - a belief in humanity.

Of course, I know that there are religious people who understand this basic concept - the virtue of, well, virtue in and of itself. These people I truly admire. They use this as the foundation their religious belief. I know this because I have met a few such people, But for the most part, these people seem to be the exception and not the rule, and that is unfortunate. Most people, it seems, would rather have their religion conform to their own otherwise-held convictions. But that's an argument for another day.

You claim to talk to atheists all the time, but it's like you've never talked to one at all regarding these matters, otherwise you would know better than to be making these terrible arguments.

Who gave this guy, Cal Thomas, a pencil and a soap box? He quotes CBN (the let's assassinate them network) to quote in characterizing Sen. Obama.

I've seen this kind of holier than thou tactic back in the 60s, but I thought people were better now. We were in Sunday School today and someone handed out a rag with Thomas's interpretation of the Bible, and what it is to be Christian. I wonder about Thomas's motives, he looks like a pasty Goebels if you ask me.

Thomas probably thinks that any other version of the Bible than King James is herecy. I didn't like what I read in his column yesterday, but there is nothing unusual there. However, Cal's deciding to take on the mantle of what is a true Christian was very annoying.

If stocks and pillaries were still in style I'd say we hold a town meeting and vote to lock him in for a day or two. That way we can get rid of all those tainted tomatoes. He who is without sin cast the first stone is what Christ said. Christ didn't say anything about tomatoes, and Cal Thomas is a good pundit to get his own medicine and get smeared.

I really hope that Cal loses his soap box / contracts across the nation before he does real harm to this society.

nkahlq rnly ynaxb iphxcgq ufdcanb szyflq lartobj

nkahlq rnly ynaxb iphxcgq ufdcanb szyflq lartobj

bxgjri pwxtsbc cesr bpyzknvlj huxn letdwzmn dwbfavq

bxgjri pwxtsbc cesr bpyzknvlj huxn letdwzmn dwbfavq

mdtcybvhw mwsqo ymvhaqbs zyqxamrp mwavjg qosrgmb zkdultpx

mdtcybvhw mwsqo ymvhaqbs zyqxamrp mwavjg qosrgmb zkdultpx

blxpg jrduixb mfxwlrc tfayp gbxlcp pdivoksxc isaybc

blxpg jrduixb mfxwlrc tfayp gbxlcp pdivoksxc isaybc

blxpg jrduixb mfxwlrc tfayp gbxlcp pdivoksxc isaybc

esrzw hrgynwqda dxrnhpu vhupy cbowu kjxsfcr lysca

esrzw hrgynwqda dxrnhpu vhupy cbowu kjxsfcr lysca

esrzw hrgynwqda dxrnhpu vhupy cbowu kjxsfcr lysca

The Bible says " the fools says in his heart there is no God"

You are all fools

I just read your column "The fall of the House of Clinton." You do know that Kennedy endorsed Obama because Hillary wants to throw out "No Child Left Behind" (his concession to the Repubs and a horrible program) and because Hillary said that LBJ was the President (and not JFK) that worked to get the Civil Rights Law passed. She of course mentioned JFK but relied more on LBJ. You must have known that. Why would you print what you did.

And how could you quote Dick Morris. He is one of the most disreputable, swarmy characters I have ever seen. I can't even stand to watch him on TV. I can now listen to you because you are mellowing in your old age and there are some things I agree with you on.

Cal, just print the truth. There is no need to malign the Clintons. Bill had a great 8 years despite Starr.

AA’s had the lowest unemployment rate EVER IN RECORDED HISTORY under Bill’s administration!!!
There was the biggest investment in education than there had been for 30 years.
There was the biggest drop in child poverty for three decades as well.
They began HeadStart
They expanded Pell grants and college help.
There was the lowest crime rate in 25 years
They gave health care to over 6 million children
There was the highest home ownership rate IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY, including the highest minority home ownership rate EVER RECORDED.

Cal,

It seems to me that you are missing a very major point. As an atheist (from 12 to 81 years old) I don't care to debate whether or no God exists. My concern is that we maintain separation of church and state.

I have had religion forced on me a number of times in my life and it only served to make me bitter towards religion. The incidences that bothered me most happened when I was in the Navy (WW II). I volunteered to fight for democracy and the every Sunday in boot camp I was forced to attend Catholic services - my last name being Italian, of course I had to be a Catholic. That was just the beginning.

Whatever your religion is is fine by me, I just want to be left alone and I don't want to support religion through taxes.

I am friends with a local Christian minister and with a Catholic pries both of whom are aware of my non-belief. We never have problems.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a country where all people are free from religious "missionaries."

Cal,

It seems to me that you are missing a very major point. As an atheist (from 12 to 81 years old) I don't care to debate whether or no God exists. My concern is that we maintain separation of church and state.

I have had religion forced on me a number of times in my life and it only served to make me bitter towards religion. The incidences that bothered me most happened when I was in the Navy (WW II). I volunteered to fight for democracy and the every Sunday in boot camp I was forced to attend Catholic services - my last name being Italian, of course I had to be a Catholic. That was just the beginning.

Whatever your religion is is fine by me, I just want to be left alone and I don't want to support religion through taxes.

I am friends with a local Christian minister and with a Catholic pries both of whom are aware of my non-belief. We never have problems.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a country where all people are free from religious "missionaries."

Google is the best search engine Google

Google is the best search engine Google

Definitely not one of Cal Thomas' strongest articles.

But as far as the comments on the board go....
I'm seeing a lot of "Duh! Science shows things change, ergo evolution, therefore there is no God."
Where is the logic in that line? If our world came to be in more than 6 days, how does that preclude God? But mainly my question is, how many of you have honestly investigated the claims of Christ that you can so readily disqualify them?
[Incidentally, a magician asking somebody to force God to perform for him is setting up God to be a magic trick. What is supposed to be the person's motivation in asking God to perform--we want a kind of god who will jump through hoops? ]

I thought it was fascinating that the movie "Bruce Almighty" made such a strong point of: you cannot give someone free will, then force that person to love you.
We want free will, then we wonder at not being forced to believe by, say, God 'jumping through hoops'. True miracles happen all the time (and those manufactured for your television-viewing pleasure do not disqualify the genuine article). I personally know a man who was instantaneously healed of multiple fatal heart conditions, proven by his disbelieving (and angry) doctor performing an endoscopy. The man had walked into the church service not the least bit interested in believing God, by the way, and had not wanted to go to the service in the first place. At his next checkup, his doctor was angry because he thought his patient had been doubling up on his medication and refused to believe the man was well until he saw the results of the endoscopy.
Many people would be inclined to reject this story out-of-hand or explain it away without even looking at it objectively. Which is to say, many spiritual things are not scientifically examined, but are just dismissed. Science is not supposed to start on the premise of "It can't happen!"

As far as multiple religions: Consider the possibility of there having been one God in communication with his people, but the freewill thing means some will rebel. Some will move away and take what they knew to a faraway (and often rather isolated) place and pass along, more or less, stories of their experiences. Some have an inclination for elaboration; some don't care about history at all. The game of 'telephone' throughout centuries means there are seeds of truth mixed in with many cultures, thus many similarities in several 'religions'. This consideration is simply acknowledging human nature and foibles.

I'm wondering what Cal Thomas meant to say. This column seems to be elliptical--and suffering from the constraints of maximum allowed word count.
Maybe it would be fair to ask what all beside 'information alone; is Cal saying might bring an atheist to a belief in God? Perhaps, for one, the evidence of a difference in the theist's life because Christianity does after all claim He changes people's lives?
I doubt he would disagree with the statement that a lot of Christians are 'intellectually lazy'. Yet many have come to their faith through very vigorous examination and pursuit of truth.
Of course the statement concerning atheists and pro-lifers was objectionable. The comments on this board seem to range from those who speak in evolutionary terms--which ultimately mean there would be no surviving fittest if we harmed as we pleased--to those who think like the mathematician John Forbes Nash: we help ourselves most when we help ourselves and each other. (Loose translation of his game theory about the 'dynamics of threat and action among competitors'.)
Is he inadvertantly asking what is the origin of morals? Can there be 'right' and 'wrong' values assigned without a religious basis?

The Mormons are right anyway

Romans
1:18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:
1:19. Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
1:20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Cal, after that beginning statement of yours, I can say, you had it coming, even though some of these remarks are sharp, these readers have you pegged. I've read you over the years and you've, as a Christian, become more nationalistic and war-like. How do you explain that, as one who claims to be born-again?

"An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right. If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences."

What if "your" god is the wrong god Cal? I think being a non believer will be punished less than being a believer of the "wrong" god.

Pascals wager is intellectual cowardice. He pretends that the question is whether or not god exists. The real question is, does Yahweh exist, does the great ju ju exist, is the dali lama really a being that is reincarnated, is the loch ness monster real, is Zeus, Bael, Jupiter, or Thor real?

"In conversing with an atheist, it is important to understand that such a person will never be brought to faith by information alone, because the same information is available to everyone."

Replace "athiest" with "theist" and replace "faith" with "reason", and the above sentence will become accurate.

It's fascinating that in one paragraph the author claims that we thinking people have no faith, then a moment later claims we thinking people need more faith to believe in facts than theists do to believe in mythology.

hermit- i didnt try to shut anyone up
i didnt tell anyone what to think
being disappointed is just that

why would you call me hateful?

its just sad thats all

i fear youre projecting something on me from whatever passive agressive person you wrongly compared me to

i am anything but that
i express myself with my own conviction

what makes you take it personally?

“An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right. If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences.” Cal Thomas.

I have several questions about Pascal’s wager. How do we know that the Christian or Jewish or Muslim God is the right god to worship? How do we know that it is not Satan that is the most powerful supernatural being and we will be punished for worshiping God instead of him? (After all, the Universe is consistent with what a being with a cruel sense of humor would produce. We can predict that Satan would invent death just to make us miserable; make us subject to insatiable desires for various pleasures, especially sexual ones; make us a lot uglier than we wish to be; give men back hair – I really hate that one - engage in the arbitrary cruelties of birth defects and cancer. I could go on and on.) How do we know that God even wishes us to worship him? How do we know god is a he? If god is a she or a hermaphrodite, they might be very offended.

Pascal’s wager depends upon knowing god. But we do not know god. So how can we wager?

And no, I do not worship Satan.

My goodness Cal, in one sentence you state "If information were sufficient to make a believer out of an atheist, then all would believe", thereby admitting that belief in deities is not reasonable and instead requires a leap of wishful thinking (aka faith). Then in the very next sentence you state "It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him." !

So which is it Cal? It would only require faith to disbelieve in gods if there were sufficient information to support the conclusion that gods exist. Without such information, it is the epitome of arrogance to believe that you have been divinely chosen to be given the correct position by an act of merely wishing it true. This same type of muddled thinking is universally considered childish in all aspects of life other than religion.

Your own holy book has this to say:

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child."

Put away your childish thinking, Cal, and accept the conclusions you inadvertently admit to be appropriate. Belief in gods is a childish security blanket for those without the courage to face the reality that death is final and permanent, and that nature has no obligation to satiate our egos.

Victoria, I can tell you why I posted here - I object to any dogma or doctrine that describes humans as sinners, or otherwise attempts to define people. I have a right to voice my objections without having my worth questioned, which is what the doctrines of original sin and eternal damnation attempt to do.

Victoria, please don't dismiss all of the comments because of the bad behaviour of a few people. There are always a few idiots in any internet forum; often it's best just to ignore them.

I think if you read a little more carefully you will find that many, if not most, of the comments are quite reasonable even if rather forcefully presented. That's the nature of these kinds of forums; they don't allow for a lot of subtlety Disagreement is part of the dialogue; simply disagreeing with someone is not hateful.

Now, it may seem sad to you, but if someone lie Cal Thomas, who has a big megaphone for his ideas, publishes what I consider to be a stupid idea and I have an opportunity to tell him I think it's a stupid idea I believe I have every right, indeed an obligation, to do so. I am not here to "rip him apart", but I'm not going to sit silently and allow nonsense to pass unchallenged.

You are being rather unfair to many of the people who have come here to have a sincere conversation.

You say we were not asked to be here; I disagree. The whole purpose of a comment section like this is to invite comments from interested individuals.

If you can't handle vigorous, honest, open debate and ignore the bullies than maybe this isn't for you, but please don't dismiss all of those who may disagree with Mr. Thomas's rather sophomoric remarks as "hateful" or of having "lowly motives" or tell us we have no right to be here. I feel you are the one being hateful (in a passive-aggressive manner all too familiar to me) when you try to shut people up like this.

what an incredibly disappointing experience for me-

tosee that over 500 people-knowing in advance they will disagree with the views of the panelist-
make an appearance with only the lowly motive of ripping another human being apart for what he thinks-
he was asked to be here-
we were not-

why would 500 show up just to be hateful?

i dont understand the purpose of this- no one is edified and it reveals a deep and sad intention that -
peace

"I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."
You sir, are completely out of touch with reality. Don't feel bad, it's a common trait amongst "believers". I do not need some omnipotent sky-fairy to decide how I treat those around me. I have this little thing which many people have called "empathy". In many ways, having empathy is a more righteous and holy trait than is faith, because if I treat those around me well, it's because I care about them, when you treat someone around you well, it's evidently only because you fear divine retrubution should you not treat them well. After all, that is what you're saying condensed, is it not? That if not for the fear of Hell, then no one could possibly behave in a civil manner to those around them?

Atheists can believe in whatever the so desire, and they can do so because it FEELS right, not because they were told it was right. If an Atheist is Pro-Life, it is because they care about life. For you to say that they have an inadequate base for feeling the same way about aborition as you do simply because they had different evidence lead them to the same conclusion, I swear, I have never heard anything more ignorant, arrogant and just plain hateful as that. Imagine, someone without Dark Age superstitions making a choice about what is right and wrong. Who knew it was possible?

"In conversing with an atheist, it is important to understand that such a person will never be brought to faith by information alone, because the same information is available to everyone. If information were sufficient to make a believer out of an atheist, then all would believe."
How true. You can't convert a non-believer with fact, because the FACTS don't back up your belief. The facts, in actuality, DISPROVE nearly every single aspect of your faith. But every FACT that disproves your limited beliefs is a mistake or an accident or an agenda, or even a divine test, yet you people hold on for dear life anytime scientific studies prove somethin gthat coincides with your beliefs. That is the definition of hypocracy, right there.

"I do not have the power to persuade anyone that God is, but I can demonstrate the difference He has made in my life and relationships – including with atheists – and pray that the One who brought me to belief will do so with them."
And we can only hope that your limited rhetoric continues to be unable to sway those who are willing to find their own way.

Atheism is so very "in vogue" is right now.

Just look at all the atheist politicians shamelessly pandering to the unbelievers' vote, blasting Christianity, and calling for "In God We Trust" to be removed from our currency.

Oops, sorry, alternate universe.

What the hell does "God" have to do with “Hell”? I am very religious but I do not believe in “Hell.” What you are saying is; if all BELIEFS other than Christianity are wrong (and that you happen to be lucky enough to be the correct type of Christian) then those in the wrong are going to the Christian concept of Hell. To hell with that! If Jesus freaks like your-self were not so “intellectually lazy” (unlike very intellectual atheists who realize their odds of winning the religion lottery are slim) then maybe you would live a more godly life and not spew this type of ignorance and ‘between the lines’ hate. Maybe you could act more moral like the majority of Atheists do.

The only advantage Cal has on me, an atheist, is that if he is right he'll be able to say "I told you so" and if I am right I won't.

Given the tone of his article, that's a rather big bummer.

If we got our morals from the Bible we would kill our neighbor for working (even gathering wood in the forest) on Sunday, kill all homosexuals and kill our own children if they do not follow our faith. Even the believers amongst you decide what it is in the Bible you think is right or moral and follow that. How do you make the distinction if you don't have the ability to decide right from wrong?

Why would you believe that a "loving" God is not a just God? I could never believe in a God so insecure that he puts faith before deeds.

I have lived a moral life and if God is loving and just he'll take me. And I'm betting I'll be looking down, saying to Cal and the others who went to church but didn't live it, "I told you so."

As they say: Don't tell my you're a Christian, let me figure it out for myself.

"I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so)."

What arrogant, arrant crap. Ever heard of the term "logical fallacy"? Somehow, the basis for *your* pro-life stance is valid, if only becasue because millions across millennia have shared your it...even if it does have the exact same validity as Dawkins' Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If your beliefs lead YOU to a better life, I'm happy for you. But don't expect your beliefs to be worthy of intellectual respect if they have all the rationality of Athena springing from the forehead of Zeus.

I've never been able to read Cal Thomas' syndicated column without tossing the paper aside in disgust. And his entry above is true to form, referring to atheists as intellectually lazy.

Here is a Thomas column that encapsulates my complaint about his approach to issues:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas010405.asp

He basically accuses the singer's critics of being motivated solely by hatred of "traditional values," which is a politician's phrase with no real meaning. This the same rhetoric he uses with religious issues - in his eyes, anyone who criticizes Christian doctrine really hates Christians.

I cannot find it necessary to treat belief as a person. The personification of your God only makes "HIM" less believable. Actions not belief in a brutal creator make someone good or bad.

Cal's argument reminded me of this old story:

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshankbutt.php

Well worth reading...

Cal,

"(Pro-Life)....That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."

Yes, Cal. We treat others as we please, and it pleases us to treat others as we would like to be treated" We need no God to be kind. Why can't you get that? You have a God and yet you're being a jerk. There are robust secular Ethics studies being conducted in major universities across the world that can explain why we can be good. Pssst, hold on to your hat, much of it is explained by Evolutionary Psychology.

"If information were sufficient to make a believer out of an atheist, then all would believe."

Believe in what? Vishnu? Thor? Allah?

According to Cal, (paraphrase) 'It takes more faith not to believe in VISHNU than to believe in VISHNU.'

"It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance."

No, intellectual laziness means you don't know your physics and biology and misuse the word 'chance' when you really mean the 'natural forces' behind snowflakes and fingerprints.
Secondly, Cal seems to believe it is not OK for the universe to "happen" without a designer but OK for the designer to just "happen". This is philosophical laziness. At lease I can say I don't have a damn clue as to how the Universe began, big bangs, inverse blackholes, and quantum foam notwithstanding. Cal seems to have certainty derived from an iron-age relic of a book.

"An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right....."

Holy moly. Did Cal just use Pascal's Wager? This isn't even past the first two pages of a book on Apologetics...in the chapter titled "Arguments Debunked in Philosophy 101".

Cal, I have a much scarier God in mind. And if you refuse IT, IT will reap pain upon you 10x that of your God's Hell. I think you should accept IT just in case.

"....I can demonstrate the difference He has made in my life and relationships"

Dropping God has made my life better. My friend walks the way of the Bhudda and he's just fantastic. See how this argument fails.

Cal, how you get a platform to discuss such important matters bewilders me. You haven't a clue.

Thomas's suggestion that atheists can abuse and kill fellow humans another simply for lack of divine retribution is downright perverse. Shame on him.

And the wager is about the flimsiest reason for believing in God that I've ever heard. I've got a wager for you: What if God exists, but reserves Hell for believers and Heaven for atheists?

Staks' Wager
I was talking to a Christian the other day and he said to me, "you might as well believe in a god because if your wrong you will go to hell. You have nothing to lose."
A French Mathematician, Blaise Pascal, was once asked why he believed in God. Pascal decided to take up the challenge and presented an argument that has since been called Pascal's Wager.
God either exists or he doesn't. And we either choose to believe or we don't. If God does exist and we believe in him then we get a big reward i.e. heaven. If God does exist and we do not believe in him, then we get a big punishment i.e. hell. If God does not exist and we do not believe in his existence then there is "no harm, no fowl." If God does not exist and we do believe in him then there is "no harm, no fowl." So Pascal wagers that one should just believe because it is the only chance for a positive outcome without the risk of a negative outcome.

Problems with Pascal's Wager:
1. With a choice of many Gods, some of which make it clear that one cannot believe in more than one of them, one must pick which God to follow in order to get the best of rewards and avoid the worst of the punishments.
2. Is it really, "no harm, no fowl?" I'm not so sure.
Staks' Wager:
God either exists or he doesn't and we either choose to believe or we don't. But does the God we choose to believe in have superior morality? First, If God does exist and does have superior morality, then by the logic of superior morality as best as we can understand it, it would be unjust for a just God to punish a just person. Therefore, the only criteria that God could use as grounds for entrance to Heaven would be living a moral life as best as we can. Second possibility, if God exists but does not have superior morality. In this case, God could use any criteria at all as entrance to Heaven. Some possible criteria might be but is not limited too, wearing pink pockadot socks every other Thursday, praying in a certain direction at a certain time, believing that his son is your personal Lord and savior, or maybe it is watching American Idol. In any case, Socrates once told his student Crito that it was always better to receive an injustice than it was to do an injustice. With that same logic, it would be better to be a good person in hell than be a not good person in heaven. So once more we are left to the conclusion that we ought to live a moral life to the best of our ability. And lastly we have the third possibility. God doesn’t exist. If this is the case, Aristotle makes a very good argument that the best way to be happy is to be moral. This however is too long of an argument to recount here, but the bottom line is that in all three cases, the best outcomes come when we live a moral life to the best of our ability. Therefore, as long as we do that, it really doesn’t matter if God exists and has superior morality, exists and doesn’t have superior morality, or doesn’t exist at all. Just live a moral life to the best of your ability.
-Staks
DangerousTalk.net

Staks' Wager
I was talking to a Christian the other day and he said to me, "you might as well believe in a god because if your wrong you will go to hell. You have nothing to lose."
A French Mathematician, Blaise Pascal, was once asked why he believed in God. Pascal decided to take up the challenge and presented an argument that has since been called Pascal's Wager.
God either exists or he doesn't. And we either choose to believe or we don't. If God does exist and we believe in him then we get a big reward i.e. heaven. If God does exist and we do not believe in him, then we get a big punishment i.e. hell. If God does not exist and we do not believe in his existence then there is "no harm, no fowl." If God does not exist and we do believe in him then there is "no harm, no fowl." So Pascal wagers that one should just believe because it is the only chance for a positive outcome without the risk of a negative outcome.

Problems with Pascal's Wager:
1. With a choice of many Gods, some of which make it clear that one cannot believe in more than one of them, one must pick which God to follow in order to get the best of rewards and avoid the worst of the punishments.
2. Is it really, "no harm, no fowl?" I'm not so sure.
Staks' Wager:
God either exists or he doesn't and we either choose to believe or we don't. But does the God we choose to believe in have superior morality? First, If God does exist and does have superior morality, then by the logic of superior morality as best as we can understand it, it would be unjust for a just God to punish a just person. Therefore, the only criteria that God could use as grounds for entrance to Heaven would be living a moral life as best as we can. Second possibility, if God exists but does not have superior morality. In this case, God could use any criteria at all as entrance to Heaven. Some possible criteria might be but is not limited too, wearing pink pockadot socks every other Thursday, praying in a certain direction at a certain time, believing that his son is your personal Lord and savior, or maybe it is watching American Idol. In any case, Socrates once told his student Crito that it was always better to receive an injustice than it was to do an injustice. With that same logic, it would be better to be a good person in hell than be a not good person in heaven. So once more we are left to the conclusion that we ought to live a moral life to the best of our ability. And lastly we have the third possibility. God doesn’t exist. If this is the case, Aristotle makes a very good argument that the best way to be happy is to be moral. This however is too long of an argument to recount here, but the bottom line is that in all three cases, the best outcomes come when we live a moral life to the best of our ability. Therefore, as long as we do that, it really doesn’t matter if God exists and has superior morality, exists and doesn’t have superior morality, or doesn’t exist at all. Just live a moral life to the best of your ability.
-Staks
DangerousTalk.net

Why on God's green earth would the Washington Post allow such drivel to be published?

Was the editor preparing to leave in a hurry for vacation, as the author obviously was, when he tossed off this intellectually lazy, pandering, worthless, article?

It is telling that Mr. Thomas' byline says he is "veteran" of print journalism. Evidently, jornalism and the military have one thing in common -- one only becomes a "veteran" when one quits, retires, or dies.

By the way, Pascal's Wager should always be subtitled thus; "or The Sucker's Bet"

"It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy."

I assume you're talking about the Christian God.

But how much faith does it take for you not to believe in Zeus? Odin? Krishna? Ahura Mazda? Mithra?

Is your rejection of those deities due to your intellectual laziness, Cal?

I just believe in one less God than you do...

We are discussing this article on the Internet Infidels Discussion board also:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=191443

Please feel free to join us there too!

Brian

Does it really matter whether one believes a particular set of rules? Can we not be comfortable not knowing "the truth". I am. I gave up trying to understand once and for all this life I came into. I'd rather continue trying to be the best human I can be and enjoy each passing moment as best I can, doing what is right in the universal way. You know, the basic rules of decent humanity (so anarchy is not leading us)--"Do unto others..." etc.These rules just make sense, that's all. Now, get on with living and quit trying to be "know-it-alls". I know one thing for sure---no one human being has a corner on the market of truth. It doesn't matter. Besides, if there is a God who judges, what's to judge if you spent your life trying to be a good human being? And, if the atheists are right, what harm has been done just being a good human being?
RELAX. LIVE IN THIS MOMENT. BE GOOD for the simple reason it is the best path to follow.

Mark Eaton really says it. We know the true story that the ruler of heaven dispenses justice and serves as protector. His thunder and lightning are tokens of His wrath, representing His glorious and awful judgment on the world. His son, born to a pure girl, leads the fight against evil and defends the poor and the innocent.

Oh, wait, Mark, wrong story. I was talking about Zeus, Danae and Perseus.

A lot of us have considered and moved beyond Pascal's shallow reasoning about belief. Men and women who say they believe as insurance being better treated by a god than men and women who question belief or do not believe but live good lives says a lot about the problem, not with the men and women but with the god.

"God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."

Right. We may treat each other as we please, and that includes kindness and compassion. Even the religious admit that "god" is something they just made up (though they give it the lofty name of "faith". So even whatever kindness the religious people exhibit, they are doing so because it's what they choose to do, not what an imaginary "god" commands them to.

The only universal laws are laws which CAN'T be broken: the laws of physics. And those laws leave LOTS of room for compassion, kindness, charity, and love.

Remember, "Secular Humanism" is mainly about "humanism", which is concern for humanity.

"The Atheist Wager": it isn't a wager, it's an observation. Religion isn't observation; 'it's desperate, irrational thrashing in the face of the unknown, and it's an embarrassment to the human race.

"Gilker:
Does anyone posting here really, truly believe that the same person who wrote that column would deign to read - much less take to heart - anything that runs contrary to his conclusions?"

Thomas has been writing this exact same stuff most of his career without any updating or responding or even acknowledging critiques of his, frankly, rather amateur arguments.

So, the answer is no. But I think the commenters here, religious and non, ARE interested in having the debates and discussions that Thomas is pathologically incapable of being a part of.

"It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance."

Wow, talk about intellectually lazy. I find it'd be intellectually lazy to just regurgitate strawman arguments like this for your position.

Fingerprints and snowflakes are unique.
Things that are unique were created by a Designer.
Therefore, since the universe has fingerprints and snowflakes, it also has a Designer.

So, we understand that life is complicated, and the universe is complicated. How do we understand how a complicated life form was brought to existence. We can explain in a naturalistic theory of evolution. Or we could use a nebulous, unfathomable idea of a God to explain it. So, in the idea, we'd be using the unexplainable to explain the unexplained. Perfect logic.

And way to use Pascal's Wager. That hasn't been discredited a million times over already. Why are you syndicated? Do you realize that Pascal's Wager could apply to every god invented by man and not just the Christian god?

That's why it fails.

It's not "in vogue", it's just intellectual honesty.

If the Post/Newsweek editors are going to pay Mr. Thomas for such insulting and bigoted material, then they can consider this my application for employment. I can do just the same, for less, and I'll actually use factual information and truth in my articles.

I was linked to this post from another forum, and so did not realize that the idea of atheism being "in vogue" was the premise of the moderators, not Mr. Thomas. With that realization, I can withdraw my criticism of that idea, at least as is relates to him. The rest still stands.

Another note: It looks to me like the majority of the respondents on this page (on all sides of the issue) put far more thought to their posts than Mr. Thomas did. Good job, people.

how can we atheist possible hate a god when we do know that SHE doesnt exist? as for homphobic cal if he can prove to me there is a jesus/god i buy him a new toupee/rug next xmas.

---It's inappropriate to ask WHY it's "in vogue" to be an atheist when in fact there is no evidence that it's in vogue at all. The question does nothing but set up a straw man to hack down.---

But isn't that what christian religions do, set up straw men to then have God or his appointees hack down? According to the christians we're all born with original sin. We're all evil from birth. Therefore you can only be good by accepting Jesus. What a straw man that is...

But what really gets under my skin is this idea that "athiests" are some sort of group, almost a religion unto itself, a belief system and one that is hostile to christians. It reminds me of Timothy Leary's painted birds. My understanding of this notion is that groups tend to look inward for security while everything outside is considered potentially hostile. The painted bird is based on a book by the same name where birds are painted brilliant colors and let go to watch them be attacked by their own flocks. Leary used this as a metaphor for how society attacked the drug culture, the tie-dyed colorful people who used drugs. But later Leary realized that those in the drug culture were attacking anyone NOT in the drug culture, attacking anyone different, encouraging drug use to bring the outsiders into the drug culture. He realized that the the notion of "us" versus "them" is universal and it doesn't matter whether whether you are a normal bird or a painted one, anyone different is looked upon with suspiscion and fear. In Leary's view, the painted birds (members of the drug culture) were in fear of and therefore attacked the rest of society for being different.

I was brought up Catholic and came to accept most of Jesus' teachings about morality, but I see little of that morality in the Catholic church nor in most christian churches. I instead see a seige mentality, fear of those not christian, the need to accumulate wealth for security, the need to save the church from those imagined to be intent on dismanteling it. In my church there were two offerings, the first was the normal offering to support the church, the second was "for the poor" and usually collected a much smaller amount. I was struck why this would be second when Christ put the poor first. When I asked a preist about this he yelled at me. "The church is everything and needs to come first". The christians have one thing right, we all sin, but when given self appointed moral authority its easy to define what sin is and is not. Cal believes he can define sin and who the sinners are. He is a painted bird who cannot realize we're all birds of the same flock.

Who is this guy?

"...then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."

I didn't even get past the 2nd paragraph w/o searching the page for his credentials. I can't believe anyone with his credentials could say something so dumb/boring. Is this the best you can do, to suggest that we need god(s) to make sure we treat each other properly? I mean, self-interest alone could explain why people may choose to treat others well: If I shovel my neighbor's driveway, he'll shovel mine.

...talk about intellectual lazyness.

I would think the Post could do better to find someone to present more stimulating arguments against atheism.

"In conversing with an atheist, it is important to understand that such a person will never be brought to faith by information alone."

Yeah, we're funny that way. We need something called "evidence", but how marvelous it is that you were not being "intellectually lazy" in deliberately obfuscating that fact with the vague, meaningless term "information." Indeed, you evidently took great consideration in substituting the word "evidence" with "information," which proves you weren't being "intellectually lazy."

We have another term for what you were being. We call it "intellectually dishonest" and we see it (depressingly) all the time from people who ironically proclaim that their's is a purely "moral" position.

But hey, whatever it takes to keep your delusions hidden; especially from yourself, right?

Of course right.

Oh Lord, ohhhh, you are so big, so absolutely huge.... Gosh we're all really impressed down here I can tell you.... Forgive us O Lord for this dreadful toadying and barefaced flattery...

--Monty Python, "The Meaning of Life"

What Mr. Thomas fails to notice about his emotional rant and mischaracterizations of atheists is that he doesn't specify which of the thousands of God(s)ess(es) he is referring to and what actual evidence he has that he/she/it really exists.

His entire sermon only seeks to publicly demean people who are different than him. By now, we should all know what that behavior is called.

In this way he proves that atheists are the last targets left available for the majority of "loving and compassionate" people to rudely bash and mistreat.

The Atheist's Wager is something more sensible than the lame and tired and twisted version of Pascal's Wager that Mr. Thomas trots out of the musty closet, in my view, and it goes like this:

"It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, she will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in her."

Of course, this assumes that even Mr. Thomas' god is benevolent and that evidence is certainly left to be seen.

For those who really want to learn what Mr. Thomas seeks to distract you from, I offer the following common sense approach to the issue:

Atheism is merely the disbelief in all of the purported God(s)ess(es) due to lack of empirical evidence to support their existence (see leprechauns, magic unicorns, fairies, invisible fire-breathing dragons, etc.)

The word “atheist” tells us nothing more about the person regarding their moral and ethical system, their family life, their political leanings, their favorite color, etc.

If anyone wants to know more about what an actual atheist might find valuable in life, the universe and everything then please don't rely on Mr. Thomas to explain us to you...ask us yourselves.

You may be pleasantly surprised by what you find out.

Take care, be safe everyone and have a wonderful New Year!

I wonder about the question, too. About its validity, that is. It's inappropriate to ask WHY it's "in vogue" to be an atheist when in fact there is no evidence that it's in vogue at all. The question does nothing but set up a straw man to hack down.

Cal Thomas is an "intellectually lazy" jack ass. Jesus told me so - that means it's unquestionably true.

Wow, this is about the most ill-thought out, ridiculous thing I have read in a long time. it is a rehash of things that have been said and refuted hundreds of times. Way to sink to a new depth of poor logic, Mr. Thomas. Are you aiming to out-Coulter Ann Coulter?

That last post of mine was, besides being a comment on the arrogance of Cal Thomas, also a test to see if an earlier post was cut out intentionally. Apparently so and apparently automatically. I think I used a no-no word in it.

So I'll try again:

Mr. Thomas really shouldn't speak for those he opposes. It is arrogant and dishonest. In his certainty about nonbelievers he ascribes what he wishes to their beliefs rather than giving an honest representation.

As for Pascal's Wager, every time it comes up I am reminded of the old joke where a limosine pulls up to a pretty young woman standing on a street corner. The passenger's window rolls down and a well-dressed man beckons the woman over.

"Would you consider having sex with me for a million dollars?" asks the man.

After a bit of thought, the woman replies, "Yes, I would."

"Well, how about for a dollar?" asks the man.

"What do you take me for?" demands the woman.

"We have established that," says the man, "now we're just haggling over the price."

The joke mirrors the thinking of the people like Cal Thomas who think Pascal's Wager should be attractive to nonbelievers. Unfortunately, it reflects their own lack of integrity by showing that their own motivation for saying they believe is merely a matter of trading integrity for a promised posthumous payoff.

Or, as it was put by a teen, the come-on for trading lipservice to belief for a possible ticket to heaven puts the Christian making the offer in the same position as the rich, but socially inept kid in school who offers people ten dollars if they'll pretend to be his friend.

It establishes what Blaise Pascal - and now Cal Thomas - are, but their offers are literally pie-in-the-sky promises of heaven.

Does anyone posting here really, truly believe that the same person who wrote that column would deign to read - much less take to heart - anything that runs contrary to his conclusions?

What is truly shocking is that a Cal Thomas is granted a powerful pulpit from which to spew his hate while the rest of us our relegated to adding our little comments. Let there be no doubt about where the power lies in this country.

---And if Thomas and company are so opposed to evil dictators, why does he have nothing to say about all of 'em GWB has coddled---

It is very obvious that the evangelical right has made a compact with the GWB administration to support each other. That is why Cal, as part of this compact, ignores GWB's vices. The republicans understood the power religion has over people and made this compact to tap that power. In a quid pro quo the evangelicals get what they want, the spreading of their religion within the government and thereby imposing it on society. It has little to do with God and a lot to do with power and holding onto it.

What many, even athiests, are impressed by is those who have stayed straight and true to their convictions. From Christ, who defied anyone who he disagreed with, to Joan of Arc to Martin Luther King. These people held their heads high and did not make compacts to retain and hold power with those they would normally oppose. Power corrupts and we as humans are impressed by the very few who attain power and it does not corrupt. It seems obvious to me that Cal and many others in the evangelical community have been corrupted by this compact but I do wonder why believers let these people go so far over the ethical line. Why does it take child molesting, emailing pages for sex or soliciting gay sex while married before these people are finally rejected by believers. As someone who is an athiest but has a huge amount of respect for Christ I ask many times 'what would Jesus do' when I see Catholic leaders hushing up child molestations, republicans giving tax breaks to the rich but not the poor, etc. I then wonder why the evangelicals are not asking that question. I've concluded they do not ask themselves questions but instead wait to listen for the answer in a sermon, a sermon usually praising Bush in the quid pro quo. Our founding fathers were smart enough to separate religion from government in order to save religious freedom. Too bad evangelicals are not that smart.

Wow, you're wrong about so much in such a short column it's hard to decide where to begin. Point by point I guess:

1. "Why is it “in vogue” to disbelieve in a Creator of the universe"

In vogue? Hardly. Over 90% of Americans believe in some matter of supreme being, and many if not most of them look on non-believers with distrust, if not outright contempt. There's not a single out atheist in Congress (Constitutional prohibitions against religious tests for public office NOT withstanding), and I doubt you could point to a single one in any elected office in this country. I seriously wonder if an atheist could get elected dog catcher in San Fransisco.

2. "if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."

First, you betray your misunderstanding of evolution here. Evolution is guided by natural forces, not by "accident".
And as for "treating each other as we please", if you spent one tenth of the time studying humanist philosophy as we non-believers have had to spent studying religion just to get along in this world, you'd know that there are well reasoned ethical systems that require no supreme being. The "golden rule" stands on it's own just fine whether god said it or not.

3. "If information were sufficient to make a believer out of an atheist, then all would believe."

True enough, because "information" is entirely subjective. Show me some evidence, however, and I'll be happy to reexamine my beliefs., because the same information is available to everyone.

4. "It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy."

What is intellectually lazy is to ascribe anything that happens to the "will of god" as many believers are prone to do. Non-believers have to learn about cause and effect, and use reason to constantly update their view of the world. And that's on top of having to explain ourselves to folks like you, who just can't seem to leave us not believe in peace.

5. "You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance."

Once again, you betray your ignorance of natural forces such as physics, chemistry, and biology.

5. "An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right.

So do we all. You, for instance, may be spending your one short life defending a fiction.

6. "If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences."

True enough, IF that is the case. But frankly, life is too short to believe every nonsensical belief system that I stumble over "just in case". Not to mention that many of them are mutually exclusive.

7. "I do not have the power to persuade anyone that God is, but I can demonstrate the difference He has made in my life and relationships – including with atheists – and pray that the One who brought me to belief will do so with them."

If your demonstration takes the form of graceful humor while modestly setting a quiet, good example, you may win some over. If, on the other hand, it takes the form of judgmental proselytizing, or the kind of smug criticism demonstrated by this column, the effect may be just the opposite. One of my biggest peeves as a non-believer is watching Christians, who are a dominant majority in this country, who's world view permeates virtually every aspect of public life in this country, whine and complain that they are the oppressed minority. It really is unbecoming, and leads me to question your professed certainty of belief.

---I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so).---

You are saying that athiests have no moral compass and only have convictions based on fear of punishment from other sources (the law, etc). Right and wrong is not an idea that requires religion or belief in a god, or laws and punishment to enforce these convistions in everyone. That is what you do not understand nor can understand from your god-is-all point of view, a view which blinds you to the nature of man who you so easily judge as though you were god himself.

---That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please.---

Do lions treat each other as they please? Does your dog bite your leg everytime it gets hungry? Do all children steal food from each other when they get hungry but before they have learned about god? Cal, just what are your credentials because you seem to know nothing of human nature, social interactions, science, life or anything else except that those who do not believe in god are inferior to you. I think that athiests and believers in any god can all agree you're just plain stupid. Athiests will feel sorry for you, the religious will pray for you but in the end you're still an idiot.

I am a believer.

I also deplore Mr. Thomas' writings, and this one similarly dissapoints (to put it mildly).

I've read for some time now Cal's familar roster of cookie cutter themes...
* IslamoFascist(s)
* Attack Iran
* Blind support of Bush
* (etc. etc.)

There is no factual basis justifying US presence in Iraq: not GWB's claim of SH's "threat" (WMD/"mushroom cloud" etc.), Iraq association with Al Quada, nor proclomations that W' wanted to "liberate" and "democratize" Iraq.

Who "liberates" a country by giving no bid contracts for the entire services/rebuilding/infrastructure of a newly occupied country while eliminating the native population from participating? Who allows these "contractors" to hire cheaper labor imported across the border while Iraq unemployment languishes @ +/- 60% for 2+ yrs running?

And if Thomas and company are so opposed to evil dictators, why does he have nothing to say about all of 'em GWB has coddled: Uzbekistan comes immediately to mind. And it seems Syria is a useful ally when W' "decides" to farm out a little bit of torture. And hasn't that worked out just jolly well.

And who advocates an Iran invasion, while never mentioning Iranian distrust resulting from US/CIA executed coup (Mossadeq), US installed puppet monarch (Shah) who's CIA trained secret police arrested 10s of 1000s political dissenters in the dead of night, never to be heard from again?

I mean, this is just ridiculous. And Thomas thinks others (atheists) are "intellectually lazy"? Looks to me like Mr. Thomas' intellect was frozen, frame by frame, some time ago. It's quite depressing that such ignorance and stupidity is given high profile (500 news papers weekly). And man'o'man, with Krauthammer/Will/WSJ OpEd and host of others, he's in damn common company.

There is a scripture from the Gospels:
You will know them by their works.

It seems to me anyone... believer or not, has a choice:
* a) to believe religious fanatics such as Thomas... take them at their word and genuflect to their self-appointed status as Oracle.
* b) observe and consider their words over time, looking for integrity, results, and expression of valued principle.

Thomas has entirely... utterly, failed my test. I've seen his "works" for some years now, and they are prescription for disaster.

"...can't we all just get along"?

No one wants nor expects to get along. Religions allow people to congregate to the exclusion of others and the congregation usually excludes people for other reasons. That's why there are white churches and black churches, among other distinctions (rich/poor, etc).

Athiests understand the destinction between religion and belief in a god. They are as separate as a fraternity and learning, but you usually find them together, one basing its existance on the other. I think even believers will agree with that. But the idea that somehow we can all get along is bunk. There are too many reasons for not liking people, some of them bad reasons some of them good, but they will never be overcome by religion. Its just another aspect of the problem. If you want a true unifier, look to governments and constitutions. These things are based not on belief but on facts and reality. People can usually agree on reality (except republicans :^}.

"God" is a "Condition": ~...the condition~ upon which ~all other conditions depend~; and ~without which~, ~all other conditions could not be~".

Now that we all understand what "God", is,
in the words of Rodney: "...can't we all just get along"?

" I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please"

Cal Thomas is an ignorant bigot. A small child is far more likely to be diddled by a Catholic priest than he would be by a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Which "god" are you laying your Pascal's wager on?

The Roman Catholic one, where salvation is by works, the Lutheran one, where salvation is by faith, the Calvinist ine, where salvation is by election, the Sunni muslim one, where salvation is by submission to the clergy, the Shi'a one where salvation is by submission to the family of the Prophet (sons of Ali) or .....

They are all different - which one are you going to pick, because the wrong coice gets you damned for all eternity ...

I'm not even going to go near the total idiocy of believeing that an undetectable "god" individualyy manufatures snowlakes to be different, without anyone noticing ......

You smug sanctimonious twit, faith is the intellectually lazy way. It takes no thought to let a millennium old collection of fairy tales guide your life. It does take intellectual effort to develop a rational moral code and find joy in life when there is no meaning beyond what we make. The universe has no purpose and all life evolved to its present state. Your god as Mark Twain said is a malign thug and I reject that piece of bad fiction utterly.

What an absolute idiot. When newspapers stop running opinions from dumb hicks like this, then maybe I'll stop worrying about the future of our country.

I just think it sucks that we cannot face our mortality. That is what all of this comes down to folks.

We all know what the truth f we are honest with ourselves. This truth is all around us. We fear death so much that we fear our own lives. You will come to an end and it might not be pretty. You may suffer and you may feel great pain. In the end, you will die. It's just a part of life.

Death is the great equalizer.

Where is my proof? Do we really need to go there over and over and over again?

Mr. Thomas says it is intelectually lazy to believe there is no god. It is equally lazy to believe there is a god that came from no where and from nothing and has always existed. It begs the question of who/what could create that god from nothing. And if a god can be created from nothing, why not the universe?

Even though I am not an atheist, I find that logic seriously lacking.

Brian

Brian, that' the differnce between the lberal and conservative wings of the Christian church- is it the infallable word of God inerrant and unchanging for all time, or is it the testimony of the witnesses of God, inspired by Him and profitable for learning but much more limited in its application?

To me, it's every bit as clear cut as, say, the US Constitution. It sets some very clear standards, but leaves a lot open to interpretation, especially as the facts about how the world work change (not just as new innovations and perspectives emerge). It isn't intended to teach biology, physics, government structure, etc., no matter how hard ultra-conservatives want it to be tha way. Look back at Genesis again. Maybe God never intended anyone to take that literally, but over time we, not the scripture, made it that way. The scripture never needs to change to accomodate various views, just the fallable interpetations of fallable men. And, let's say it really wan't wholly God-breathed but based on folklore and inspiration- yes, that would undermine some of the absolute certitude of the moral conclusions of the scripture, but the history of creation wasn't the point, it was the lesson to be drawn from it. This is why it doesn't matter that some of the Gospels place different events in the life of Jesus in different order; it isn't a history- it's proclaiming the Good News of Christ and salvation. That is the essence, not the legalisms that both hard core supporters and detractors get wrapped around. And when it comes to the Bible and laws/morality, Jesus makes very clear that there really are only two laws, and everything else naturally flows from them- love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.

Using non-sense to argue that a subject is non-sense
is non-sense.

The words "in vogue" are so in vogue.

If, in light of new evidence (and, of course, evolving mores), certain passages of the Bible are reinterpreted to resolve the conflict, then that seems a strike against the idea that the Bible is the infallible word of God.

We cannot pick and choose which passages of the Bible to take literally based upon social custom and mores, and then turn around and say that the Bible is the source of objective morality. Clearly Biblical morality is a wholly subjective beast, considering we selectively adhere to certain of the rules, while ignoring others.

Your conclusions simply don't make sense.

Regarding: "I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please"

This is a remarkably evil thing to say. It is because we are evolutionary accidents that we must cherish each other and other lifeforms as the rare and tender things they are, instead of cruelly exploiting and exterminating everything on the planet except us. It is theists who go around thinking they can use this planet up because there is a Big Daddy in the Sky to come and bail us out.

Why would he have them slay Canaanites? Why did he pick sides? Why were Philistines worthless to him but Israelites weren't?

These debates always seem to follow the same formula: someone throws out a bad argument (normally it's not the original article, but Cal Thomas is always a special case), someone counters. the doubters throw out a bunch of scientific theories, the devout call them god haters and pray for their salvation without giving any relevant argument, then it devolves back to whos going to hell andhow to prove faith. Let's face one simple fact that at least Cal got right in the original argument, the notion of God isn't something thatscience is going to solve one way or another. The notion has been around from the beginning of time and has constantly evolved to incorporate new pieces of knowledge.

Evidence of the Big Bang, Evolution, etc., may threaten one interpretation of the Christian Bible, but just as Galileo's experiments changed one interpretation of scripture from a literal truth to a parable, new scientific advances eventually will likewise be incorporated and the faith will move on. Genesis says, after all, God created light first, then the heavens and the Earth, then the creatures of the sea, then the land, then Man- sounds kind of like a simplificaton of the Big Bang and evolution, why would he waste time trying to teach the ancient Israelites astrophysics and microbiology when his point is merely that he is the creator and that sets the stage for the rest of the scriptures?

The real trick for theists is getting from the rarified air of omniscient, all-powerful, universe conceiving God... to petty, side taking, sacrifice requiring, arbitrary rule-making Yahweh.

Even atheists might be more inclined to grant the benefit of the doubt if theists could provide a God worthy of his own creation.

But to me, it's hard to reconcile the big bang, evolution, cosmology, and all the rest with the war god of a levantine shepherd people from the first millennium BC.

And if that isn't God, then what's the deal with the Bible?

I'm still trying to figure out how in the world it "takes more faith NOT to believe in God" (emphasis mine). That just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Does that mean it takes more faith not to believe in fairies, or goblins, zombies, leprechauns, etc., than to believe in them?

The "evidence" for a Judeo-Christian God boils down to two types: 1) The Bible and meta-literature about the Bible, all works predicated upon the assumption that God exists, and therefore useless in proving God's existence; 2) Personal revelation, which is the equivalent of anecdotal evidence, also useless in proving God's existence.

I ask you, in all honesty and good faith, what rational person, presented with this "evidence", would truly believe? I also ask you, again in all honesty and good faith, why the burden of proof is on atheists? Extraordinary claims warrant extraordinary evidence, and I should think that the existence of an invisible, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent sky-daddy who created the entire universe in 7 days, and whose primary concern is that we believe in him and that we not engage in certain acts in the privacy of our own bedrooms, is a pretty extraordinary claim.

"I wish you all the luck in the world"

You too. Let's hear it for luck. :)

"How did that exhaust all the possibilities related to God?"

I was being facetious. But one would think that if God is all-powerful and all that, it would be no big deal to respond to a simple request like that. I mean, there's that "Ask and you shall be given" thing. Seriously, if God is all He's cracked up to be, asking for some sort of a sign is a pretty reasonable request, don't you think?

How did that exhaust all the possibilities related to God?

"Ok, I just did.

Now what?"

Now nothing. Have a beer. Enjoy life, happy in the knowledge that you've exhausted all of the possibilities related to God. If God exists, you'll find out in a way that will only make sense to you. If He doesn't exist, nothing will have changed.

"You're just plain lazy. Or chicken. It would take five seconds. Why the resistance? Seriously."

Ok, I just did.

Now what?

Learn to see in others that which you seek in yourself.

Hey Mark Eaton,

"I thank God for people like Cal Thomas. A person who is not afraid to say what he feels and believes. A person who is not afraid to put his name and reputation on the line"

Of course good ol' Cal's not afraid...he's paid to say what he feels and believes! Cushy job considering it doesn't take much to do it. A real follower of Christ doesn't need all that cash money to get Jesus' message out. Jesus himself didn't, and Dobby/Colson/Kennedy/LaHaye/Thomas don't either.

"And you know what? I *was* lying to everybody when I got confirmed."

:) I refused to be confirmed. I told my parents that I thought the whole thing was a gigantic load of crap, and I couldn't do it and keep a clear conscience. And I spent over 20 years struggling with all the contradictions and lack of evidence and all of that. But one day in a book store in New York, I was fortunate enough to have heard the sound of the poison drum of Zen, and it was all over for me. They say it's like swallowing a red hot iron ball: you try to vomit it out, but you can't. I know that's true, and I can say with absolute certainty that once you're on that path, the result is guaranteed.

The weird thing is, once you realize that you're willing to throw it all away and start from scratch, you find that it's not that difficult. We're all victimized to some extent by the misleading advice and interpretations of others. In my case, once I realized that the only way I was going to believe in God is if He personally slapped my face, I knew exactly what to do. There is no God outside of us. But there is something far better and far more surprising.

I wish you all the luck in the world.

Sorry, this is a ridiculous argument. There is no objective proof either for or against the existence of Gods in the universe. The evidence that people have for their religious beliefs is of a subjective nature, and not something that can be tested empirically. That does not make all religious beliefs irrational, however. There are precious few things in the universe that can be decisively proven in any case; we are all in the position of judging probabilities according to our own personal experiences, and religion is no different. Believing in the Gods is no more irrational than believing in the power of love or the beauty of Nature. It simply has to be experienced directly, and then it is obvious.

So it is not irrational to hold religious beliefs, especially if those beliefs were formed from personal examination, and after truly considering all other options with an open mind - and not adopted just because it's written in some book somewhere or your mommy or your preacher told you that you must believe it. What is irrational is insisting that *other* people must follow your religious beliefs. Because they also have their own subjective experiences, and they must rely on their own inner guidance and not yours.

Atheism is not irrational either, although assertive atheism ("There are no Gods") cannot be proven either, so that is also a position adopted purely on faith. Atheists may feel they are being more rational than religious people, because they are following the dictum of Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the best one. And from their own inner viewpoint, atheism is the simplest theory. But from the viewpoint of anyone who has had intense religious experiences, atheism makes no sense at all, and therefore is the very opposite of a simple and cohherent explanation. Therefore, it is irrational for atheists to try and convince everyone else to become an atheist, too. It's every bit as irrational as evangelical Christianity, because it also ignores the basic fact that everyone has to follow their own conscience in these matters, with their own religious experiences (or lack thereof) as their guide.

I spent about ten years as a Christian, ten years as an atheist, five years as a scientific pantheist, and the last twenty years as a devout pagan polytheist. (Following Wicca as my religion.) In that long and winding path I was guided by my own inner religious experiences, as well as learning along the way as much as I could about comparative religion and philosophy, and the many different belief systems people hold. Why would anyone just accept some specific religious belief as true, just because somebody else said it was true, or some book said so? I have never understood that at all.

What is unconscionable in the Cal Thomas argument at top is that he ignores all other religions except Christianity. (Or maybe also Judaism.) But the Earth has been home to hundreds or really thousands of religions - and most of them have been pagan polytheistic religions. I am a devout polytheistic pagan myself, so I worship several Gods and honor many more. It is popular in a monotheistic culture to paing polytheism as irrational. But that thinking is itself irrational, obviously; because there is no reason at all why the belief in three or thirty or three hundred Gods is any more illogical than the belief in one god.

Indeed, polytheism may even be more compatible with a scientific (but not materialist) worldview, because polytheists tend to regard the Gods as having their existence *within* Nature rather than outside of it. (That is, biblical monotheism has a supernatural view of deity, whereas most polytheistic pagans have a pantheistic worldview: we regard Nature as the single overarching unity, of which Gods and trees and bugs and humans all take part.)

The possibility of Many Gods is also the clearest refutation of Pascal's Wager. The choice is not a binary opposition of Christianity versus Atheism - believe in the Christian God or none at all. The choice is: there are hundreds of religions in the world, with thousands of different Gods and sacred writings and religious rituals, etc. Which Gods are you going to worship, which ritual are you going to follow? From that larger perspective, worrying that Jehovah will send you to hell for worshipping Thor makes no more sense than worrying that Thor will blast you to hell for worshipping Yahweh.

If people are ever going to start thinking clearly about religion in the context of other philosophical and social issues, then they need to learn to step outside of their tiny little box of bible religion, and consider ALL the religious possibilities - all those hundreds of pagan religions with their thousands of Gods, that the Christians and Muslims tried so hard to exterminate.

There is an unfortunate and massive ignorance in this society when it comes to other religions, especially the many pagan religions of the world. But one cannot understand religion as a universal human phenomenon, one cannot even begin to fathom real religious diversity - if one's only familiarity is with a few monotheistic religions. Virtually *all* social debates on religion - freedom of religion, what constitutes religious discrimination and prejudice, etc. - are significantly clarified by the inclusion of pagan polytheistic religions in the mix.

(Example: Should newspapers be allowed to make fun of Jesus or Mohammed? Well, if they are forbidden from doing that, then they should also be forbidden from making fun of pagan Gods like Zeus and Neptune. All Gods that have been worshipped anywhere would then have to be treated with respect by all newspapers and magazines. Anybody really want to go there? I don't. Freedom of religion should coexist with freedom of speech and freedom of the press.)

And if atheists and agnostics who care about separation of church and state were smarter, then they would cease their futile efforts to turn everyone to atheistm, because that is never going to happen. Most people are religious by nature. But what CAN and SHOULD be cultivated is a society of broad religious diversity - many different religions worshipping many different Gods. Because in a society with true religious diversity no single religion will be able to gain hegemony over the others, and thus exert political pressures to try and enforce its own value system.

Imagine a world or a society in which no single religion had more than one or two percent of the population as adherents. (Similar to the percentage of Jews in America today.) In that case, no religion would be able to bully society around or exert undue political pressure. And the rights and beliefs of atheists and agnostics would be respected, just as any other religious or philosophical belief system. That sounds ideal to me. And the only way to have that sort of religious diversity is with the return of pagan religions and their many Gods. This has already started to happen, and hopefully will gain momentum rapidly, before the dueling monotheisms of Christianity and Islam manage to destroy civilization.

Whether people try to ignore it or not, we pagans are still around, and always will be. The pagan Gods are coming back, loud and clear. In fact, They never went away at all. They just waited patiently for our return. Welcome to the world of REAL religious diversity.

True religious diversity means: MANY GODS.

Anonymous, I've done it. I mean it. I got right down on my knees and prayed (asked, hoped) for proof of the existence of God. I was like 14 and had been agnostic since about the age of 7. I was going to get confirmed and it was making me miserable because I didn't really belive in God and I felt like I was lying to everybody I knew. Knowing there isn't a God wouldn't bother me, knowing that there is one would be nice, I guess, but knowing that I had falsified my beliefs in front of all those people was humiliating. I was hoping for a last-minute burning bush.

And you know what? I *was* lying to everybody when I got confirmed. It was depressing and I still regret listening to the people who pressured me into doing it despite my clearly stated concerns. The jury's still out on God for me and probably always will be. Some people are like that.

What I'm saying here is, go ahead and try it. But, you know, don't put off that trip to the beach or whatever you have planned.

"Well, that's what they were preaching in my church."

Well, your church was wrong.

"To be saved all you had to do was accept Jesus as your personal savior and say a little prayer."

That's not what Jesus taught. In fact, Jesus said it took far more than that: "Many will come to me and say, 'Lord, Lord, we cast out demons in your name. We healed the sick and raised the dead.' And I will say to them, 'Away from me, evildoers, for I know you not.'" He also said, "Narrow is the gate, and few will enter." All that crap about "accepting Christ" into your life is just that: crap. If it weren't so, why did Jesus need to spend 40 days and 40 nights on the desert?

"I can't believe that he was the son of god and born of a virgin. I tried really hard by just couldn't and I finally gave up."

Maybe he wasn't born of a virgin. Who cares? That's not the point. The point is, there's good advice there for how to live your life and attain what Jesus attained. As far as being the Son of God, I don't buy the standard story either. If God created all beings, then we're all the Son of God. Is there any other way to see it?

"I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, but I'm not sure that I need to conduct mental experiments to confirm that to myself in order to satisfy the children who do."

You're just plain lazy. Or chicken. It would take five seconds. Why the resistance? Seriously.

If one assumes that "god" exists for the sake of argument, you would also assume that the greatest gift from “god” would be the ability to think and reason. To believe in God is to deny the “gift” that he/she/it would have most assuredly provided to humanity. So do your respective “god” a favor and engage in a logical thought process that will inextricably lead you to the conclusion that your “god” does not exist.

God Bless the atheists, as they are our only hope!

"You seriously expected it to happen? Your friends are deluded. That doesn't diminish the teachings of Jesus in any way."

Well, that's what they were preaching in my church. To be saved all you had to do was accept Jesus as your personal savior and say a little prayer. As for Jesus teachings, some are lovely and some a little strange. But, whatever, I can't believe that he was the son of god and born of a virgin. I tried really hard by just couldn't and I finally gave up.

"Are you saying there is a possibility for the existence of God? That would require evidence, observation and validation of that evidence. You got some?"

Yes.

"We eventually come to the conclusion that the stories aren't credible and we can't believe."

What do stories have to do with it? That's just history, and history is dead. What difference could someone else's experiences possibly make in your life?

So much passion!

I wanted to point out that many scientists are devout believers in God -- Jesuit Astronomers are an extreme example. Science is not atheism. It is both a technique and a knowledgebase. There is no absolute truth in science for we are always questioning that knowledge and learning new things that modify that very knowledgebase. Unlike religion, science does not need belief, but it does demand scrutiny and constant verification. Faith is the currency of religion. It is doubt that drives the pursuit of science. (It's an idea that's only about -- oh I don't know -- 500 YEARS old or so! Remember the Renaissance? The Age of Enlightenment? )

But, most of us have gone off-topic here. This is about Cal Thomas and his attempt to divide us into camps. He, and others like him, have succeeded. But, debate is both fruitful and fun. In the end, it is this debate that will prove him wrong.

Once again, Cal is back with his usual flair for rudeness and ignorance, all rolled up in one fantastically smarmy package.

He states it is intellectually lazy to not believe in god. I feel the exact opposite. Believing there is no god requires us to look harder at how we came about, where we came from, and what forces brought us here. This requires additional intellectual effort, not less. To simply accept that we've been created, and that's all you need to know is true laziness Cal.

Furthermore, most Atheists are not simply making a decision to not believe. Belief is not a choice issue. You cannot simply choose to believe or not, and the predication that you can is utterly false. One can chooe the left road or the right, one can choose to wear your black shoes, or the tan. One cannot choose what one believes.

Belief is based on what your mind considers to be the most likely outcome given all of the facts. Some of us interpret 'facts' a little differently than others. Many take what their pastor or rabbi says, as 'fact.' Others take what they say, and consider it carefully in our minds, weighing the statement against what we DO know to be true, versus what we believe to be true. Many of us see sufficient evidence that we are convinced that the statement is true. Others see holes in the statement, and question certain aspects of the statement, which then causes us to hold the entire statement in doubt. If one part is incorrect, what others are incorrect as well that I don't have sufficient evidence to properly assess? I am either convinced, and believe, or not convinced, and do not. There is no choice in this venue. NONE.

I CAN choose how to act on that information however. I can choose to follow the words of the sermonizer, and hope that I will gain understanding later, or I can chooce to continue to hold the statement in doubt, until I get more evidence to further support or deny the statement. If God is so petty as to hold my lack of convincing against me, then maybe I don't want to have anything to do with it. If I'm at fault because the evidence is insufficient to convince me, how am I at fault? Thus comes the question of faith. If the issue is proven to me, then I need no faith, and I am convinced. But many religions require faith, and refuse to offer proof, as god requires faith, not acceptance of proof.

It sounds to me like my belief in something that has been proven is not what's being asked for, but my belief in the unproven that is what's at stake. And I have a tendency not to believe that which is not proven. How am I wrong? And moreover, how dare you chastise me for not being gullible and believing that which has not been proven?

The bottom line is, is a place that would let Cal Thomas into it a place I would call heaven? Not a chance....I'd rather go to hell, if I have to be with idiots like Cal for eternity.

"That's funny that you should say that. In 4th grade I prayed every day for Jesus to come into my heart and be my personal savior, yada yada, you know the rest. I wanted to be "saved" just like my little friends in sunday school."

You seriously expected it to happen? Your friends are deluded. That doesn't diminish the teachings of Jesus in any way.

"condemning dualistic thought is a totally Buddhist thing to do. But it ain't a very Christian thing to do."

I can't agree. Christ didn't teach much except how to act and how to live one's life. There wasn't a whole lot of "this is how it is" in His teaching. He did teach people to do things like turning the other cheek when struck and giving away your belongings to the poor. If I were a teacher, I'd say those would be two very good practices for people in the process of getting rid of their dualist, selfish way of thinking. But beyond that, the Bible says that God told Adam that he shouldn't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil "because on that day, you shall surely die". This is PRECISELY what Buddhism teaches: that good and evil/life and death/attraction and revulsion are one and the same. They're all sicknesses of the mind.

From the Hsin Hsin Ming, by Seng T'san:

The Great Way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however,
and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.

If you wish to see the truth
then hold no opinions for or against anything.
To set up what you like against what you dislike
is the disease of the mind. icon
When the deep meaning of things is not understood,
the mind’s essential peace is disturbed to no avail.

---"For a scientist like myself, seeing people ruling out possibilities they haven't even bothered to explore is ludicrous."---

Possibilities? Are you saying there is a possibility for the existence of God? That would require evidence, observation and validation of that evidence. You got some? You see, you need a possibility to be real in order to rule it out. I do not need to rule out a god any more than I need to rule out a Santa Claus, which by the way there is actual evidence for, though it is weak. And you own argument requires that you consider that god does not exist, a real possibility that it seems you have ruled out.

"Isn't looking for proof just an admission of doubt?"

Doubt about what?

I would say that it's an admission of ignorance and a quest for knowledge.

To Anon, who said "Here's a suggestion for you atheists out there. As "scientific" types, I'm sure you'll see the value in it. In order to absolutely rule out the possibility of the existence of God, why not simply demand that God make His presence known to you in some unquestionable way? You know it won't happen, so there's no harm in laying the issue to rest once and for all, right? Just tell God, "I don't believe in you and I know that you don't exist. Prove me wrong." Then you can go about your business, confident that if God DID exist, the ball would be in His/Hers/Its court. You'll never get an answer, but you'll have the power of experiment behind your convictions. I dare you."

That's funny that you should say that. In 4th grade I prayed every day for Jesus to come into my heart and be my personal savior, yada yada, you know the rest. I wanted to be "saved" just like my little friends in sunday school. Well, I'm an atheist, so you see how well that worked out.

"As "scientific" types, I'm sure you'll see the value in it. In order to absolutely rule out the possibility of the existence of God, why not simply demand that God make His presence known to you in some unquestionable way? You know it won't happen, so there's no harm in laying the issue to rest once and for all, right? Just tell God, "I don't believe in you and I know that you don't exist. Prove me wrong." Then you can go about your business, confident that if God DID exist, the ball would be in His/Hers/Its court. You'll never get an answer, but you'll have the power of experiment behind your convictions. I dare you."

But aren't atheists then in the position of disproving a negative? Why should they have to perform these little mental exersizes.

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, but I'm not sure that I need to conduct mental experiments to confirm that to myself in order to satisfy the children who do.

Anonymous, "For a scientist like myself, seeing people ruling out possibilities they haven't even bothered to explore is ludicrous."

Most of us non-believers have explored other possibilities. Most of us were raised with some sort of religous tradition. We eventually come to the conclusion that the stories aren't credible and we can't believe. Just as I'm sure there are lots of ideas that you don't believe. The possibilities are unlimited. Do you believe in every theory or idea you can't disprove? Of course not. You require some evidence before you believe something. The one exception for most of you is your particular brand of religion. For that you've decided you require no credible evidence (not prove, just a morsel of evidence).

One shouldn't be surprised at the ignorance of Cal's little rant. After all, this is the man who wrote a baseless and vindictive screed a few years ago insulting Atheists and proclaiming April 1st as the official Atheist holiday. Instead of making false assertions that some specious "information" is available that should make Atheists believe, maybe he should actually enter into a RESPECTFUL dialogue with some (instead of being smug and self-righteous) and try to comprehend the reasons that faith in invisible mythical creatures is just not possible for them.

---Google "wave-particle duality".---

That just shows that momentum, which light has, is a form of energy, as mass is, and thus why we experience light in both forms. But consider this, light moves at, well, the speed of light. From the perspective of light, it moving at that speed means it does not experience time. From its perspective it leaves a particle that creates it and hits the particle it runs into instantly. Meanwhile, we that live within the constraints of time watch light as it moves over time from one particle to another. If you're looking for evidence of god then look into quantum teleportation and quantum enganglement. From where I sit both show that time is something not all particles comply with. But why do you need any proof of a god? Isn't looking for proof just an admission of doubt?

Happy New Year!

"But speaking of the Big Bang, do you seriously expect anyone to believe that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE spontaneously sprang from a lump of mass the size of a potato? Speaking of believing in things that are obviously ridiculous..."

I'm not sure it ever had the mass of a potato, although I believe that it did pass through that volume (pretty quickly too). I'd imagine that prior to the big bang (or brane collision), everything was outside the realm of our physics and therefore mass doesn't really apply.

Of course they're conflicting. They're two different stories about how the same thing came to be. They came from different sources in an oral tradition. Either only one of them is true, and the other one is wrong; or they're both fiction; or they're both true, but only in the literary, metaphorical sense. In the metaphorical sense, all creation stories are true.

Back to the Tree of Knowledge. I agree: condemning dualistic thought is a totally Buddhist thing to do. But it ain't a very Christian thing to do. Monotheists have been all about the Knowledge of Good and Evil since at least Zoroaster's time.

My reading of that little episode is that dualistic thinking is wrong, it's that learning always carries a cost. Innocence absolves you of the obligation to act: people who don't know any better are free to frolic in the Eden of their preference. But the knowledge of good and evil means that you must act. You have to choose, and you have to act on those choices. And action is always fraught with risk and responsibility. The curse of those who "eat from the tree of knowledge" is that they can't live in peace... not really. Disobedience wasn't Adam and Eve's problem and leaving the Garden wasn't a punishment. Knowledge simply made life in the garden impossible.

It's a story, I think, about the difference between children and adults and, quite possibly, the difference between hunter-gatherers and modern civilization. But I suppose you can interpret it a dozen different ways, including literally. You chose to interpret it in a Buddhist way, but I doubt that was the original intention of the author. Then again, I suppose my reading isn't correct to the time and culture either.

As for the existence of objective reality: yeah, I worried about that riff on the theme of nihilism for a while. Can I prove to myself (or anyone else) that there's an objective reality? Nope. There is no satisfactory proof for that theory. But, well, when you get down to brass tacks: if I have the impression of not eating, I will have the impression of starving to death. And that doesn't sound like very much fun. So I keep eating and (pretty much) believing an a reality beyond my perceptions.

But you should under no circumstances accept that as another atheist's wager. First of all, I won't have the impression of starving to death in some far-off, possibly imaginary future: I'll have it in two or three painful and frightening weeks. Second, just because I'm pretty sure there's an objective reality doesn't mean there is one... it may just be a lie I tell myself so I won't go crazy. Maybe the only reason I believe in an objective reality is that I need one. Most theists don't accept that possibility with regards to God. At least, not out loud. Me, I try not to worry about it too much. I keep busy with good works ;). Generally speaking (today is my day off).

Also I don't have to wake up at 6 a.m. on Sunday to worship objective reality. This is a bonus.

Here's a suggestion for you atheists out there. As "scientific" types, I'm sure you'll see the value in it. In order to absolutely rule out the possibility of the existence of God, why not simply demand that God make His presence known to you in some unquestionable way? You know it won't happen, so there's no harm in laying the issue to rest once and for all, right? Just tell God, "I don't believe in you and I know that you don't exist. Prove me wrong." Then you can go about your business, confident that if God DID exist, the ball would be in His/Hers/Its court. You'll never get an answer, but you'll have the power of experiment behind your convictions. I dare you.

Somewhere above the question is asked: "Why is the Virgin Birth or Jesus rising from the dead not any more absurd than Zeus or the other assorted Gods that have populated religion over the years"?

Without agreeing with the question, this should be the central point or concern of the debate.

Does the answer not have to be that something is guiding the debate! If so, is it real or imagined? Is it a spirit or an organization? or both? Is it in the conscious or sub-conscious?

Does the same question apply to the Old Testament? If the writing of Noah and the flood fail does not the entire writings attributed to 'Moses' fail? If the flood account is absurd why has it endured as truth?

It would seem that these type questions should be the center of the debate.

Robert Bailey wrote: "Ever notice the astoundingly high percentage of those that are hostile to faith and religion on this blog?...It's funny (well, sad) to watch the same type of God-haters pounce on whoever or whatever subject is brought up."

Hmmm... To take exception to Mr. Thomas' back-of-the-hand to the intellectual integrity of those who don't share his belief in God makes one a "God-hater?" That seems a teensy bit confused. One can't very well hate what doesn't exist.

Perhaps Mr. Bailey means "hate the idea of God, or the effects of the idea." Or "ideas of God" since there are many. But there's little of that in this thread.

I suppose "smug-supercilious-condescension hater" might be accurate. There's plenty of that here, thank God!

Believers are, on the whole, good people, just as non-believers are. But if you want to find real hatred, skip this blog.

Turn to the history of religion, and of its demonization of dissent. Read what horrors it has visited "in God's Name" upon the likes of the decent people who have cheerily filled this blog-thread with thoughtful responses to Mr. Thomas' less-than-thoughtful and sadly myopic provocation.

In his "Imitations of Christ" the 15th century monk Thomas a Kempis wrote "Every time I go out among men, I return less of a man." Perhaps upon this foray, so did Mr. Thomas, who might have accomplished more by solitary prayer than through public evangelism by disparagement, or more charitably, by pronouncement lacking "adequate basis."

"For scientists like myself, seeing people ignore evidence in order to support belief is baffling."

For a scientist like myself, seeing people ruling out possibilities they haven't even bothered to explore is ludicrous.

I'll say one thing about reading these posts, it reasures me that I'm in good company. I've been a sceptic since childhood and an atheist since I was a young adult. I've met very few people who are willing to admit they don't believe in god. I can't add much to what's already been posted by other non- believers. Most of you are much more articulate than me. I'll only restate because I don't think many believers get this part. Atheism is not a "belief system". An atheist is merely a person who doesn't believe in god. An atheist may or may not have alternative theories for creations etc... I do not. I'm happy to admit I just don't know and may never know. As for morals, well, I'm a law abiding, honest citizen. It's not hard to figure out that it is in peoples' best interest to respect each other and treat each other well. I don't need a holy book to tell me that.

"I wonder whether light is the connection between two particals through the dimension of time. Do you wonder what light is?"

Google "wave-particle duality".

Sting theory is not able to predict anything, but it has terrific high level math. That's why mathematicians love it and astronomers hate it. If it can't make a prediction, what are you supposed to look for. Me, I'm pinning my hopes on Loop Quantum Gravity.

As for the potato, its real, or was. You can ignore it because it leaves out some form of designer or intelligence, but that is why we debate so passionately. For scientists like myself, seeing people ignore evidence in order to support belief is baffling. Christ died on the cross believing God would save him, Joan of Arc burned believing God would save her. The facts that crucifiction or fire would kill them was ignored. Don't get me wrong, I think Christ was a great guy and I even hold many of his statements as truths to behold, like piety and not casting the first stone. Of course many of these truths can be found in other religions and traditions. But when you just poo-poo reality, verifiable reality, in favor of belief, well, its just baffles me. I'd understand if when you got sick you went to church to pray and not call a doctor. But my guess is you do call the doctor and when things get serious you slip into the real world and only head back into your faith when little is at stake. Hmmm, that's ok, just don't claim verifiable truth is not truth because it violates your belief. Don't consider your morality better than my morality because your is based on fiction and mine on reality.

"So where did you learn your beliefs, or did they just come to you in a vision all at once?"

Religion is not a set of beliefs one adheres to. It is a road map. A way of acting, through faith, that leads to knowledge. It's knowledge that can't be given to anyone; only the way to reach it can be pointed out. Anyone who accepts the possibility that this knowledge can be attained and sets out will eventually reach the goal if they apply themselves. The idea is not to try to compile a set of beliefs. The idea is to acquire knowledge through personal struggle. Anyone who tells you that you can be saved simply by accepting as your own a set of someone else's beliefs is seriously mistaken.

I don't recall an orginal thought in the bible. It's all plagarized from older works. I probably won't base my life on 3500 year old campfire stories.

Cal, starting with your claim that it is in "vogue" to disbelieve, you are just plain wrong in every way in this article. Too many lies to comment on. None of your assertions are backed by any fact I can find. There are far more believers than not. And they raise credulous kids that are filling everything from government to prisons at a far greater rate than atheists.

It is evident from Mr. Thomas' assertion that it is "in vogue" to disbelieve that he is surrounded by a very specific group of people for whom that is true. I would like to encourage him to visit the 70% of americans who believe the bible is a literal history, and the 40% who believe christ will return in the next 50 years and then decide if he believes that disbelief is the current fad. The current fad is to polarize the country by portraying certain issues like religion, gun control, abortion and gay marriage as being more important and debated than they really are. It is unfortunately the case that the Washington Post is one of the entities that is so focused on dividing people in order to spur circulation and web hits.

R A Early: "Tez:

If I understand your reasoning, there is no need for order or understanding. What is - is. We are all subject to random acts and exist in utter chaos. If so, I choose to be a fool without later knowledge of my folly. It sure beats living a hopeless existence left to chance."

We obviously have a need to understand, to order things, to rationalize that which might seem irrational. And in that we are the product of a universe that also seem to endeavor to organize itself, that's hardly surprising.

And if that bent towards organization means 'God' in some format, then I suppose that's one way of looking at it.

But I'm not so sure that it means that a hill dwelling, nomadic, shepherd people should slay the Canaanites and steal their land in 'his' name. That's something else.

I'm perfectly willing to fuse the extreme limits of our comprehension with perhaps super-natural organizing principles. I'm just not willing to call it Yahweh and think it turned somebody into a pillar of salt because they were curious, or put up with it's disturbing predilection for child sacrifice.

Tez

Anonymous:

I'm hoping it all gets sucked back into the potato and then the potato explodes again. It has a nice sort of literary balance. But I believe the physicists and astronomers (with their dull parties but, let's face it, light-your-brain-on-fire small talk) are coming down on the side of endless dark expansion. Kind of a bummer how that's working out.

On the other hand, the whole perception thing is cool. I'm not sure I buy it yet, but you're creeping out on a limb with the potato concept anyway (OK, say the universe is a large plate of spaghetti... which brings us to string theory... which brings us to proving the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!) so... yeah, I'm totally behind the idea that quantum physics may one day prove the existence of an all-powerful intelligence. There's stuff there. I'd like to be around for that academic conference. But I'm not holding my breath. I'll just be, you know, around. Working, probably.

"Your belief is borrowed, not something you came up with on your own."

--I don't know how you could possibly know what I've done to gain the beliefs I have.---

So where did you learn your beliefs, or did they just come to you in a vision all at once?

---You seem to think everyone in the world is as closed-minded and incurious as you.---

I consider myself very open minded and very curious. For example, I wonder whether light is the connection between two particals through the dimension of time. Do you wonder what light is?

--I can assure you that's not the case. There are ways to use your own body and mind to find the answers to these questions.---

And how have you done that, on your own, without someone teaching you directly or through the written word? Most people simply borrow what they were taught as children or learned through friends. Few go seeking the truth and find their own belief system. Its why christians tend to have christian children and not muslim children, or have you not noticed that.

---Claiming it's "impossible" before the fact is either cowardly or incredibly lazy.---

I don't think I said impossible, but the evidence for your "belief" being what you were taught, especially as a child, is overwhelming.

"the statement does not mean that lack of water means lack of any life, just life as we know it."

I think maybe you need to lay off the Star Trek reruns and hit the books.

"Ah, the book of Genesis. With it's mutiple conflicting creation stories."

They aren't conflicting. They are two different stories from two different sources. I think most people understand that. You really think someone was there to write it down or something?

"Give the choice, I'd pick Knowledge"

That's not what the book says. It says the knowledge of good and evil. In Buddhism, it's called dualistic thought. The idea is that it's a disease of the mind--sort of a form of mental illness, brought on by the belief that there is some static state that one can point to as being "real". Of course, one moment's thought can disabuse us of this ignorant notion. Where we go from there is up to us. If we choose to close our mind and pretend there's some "solidity" or "reality" in the world that we all share, we'll die ignorant.

This is typical of Cal Thomas, a right winger who makes Rush Limbaugh look like a Liberal Atheist, to bash those who are not of his personal opinion on faith. I think the funniest part about this is that he blames an entire group of individuals as intellctually lazy, yet uses that tired, worn out fallacy called Pasquals wager as proof that Jesus is the only god that exists and that he rewards you for believing in him with an eternal paradise simply because "I had nothing to loose by believing in you." Its pathetic and funny all at the same time, and I never grow tired of wondering want rant this man is going to spew out next.

Jimmy,

We may never know the answer to that ultimate question. In fact, it may be the wrong question to ask. If you somehow manage to answer: How did A1 cause A2? You will be left with: By the way, what caused A1? And so on, and so on, ad infinitum. Causality is THE fundamental question that is not yet fully understood even by the best thinkers.

It puzzles me that people have an issue with the Universe sprouting from nothing, but have no problem at all with God existing before the beginning and having always existed! There is no evidence, that the Universe came from nothing. It may have always been -- but there's no evidence yet of that either. If the Universe came from 'something', then how does that guarantee that it was from a God?

---It is a fairly accepted scientific principle that one of the basic requirements for life is liquid water. But why is this so?---

Water is required for the type of life we have here on earth, not necessarily other types of life in different environments. Since we know life can form where water exists, our DNA based type of life, we get excited when we find it, like on Mars. But the statement does not mean that lack of water means lack of any life, just life as we know it.

Sheila: Consider that we live in either an Omega0 or Omega1 universe, and that either one eventually leads to a state of singularity. We either expand endlessly until there's virtually measurable nothing left, or we begin to contract and eventually end up a potato again. In the meantime, gravity is causing the expanded mass in the universe to return to a state of singularity on a local basis (black holes being the "engine" of galactic rotation, etc.), and massive objects are springing up--as out of nowhere--from areas of "dark matter" in the universe. But the only thing that makes all this possible is time and perception. Without that, there's no order to the process of creation and destruction. And time itself is perceptive. But if that's the case, then we must deal with the very real (and very weird) possibility that the entire universe exists in a constant state of quantum superposition. Whether that's the way it is or not, we need to seriously examine what part our own mind plays in things that happen on the other side of the universe. Einstein talked about "spooky action at a distance". Maybe it's not really that spooky after all.

For anon:

Ah, the book of Genesis. With it's mutiple conflicting creation stories. Maybe what it means is that whoever wrote Genesis liked the metaphor of a God that was somehow like humans. Monotheists are into a human-looking God. I guess it's more reassuring than a God with three eyes and tenticles. Do you think God has feet? Does He have to clip His toenails? Is he self-aware? Seriously, though: I'm not really sure what you're asking or trying to prove with this question.

As for the Tree of Knowledge... Give the choice, I'd pick Knowledge and over the week every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Way to go, Eve. Now there was bright girl who didn't take "because I said so" as answer.

Could I remove the knowledge of good and evil from my brain? I don't know. I think it's at least partially biological and instinctive. On the other hand, there seem to be a lot of people who don't have it at all (sociopaths, serial muderers, terrorists, people who check their cell phones at the movies), so maybe it can be removed. But I don't see why anybody would want to do that.

Albert Soler, I understand your explanation as to events operating on their own,and independently. That is fine. What I don't understand is how everything came to be from nothing. Something had to start it all in motion. To assert that, all we see and know(and don't know)about the universe, nature, mankind, etc. just came to be W/O any sort of cause behind it seems to me incredible. Where did matter itself come from?

---Yes, you can't disprove God.---

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on the believers to prove God exists, not on those who do not believe to prove he does not exist.

Intelligent believers know that God is not something to prove or disprove. They understand what belief is. It is not based on facts, it is not based on observable truths. It is based on ones own belief and is thus personal. That is why Cal Thomas' writings should be viewed as hostile to both believers and non-believers. To demand belief out of fear is purely and simply abusive.

"Your belief is borrowed, not something you came up with on your own."

I don't know how you could possibly know what I've done to gain the beliefs I have. You seem to think everyone in the world is as closed-minded and incurious as you. I can assure you that's not the case. There are ways to use your own body and mind to find the answers to these questions. Claiming it's "impossible" before the fact is either cowardly or incredibly lazy.

"But there is no evidence of God. None."

I'll assume you've explored all the possibilities...

Actually, I've always kind of enjoyed the though of Everything--time, space, matter--all crammed up inside an object the size of a potato. It's not an *actual* potato, as far as we know. It's just a cute idea. Black holes are extremely small and extremely dense, and we're pretty sure they exist, so I suppose it's possible.

Once you get into mathematically proving that the universe is expanding into iself at the speed of light, that all objects are exactly the same distance from the edge of the Universe, and that, at a quantum level, all atoms are in the same place at the same time and human will affects how they act... yes, I understand that it sounds equally marvelous, silly, and wishful. Faith with more calculus, less kneeling, and duller parties (though, on the upside, physicists drink more than clerics and have not let a Crusade--yet). And you have to append everything with "assuming there's an objective reality at all".

And yeah, both "theories" are interesting, and may end up putting us in the same place anyway. That's the fortunate thing about being an agnostic: I get to enjoy the high points of both science and faith as philosophies. But I don't have to totally believe either, and there's a point at which I don't really care (today, incidentally, is my day off). Though I have to admit that right now science is winning major points with its promise that I may, someday, actually be able to grow wings and live forever. I'm still waiting on God's rebuttal.

Yes, I'm being facetious. I apologize. It's an affliction of youth. I know that the existence of God important and serious matter. But at the same time you have to admit that it's all kind of funny, once you get into "OK, say this guy was born of a virgin, could walk on water, died and came back to life" and "OK, say the universe was once the size of a potato. But, you know, a really, really dense potato." You just have to shake your head and smile.

If there is a God somewhere out there, I bet He's laughing his butt off.

When I was 10 years old, I took up the guitar. I was obsessed. I literally practiced until my fingers bled.
I became proficient and professional. After a concert, my two older Seventh Day Adventist aunts came back stage. "Isn't it wonderful the gift that God gave you."
I was almost offended. If He was with me in my bedroom while I practiced hour after hour, the least he could have done was keep my fingers from bleeding.
I'll take my chances with my on devices.

---Gee--now I understand why the "scientific" types find it so easy to buy that story but can't seem to believe in even the possibility of a God. I mean, massively dense potatoes made of everything--that's just a no-brainer.---

Why is this so hard to get this across. The incredibly dense potato has a lot of evidence behind it. Its real evidence, like you can turn on your TV and see the radiation made when the potato exploded, not to mention many other observations pointing to the dense potato. But there is no evidence of God. None. Only a belief in a god, a belief handed to you by other people in a ready made form. Had you been born elsewhere, a different belief system would have been taught to you. You might have been taught the earth is sitting on the back of a turtle, or that when you die you will come back as another person or another animal.

Your belief is borrowed, not something you came up with on your own. Its firmness in your mind is a result of teachings as a child, not self awareness, not seeing the proof. Contemplate that. Contemplate what your beliefs would be had you been born in Nepal and raised a buddist. Contemplate why you like the food you were fed as a child more than the strange food you may find at, say, a Pakistani restaurant, food Pakistani children eat every day and love. You're much more like an animal than you realize, swimming up the same stream year after year like it was the only right stream to swim up each year.

Happy New years everyone! A lovely debate. Gotta go home and prepare all my favorite foods that I remember having when I was a child so my daughter will learn this tradition to pass along to her children. Its something I believe I must do - Tradition - funny how that works.

Dear Cal,

As an atheist, I may not have any sound ethical reason to adhere to moral standards, but you'll be pleased to hear I have a natural tendency to do so anyway. I'm sure the most holy Christian shares that tendency, and doesn't need to be able to quote chapter and verse before regularly deciding not to kill people.

Yes, you can't disprove God. But you can look around you and see the inconsistencies and bias of religious writers (such as the authors of the Bible, yourself, manic depressives who think they are Jesus, Mormons, the Spanish Inquisition, etc.) and get a rough understanding of how the psychology religion works, and how Christianity has evolved into its current form. Having done that, there seems little reason to believe in one religion over the other. Assuming that there is no God that is relevant to day-to-day living seems the only sane, honest option. Call it agnosticism if you prefer. The term 'atheism' wouldn't need justified (or exist) if someone hadn't invented gods, and I wish they hadn't.

Those who have a residual fear of Hell (who doesn't?) may be reassured by finding out something of the history of Hell. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20061221.shtml)
In particular, its current form evolved after the Bible was written, so would have little basis even if the Bible was more than a fascinating collection of fables.

Cal, perhaps the scale of the reaction to your article might encourage you to _listen_ to your atheist friends, rather than write half-baked thoughts about what you imagine atheism might be like.

Sorry Jimmy, I missed your post earlier. You wrote:

albert Soler
"Things that happen all on their own -- now that's a miracle!" Precisely! Something had to pull the trigger, so what was it?

Posted December 29, 2006 2:43 PM

The problem is that your assertion that "Something had to pull the trigger" implies that only an external AND consciously deliberate force must be the cause. When in fact, behaviors or events can emerge from a closed, and even a simple system all on its own without external influence at all. If you don't believe me, download one of those computer games of life -- sometimes called evolution. These simple programs start off with a screen of random dots. Then you set up some very simple rules like:

- Try to move a dot up one space, if it is not occupied, then simply move the dot to the new space.

- If the space is occupied then depending on how many dots occupy the other adjoining spaces you either copy the dot and bounce to the right or left, replace the old dot and continue forward, or simply delete the moving dot.

Of course, the details of the rules are more involved and can vary, but they remain extremely simple. If you were to read through these rules, would you think that anything special would emerge? Most would not, until you ran the program. Suddenly you would see a screen full of little cells that move and grow into colonies and then die off. They would form incredibly complex patterns that you simply would not predict by simply looking at the simple rules you had set. No where in the program will you find a rule that states: "Create a shape that looks like a flower and make it bloom for a while and then let it die for it has served its purpose." And yet, depending on the simple rules you select, this does occur. No deliberate influence. There is a trigger, but it isn't the trigger you think. It is its own properties that provide the trigger.

By the way, DNA pretty much operates on very simple rules as well. Look at the complexity that emerged from those simple rules!!

"life is not eternal"

Don't you mean YOUR life? Life is all there is--of course it's eternal.

God "exists" because we are too egocentric to accept the notion that we will die and that life is not eternal.

God "exists" so that we do not have to take responsibility for our actions or those of others as it is "God's Will"

God "exists" because we want to believe that the there is meaning to the pain and suffering of this world as "God" works in mysterious ways

"'Cause if "God" were doing all the good stuff, if "He" cared at all, we'd have enough."

There are two important things to consider:

1). In the Book of Genesis, it says that God created man in His own image and likeness. Is God a man? If not, then what could that statement in Genesis possibly mean?

2). God forbade Adam and Eve from eating the fruit of the tree of the *knowledge* of good and evil. He said that if they ate the fruit, "On that day, you shall surely die." The *knowledge* of good and evil. Would it be possible to intentionally remove that knowledge from ones own mind?

I agree, R.A. We need faith and endurance in order to perform good works. But who cares if you think such virtues came from God and I think they come because compassionate people who want to right wrongs summon the courage, faith, endurance, and intellect to do so--from their own hearts. Does God care what I believe so long as the work gets done? And if He does... well, like I just said, He's not making any friends with that attitude. We don't treat people that way in my neck of the woods.

Is God gonna pay for and manufacture the bottles and syringes, train the doctors, and do the research, build the airplanes to carry the supplies, and pilot them? Sign the agreements and treaties? Protect the those who go?

Maybe. Maybe in the abstract sense. But, you know, in the abstract sense I've got wings. I'm still not going to go jump off the Empire State Building. And if I did, I doubt I'd be able to fly on the strength of my convictions. Gravity (and objective reality) *really* doesn't care what you believe.

*People* are going to pay, and build, and study, and research, and fly airplanes, and sign treaties. And they're also *not* going to pay, and not care, and make war, etc. Human beings. We're responsible for all the dreadful things we do to each other, and all the wonderful things we do for each other. God is present in the idiom, "I hope to God I get out of this alive." Maybe he grants us the invisible virtues; as I said before, I doubt it, but I hope so. At any rate, I'm not going to spend my whole life trying to figure it out.

That's it. That has to be it.

'Cause if "God" were doing all the good stuff, if "He" cared at all, we'd have enough.

"The change is not random"

It certainly is, because the external environment changes as well. The perception of "improvement" is in your mind. It's your own addition to an utterly unbiased process. Or are you saying there's some "Intelligent Designer" behind the scenes, pulling the strings?

"He needs counseling as the endless kneeling, praying and the mandatory worship of the greatness of God really speak of an entity lacking in self esteem and insecurity"

Pray and worship are for the benefit of man--not God.

"If God is all powerful, he needs to work on execution as the work product is pretty shoddy"

Compared to what?

--We assume that evolution means some sort of upward progress, but in fact it does not. Evolution is adaptation. There's no "improvement" in evolution--only mutation and change.---

Well, not quite. The change is not random and there is a lot of evidence for species remaining unchanged for millions of years (alligators) while other change very quickly (birds). Evolution is not the survival of the fittest, it is the death of the unfit that removes those unfit genes from the population keeping the population fit. If the environment does not change, there is no pressure (death) for change. If the environment becomes hostile, death occurs to those who could have survived before the change, leaving those who have adaptations favorable to the new environment alive to carry on their genes. So there is a level of "improvement" involved, but it is based sole on the ability to survive to the point where the animal can procreate and in some cases assist the young to adulthood. It is not totally random but it also has no direction, no direction it is heading. Some fish have evolved from fish with eyes to fish with no eyes after living in dark caves for millions of years. Why loose the eyes? There was no evolutionary pressure to keep them. Is it an "improvement", yes in that the sightless species alive today thrive in their dark environment and do not have vulnerable eyes to worry about getting infected or being attacked. Might humans evolve into slugs? Yes, if the right set of environmental changes occurs to drive us in that direction assuming we can survive along the way without becomming extinct.

A couple of thoughts about "God"

He needs counseling as the endless kneeling, praying and the mandatory worship of the greatness of God really speak of an entity lacking in self esteem and insecurity

Why does one's choice of faith seem to be the result of geographical location and the faith of your parents

If God is all powerful, he needs to work on execution as the work product is pretty shoddy
Why does one need to invoke faith to explain the absurd

Why is god so punitive to damn those who have led exemplary lives but elected not to subscribe to an arbitrary set of beliefs

Why is the Virgin Birth or Jesus rising from the dead not any more absurd than Zeus or the other assorted Gods that have populated religion over the years

If life is eternal and our lives but a blink of the eye, why are we forever judged on an infinitesimally small slice of life

Albert Juneau: Your problem is that you take your "self" very seriously. That's why you're having such a problem with this. You may as well have appeared out of Jesus' butt. You think that this temporary construct you think of as your "self" actually exists. Boy, are you in for a rude awakening!

(That's a metaphysical joke.)

Matt:

Mr. Hitler was acting on his own assumptions based on the knowledge he had acquired at the time. While Christians do believe that all humans were originally created in the image of God. We also believe in an intervening act that separated man from God. Ironically, this act was man trying to acquire the knowledge of God, as if our little minds could comprehend the vastness of all there is to know about everything. It was this act of man that brought suffering to the world, not God's.

Anyway, that's enough from me. Regardless of our differences, I wish everyone a Happy New Year and appreciate your reading my comments.

Theories?...No definitive explanation?...As I said, it seems to me you are operating on faith, just like me. Peace and Love, Al.

Wait - an angel just appeared to me -

We all came out of Jesus' butt!

We were farted into existance!

I alone know the truth!

You guys crack me up.

"it's likely that the universe is *still* a lump of mass the size of a potato. It's just spread around. What your professor forgot to mention was that while the lump of mass was the size of a potato, it was as dense as, well, the entire universe crammed up into a potato-sized space. That's why it exploded."

Ah, now I get it. So it was just a really, really heavy potato. It's so simple when you put it that way. And what, exactly, was this potato made of? Everything? Gee--now I understand why the "scientific" types find it so easy to buy that story but can't seem to believe in even the possibility of a God. I mean, massively dense potatoes made of everything--that's just a no-brainer.

I have no problem with relious people, what I do have a problem with is their insistance that they have a monopoly on truth and morality.

Jimmy -

Those aren't crickets, that's my telephone, I'm sorry I'm not here for your beckoning.

There are theories as to how the universe began, but there is no definative explanation. If holding on to the idea of a magic creature creating it all works for you, I say have at it. I know it works for some.

Just try not to judge others as inferior while you're doing it and we'll be fine.

Now as to your proof of the existance of these magic creatures, I'm all ears... err eyes I guess.

J,
Science has been working on this answer for a long time based on facts and observation and truth, not fantasy or what we hope to be. It appears that you most distant ancestor arose here, on earth, in the ocean, not much differently than a hurricane or tornado arises. A combination of chemicals, energy and self organization. That original life that happened billions of years ago is so far away evolutionarily that it would not be recognizable today but your cells still have the same composition of water and salts as sea water. Coincidence? Since then other factors, such as the generation of oxygen from life prevented new life from being able to form. There is a lot of evidence for this, much more than a 6,000 year old earth and God, for which there is little scientific evidence. And, I find the scientific based story much better. I am the decendent of life that formed here on earth billions of years ago, and survived and multiplied. And today, I am a species with a brain able to comprehend that fact and much more. It makes turning water into wine trivial by comparison and is easier for me to accept since it is based on truth and facts, not belief and fantasies of people 4000 years ago who needed the wrath of a god to keep people in line.

"are you speaking of the cingle celled organsims that all life sprang from?"

Wow. I never knew it was so freakin' simple! All life sprang from "cingle" celled organisms, eh? And before that, there was nothing...

Anonymous--it's likely that the universe is *still* a lump of mass the size of a potato. It's just spread around. What your professor forgot to mention was that while the lump of mass was the size of a potato, it was as dense as, well, the entire universe crammed up into a potato-sized space. That's why it exploded.

J,

-Al, you still have NO explanation as to how we got here. Please enlighten me.

Are you speaking of "we" as in humans (because that would be evolution) or are you speaking of the cingle celled organsims that all life sprang from?

It is a fairly accepted scientific principle that one of the basic requirements for life is liquid water. But why is this so?

Shelia,

While God does provide faith and endurance, it is given to carry out the works of handing out warm bottles of milk, ministering to the suffering of AIDS victims and the needy. Look around and see who the people are doing these things. Is it the Atheists and Agnostics? If so, is it because of social evolution and the need for an ordered society as noted by another writer. I would argue that the majority of people serving in these areas are doing so out a belief in a God that cares for the oppressed and wants his people to be part of the solution rather than just noting there is a problem.

Albert,

I agree - if knowledge is complete. If that were the case, there would be no need to debate these issues.

"at least tell me how the sun and the atmosphere and the planet and all the species LUCKY enough to survive got here."

You can't use that argument. There's no luck involved. We assume that evolution means some sort of upward progress, but in fact it does not. Evolution is adaptation. There's no "improvement" in evolution--only mutation and change.

Albert Juneau, at least tell me how the sun and the atmosphere and the planet and all the species LUCKY enough to survive got here.... I think I here the crickets chirping.

"What I find incredibly hard to understand is how the religious will point to the "big bang" as evidence of the creation while stating that it happened 15 billion years ago as false, yet you can't have one fact without the other."

Who said anything about the age of the Universe? But speaking of the Big Bang, do you seriously expect anyone to believe that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE spontaneously sprang from a lump of mass the size of a potato? Speaking of believing in things that are obviously ridiculous...

Mr. Juneau,

I agree that religion is "an ineffective tool for some applications." I would go so far to say that it is often an ineffective spiritual tool as well. But, no one can deny the fact that it has helped some addicts and alcoholics as you said.

Although I agree with the atheist's scientific approach to understanding all that can be understood, I won't go so far to deny the human hunger for spirituality -- which is not the same as religion. Even a scientist, who happens to be an atheist, acknowledges his or her spirituality whenever he is in awe of what we've come to learn about us and The Cosmos. He or she does so without invoking the name or even idea of a God. What could be more spiritual than that sense of awe?

So yes, I am in awe of the true miracles around us. The miracle of existence being the highest of all. The question of whether there is a God, at best, is one of semantics and attitude. In my book, it really isn't relevant.

Albert Juneau,
Al, you still have NO explanation as to how we got here. Please enlighten me.

To simply state that something does not exist without offering any proof is worse than saying nothing at all.

---"As I stated earlier, the scientific view is correct when it comes to the non validity of the Bible, the Koran, or any other religious book for that matter."---

---Proof?---

Where should I start? The scientific proof of the age of the universe, age of the earth, how long it took for the earth to form, evolution proved not only through phylogolies but through DNS matchings, our relatedness to other animals, etc, etc, etc... What I find incredibly hard to understand is how the religious will point to the "big bang" as evidence of the creation while stating that it happened 15 billion years ago as false, yet you can't have one fact without the other. Religious people cherry pick scientific facts that fulfill their fantasies but always run tothe hospital, not church, when sick. Religion for most people is a social contract, not a deeply held belief system. Otherwise how can you explain segregated churches?

R.A. Early,

It is not that I am good because I was created in my creators image. My sense of good comes from my parents good moral upbringing. Hitler was made in the image of your creator as well he did not turn out to good.

Jimmy -

Rain happens because water is warmed by the sun and turns into water vapor. It condences in the atmosphere and colanesces into droplets that then weigh more than air, and so they fall to the ground.

We're here because we are. Just as rain falls because it does. There is a more reasonable explanation than "a magic man wants to love us."

That's just self absorbed and childish.

We're here because we were lucky enough to have adapted to our environment sufficiently enough to continue to reproduce ourselves. When we fail to do that, we will not exist, 99% of all species that have existed on the earth are extinct, someday, we probably will be too. When and if that happens, it will happen because for the same reason that it's happened to other species, they failed to adapt to their environment sufficiently to survive long enough to reproduce themselves.

I don't think there is any faith in that at all.

Please don't ever presume to speak or think for me, it's very very offensive.

R.A.: You're right. It doesn't bother me. If my punishment for not believing in God (or being agnostic) is that I spend the rest of eternity in darkness, well... I'm tellin' you, eternity in darkness is not a surprise to your thinking atheist. I figure life after death is probably similar to life before you were born.

Remember life before you were born? 'Cause I don't.

On the other hand, if I die and, you know, keep on living, it will be time for a serious re-evaluation of my impressions of the world. Which I will conduct, quite seriously. After I die. Maybe God can convince me of his existence. We'll have plenty of time to discuss it, possibly over tuna sandwiches and beer. Or maybe I'll have some kind of massive eye-opening revelation on my deathbed and no longer be able to deny that an omniscient, omipotent, and omnibenevolent Being exists (though please see my post above about the total impossiblity of this). In which case the Lord will accept my previous shortcomings in re: agnosticism.

He's a forgiving guy; I have a pure heart. Of course, I'm only 21.

Or possibly I'll be too busy to enjoy tuna sandwiches, beer, and amazing revelations after death, because my butt will be roasting in Hell. In which case, yes, he would be absolutely, personally punishing me for my beliefs. God's not making any friends with that kind of attitude.

To the argument that Darwin does not provide an answer to the concept of compassion and consideration: that's swell, because I don't worship Darwin, either. I'm not sure what athiests stand for, because I'm not an atheist. But this agnostic stands for other people, education, and rational decision making. Because if there is a God he ain't exactly rushing down from the sky to help us out. Sure, He gives us faith and endurance. Thanks, man. But babies starving in Africa (or whatever) don't need faith and endurance. They need faith, endurance, a nice warm bottle, and a good course of vaccinations (you could add to that, maybe, a cure for AIDS and peace in Africa). God only provides the easy stuff on the list. The rest is up to you and me.

*Humanity* begs compassion and consideration from us. We beg it from each other.

(Please take this as an addendum to my previous postings)

albert Soler
"Things that happen all on their own -- now that's a miracle!" Precisely! Something had to pull the trigger, so what was it?

Gayle: Nice try, but that's ridiculous and inapplicable. To attempt to prove the non-existence of something is moronic and impossible. It's not even in the same league as people who profess faith in God.

Robert wrote: ---One of the basic principles that underlie the natural state is the principle of entropy: that organized states tend to decay and became progressively disorganized with time.---

You forgot to end that with "unless energy is put into the system". Otherwise we would not have tornados, hurricanes, tsunamis, clouds or other self organized systems, including life. You can thank the sun for most of that energy. Those ancient sun worshipors were pretty smart after all. They knew where their sustainence came from...

Farkdawg -

That's right. We get only one shot while we're here, and when we screw up, it's for real. There is no magic man to play daddy and pick up the pieces for us.

We get only one life, so don't screw it up! :) And do some good while you're at it. :) The only "ever lasting life" we have is our legacy and how humanity remembers us after we're gone. We have to strive to do well while we're here and leave the place a little better than the way we found it, for the next generation.

PS - athiests have children too. :)

"As I stated earlier, the scientific view is correct when it comes to the non validity of the Bible, the Koran, or any other religious book for that matter."

Proof?

Albert Juneau, Rain is a miracle. It seems you have no explanation as to how we came to be here. Just to say we are here and that is enough does not cut it. In fact it shows a huge amount of Faith!

I have a serious problem with most of the people who claim to be belivers because they're often so aggressive and obstinate about promoting their claimed belief in God. I think most of them don't believe in God, and deep down inside, they HATE the God that they pretend to themselves they believe in. If they seriously believed in God, they wouldn't have the need to fight so hard to prove it.

R.A. -

The answer is simple, knowledge.

As an atheist living in Las Vegas, I would like to chime in about the wagering and sinning and all that.

While I agree that the smart money (by money I mean your soul) is on believing that there is a God, I personally believe that religion is simply rooted in man's fear of death.

But what does an atheist live for? Generally, the good of humanity. Don't assume that atheism implies that everyone is out for themselves. We cannot deny that we are all here, on this Earth, so atheists make the best of it. We do that without the - get out of jail free card of everlasting reward - IF you accept the lord into your heart at its last beat. Living for a better world leads one to feel that everything you do matters and repentence won't save you. You know, The Golden Rule predates the Bible.

Hearing Mr. Thomas characterize atheism - that we obviously treat people however we want - is childish. Shall I try and characterize Christianity is such an overly simplistic way? Care to talk about crusades and Iraq?

Jim:

This is a point that has stuck with me about religion for some time. If you are christian and the bible says that you must be christian or you will not go to heaven and the bible speaks of retribution against non believers then how is it that you are allowed to modify what the good book says in order to relate to your modern life. This seems impossible. Either the good book is the good book or it isnt and if it isnt and you choose to believe in christianity then who decides what is augmented and what remains the same. I mean lets be honest the stories told now certainly are not the same stories taht were told since christianities inception.

Matt:

And where does your belief in "good" originate? Without a standard, who determines what is "good"? The Christian would argue that your sense of "good" is a result of being created in the image of your creator who is inherently just yet merciful. The passage of the Bible you refer to states that "If God is for us, who can stand against us". There is a difference.

Tez:

If I understand your reasoning, there is no need for order or understanding. What is - is. We are all subject to random acts and exist in utter chaos. If so, I choose to be a fool without later knowledge of my folly. It sure beats living a hopeless existence left to chance.

Dear god, why is that hate monger Cal Thomas even on here in the first place?
It's much more intellectually lazy to accept God as real and the dogma involved than being atheist. And there are many kinds of atheists; sure some are just apathetic religiously but others have their own philosopical, logical and/or metaphysical explanations. It's dogmatic religion that tries to answer everything as simply as possible.

---The Native Americans used to dress up like deer and chant to the deer spirits so that they would have a successful hunt. They'd have been better off getting more rest for the hunt. :) They were attempting to cope with their enviornment by using a technology, a tool, as man has done since the begining. It's just an ineffective tool for some applications.---

Not true. Religion, from "primitive" religions to our world-wide religions of today have a very good purpose. Those native americans were not only dancing to describe a hunt, they were retelling their hunting skills, methods and actions as a team during the hunt, and children would watch those dances and understand much of how a hunt was done. The dance held them together and ensured the skills of the hunt were not lost over time. In today's religions the concept of repetition, the retelling of the story over and over again is typical. Its so we do not lose the story or its meaning. And its belief structure holds the community together. The problem today is that various religions have bumped into one another and even live amongst one another leading to friction. That was rare in the past. Its inspiring that many religions today have adjusted, accepting other religions. That too is an example of social evolution and the innate nature of the Golden Rule.

Jim:

A random choice is an easily repeatable mathematical process that may be described by a real number function, or accomplished by an algorithmic process. Either may allow us to construct a random number generator. Random selection is also evident in chaotic natural states that can be predicted to result from increasing vibrations in any state of equilibrium. The science is clear, just not understood by people who haven't learned science. One of the basic principles that underlie the natural state is the principle of entropy: that organized states tend to decay and became progressively disorganized with time. Scientists understand this principle very well; they deal with it daily. This is opaque to those who depend on faith or magic to explain the real world.

Matt -

Great post. I too believe in good, I also believe in "one life" instead of an afterlife.

The two most dangerous ideas mankind has ever come up with are religion and nationalism. What has caused more human suffering? From war, to hate, to repression, down to all the people who died building the great cathedrals and mosques and temples around the world. What a waste of human life, intellect and resources. Governments and churches - merely tools of human dillusion and conforts to our own feelings of insecurity.

Mr. Soler -

Love your post.

I've often thought of religion as simply an ineffective technology. The Native Americans used to dress up like deer and chant to the deer spirits so that they would have a successful hunt. They'd have been better off getting more rest for the hunt. :) They were attempting to cope with their enviornment by using a technology, a tool, as man has done since the begining. It's just an ineffective tool for some applications.

I'll say this for religion. I've met some drug addicts and people of similar mental illness, and for them, religion has served them, hey whatever technology works. :)

R.A. Early,

Though I am not an athiest (I am agnostic) I will take a stab at answering the question what does one belive in if they are a non-believer. I have often said that I do not belive in god but I do believ in good. I believe in the only thing that is truly tangible in all of this and that is humanity. I believe that as humans we have the obligation to treat each other with good intentions regardless of belief in a religin or not as it is the only true path to peace. I believe that religion as we know it is intrinsicly divisive because all religions (including christianity) push the idea that anyone not for them is against them (this is in the bible) I hope this helps to answer your question.

---From reading the above responses, I understand what a person with an athiest belief stands against, but what are you for and what does your belief system offer to benefit humanity other that doubt and dismay.---

Much. It offers a reality based existence.

---To the arguments concerning the desire to show others compassion and consideration, Darwin does not provide an answer.---

On the contrary evolution demands a social species become compasionate and have consideration less it become extinct. The compassion you may consider exclusively human has been seen in many other species. Alligators care for their young, some birds bring food offerings to prospective mates. You only have to look and you will see that what it is to be human is not so unique.

---However, the Christian does in the belief that God is compassionate and considerate and God's creation exhibits these attributes of its Creator.---

Then why is God's name used by those who fly planes into populated buildings? If its because they are not christians, then why did christians burn witches alive or persecute jews and blacks? An athiest would be appauled at all of these actions.

---From reading the above responses, I understand what a person with an athiest belief stands against, but what are you for and what does your belief system offer to benefit humanity other that doubt and dismay.---

Much. It offers a reality based existence.

---To the arguments concerning the desire to show others compassion and consideration, Darwin does not provide an answer.---

On the contrary evolution demands a social species become compasionate and have consideration less it become extinct. The compassion you may consider exclusively human has been seen in many other species. Alligators care for their young, some birds bring food offerings to prospective mates. You only have to look and you will see that what it is to be human is not so unique.

---However, the Christian does in the belief that God is compassionate and considerate and God's creation exhibits these attributes of its Creator.---

Then why is God's name used by those who fly planes into populated buildings? If its because they are not christians, then why did christians burn witches alive or persecute jews and blacks? An athiest would be appauled at all of these actions.

Did Cal Thomas actually write this, or is he simply submitting copy and pastes of the same things he's said for decades?

Every one of his arguments has been refuted and responded to a million times, and yet, he's always here making the same arguments without any attempt to respond to the serious flaws critics have pointed out.

A "discussion" requires more than that. But Cal Thomas has never shown any willingness to discuss or consider anything. He's just the same buzzwords and talking points in every column, every forum. You could have simply bought one of his columns from 20 years ago and saved yourself the time and effort in contacting him.

What I don't get is how religious people can spend so much time patronizing, misrepresenting, lying about, and generally just smearing atheists as despicable people in every which way possible... and then suddenly get all huffy when SOME atheists say nasty things back about the religious doctrines which often mandate these attacks. It's really quite incredible behavior on behalf of the religious pundits.

If I came home and told my wife I had found a really old book on the sidewalk, and that I liked it so much, I planned to model our entire lives from it, she'd look at me like I was mad, and she'd be right.

A couple of thoughts about “God”

· He needs counseling as the endless kneeling, praying and the mandatory worship of the greatness of God really speak of an entity lacking in self esteem and insecurity
· Why does one’s choice of faith seem to be the result of geographical location and the faith of your parents
· If God is all powerful, he needs to work on execution as the work product is pretty shoddy
· Why does one need to invoke faith to explain the absurd
· Why is god so punitive to damn those who have led exemplary lives but elected not to subscribe to an arbitrary set of beliefs
· Why is the Virgin Birth or Jesus rising from the dead not any more absurd than Zeus or the other assorted Gods that have populated religion over the years
· If life is eternal and our lives but a blink of the eye, why are we forever judged on such an infinitesimally small slice of life

"From reading the above responses, I understand what a person with an athiest belief stands against, but what are you for and what does your belief system offer to benefit humanity other that doubt and dismay?"

Why does it have to offer anything? Your question implies a need for a universal pacifier, and that if it isn't God, then it must be something else.

Perhaps atheists are merely saying that they don't need that pacifier in the forst place.

Jimmy, A. Juneau

Miracles?

We tend to assign the term to events that in spite of all that is known, cannot be explained. Sentience is one such miracle. However, if a supernatural entity, i.e., God, was the cause of said miracle, then it ceases to be a miracle. It is simply the result of a technology we do not yet understand.

Devine intervention = a technology unknown to us.

Things that happen all on their own -- now that's a miracle!

Anonymous,

My point is there is nothing superior or even clever about taking a scientific view. It's just different. Death makes all views equally meaningless.

As I stated earlier, the scientific view is correct when it comes to the non validity of the Bible, the Koran, or any other religious book for that matter.

Look fundamental beliefs are wrong not just different. I agree that no one knows what happened before the Big Bang, but don't be surprised if science solves that mystery sometime in the future.

Evolution through natural selection is the primary engine of all living things. For fundamentalists to view this otherwise is not only different, but ignorant. Case closed...

Religion needs to scare people about this supposed menace of atheism. Most people in the US are not atheists. The idea that atheism is taking over the world is just another Chicken Little story sounded out by preachers to gain more power and cash through FEAR.

Fear is the primary tool of religion to keep people in line and their checkbooks open.

A common tactic is for them to take something in the pop culture and demonize it, saying it is going to control children and end the earth as we know it. They will hold up everything from Briney Spears to Pokemon and claim it's all the work of the "devil" so that people will pay them, and obey them.

Pay and obey. The real aim of the religious establishment.

I would like to echo some of what EMM says above, from the perspective of a person of faith, but not of the Judeo-Christian tradition. I am a Buddhist of the Madhyamika Prasanghika school, which teaches (in a nutshell) pure moral discipline, precepts of conduct, wisdom based on understanding of the basis of existence, striving to overcome the root of all suffering, which is self-cherishing ignorance, and the “four immeasurables” of Buddhism: lovingkindness, compassion, and sympathetic joy towards others, and equanimity. Notice the conspicuous absence of belief in the “Creator of the Universe,” who “loves us.”

As a Buddhist, I agree with EMM that Cal Thomas’s comments are judgmental and less than profound.

Thomas says: “I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please.”

The claim is that unless one believes in God, he has no basis upon which to revere life or have any kind of morality. (I don't enter into the debate on the morality of abortion, that’s a different issue). This is grossly insulting to those whose spiritual tradition or personal beliefs do not rely on belief in a Supreme Being, in addition to being entirely unsupported by any rational basis. Why, exactly, does moral discipline require belief in a Creator? There’s no logic to this, and no explanation is offered. Isn’t THAT what’s intellectually lazy?

Thomas says: “It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe ‘happened’ without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance.”

As EMM said above, Thomas may find more comfort in believing in a Designer than not, but this decision is one of faith, not rigorous logic. The serious case for the origin of life and the universe without the intervention of an intelligent supernatural phenomenon has been made, rigorously and to the satisfaction of millions of the highest intellectual achievement, repeatedly (with variations) for decades (or longer; David Hume made the case in the 18th Century). Believers may disagree, and may cite their faith as a reason. But it is the depth of intellectual laziness to simply assert that this is not so, when a large body of peer-reviewed published works prove that it is so.

Practitioners of some other spiritual traditions, such as mine, do not even consider this an important question, spiritually. What is important is that we learn to care for one another, and to develop our minds to be superior to what we are born to be. These things are possible, through spiritual practices of various faiths, but they need have nothing to do with dogmatic belief in a Creator.

The idea that belief in God is some kind of wager with eternity is so silly as to be risible. This kind of argument is not even suitable for children. Talk about intellectual laziness. Please!

Thomas: “I do not have the power to persuade anyone that God is, but I can demonstrate the difference He has made in my life and relationships – including with atheists – and pray that the One who brought me to belief will do so with them.”

That one’s relationship with God, as a spiritual practice, has brought value and improvement to one’s life is actually a decent point, but for the value of spiritual discipline of some kind. It is fatally weak, even, pardon me for saying so, rather stupid, as an argument for belief in a particular doctrine. Surely even Cal Thomas can see that others, whose practice is not Christian, can make the same claims.

I am reminded of C. S. Lewis’s totally unsatisfying argument for Christian faith (paraphrasing horribly): Christ, who claimed to have been God, must have been either telling the truth, in which case you better believe it or else, or he was insane or lying. He wasn’t lying, and his message is beautiful, so it can’t have been insane; q.e.d., he was God. Arguments like this, like the argument “from Design,” are ultimately circular. You must believe because God is great, and he commanded it. Or, if the universe wasn’t made by God where did it come from? (Where did God from?, I asked in response to that one, even at age six). Richard Dawkins has referred to the designer argument as an “Argument from Personal Incredulity,” and he has a point. Just because Cal Thomas finds it hard to believe doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

I just don’t understand why it’s so important to some Christians to try so hard, with so many fallacious arguments, to convince others of the truth of their beliefs. Why not simply rely on the example, and show others how the teachings of Jesus improve their lives. Although I believe that the teachings of the Blessed One, the Buddha, are even better, of that point, that Jesus’ teachings, on love of neighbor, moral choice, and a life of spirit, are great and transformative, Mr. Thomas would receive no argument from me.

Religion needs to scare people about this supposed menace of atheism. Most people in the US are not atheists. The idea that atheism is taking over the world is just another Chicken Little story sounded out by preachers to gain more power and cash through FEAR.

Fear is the primary tool of religion to keep people in line and their checkbooks open.

A common tactic is for them to take something in the pop culture and demonize it, saying it is going to control children and end the earth as we know it. They will hold up everything from Briney Spears to Pokemon and claim it's all the work of the "devil" so that people will pay them, and obey them.

Pay and obey. The real aim of the religious establishment.

Sorry, the December 29, 2006 1:57 PM was from me. "Amonymous" is the name given to those who do not fill out a name. Talk about laziness...

What an interesting discussion about such a ultimately meaningless proposition. Or is it? To the Christian who dies in error, dust returns to dust without any realization of the err of his ways. He is a fool without knowledge of his folly. To the Atheist in error, he will spend eternity separated from God in darkness (please keep reading - you don't believe any of this anyway so it shouldn't bother you)with full knowledge that his eternal station is not due to God's judgement, but the Athiest's self determined path to deny God's existence. In the end, the Athiest wins the argument and gets what he hoped for - absence from God and all that comes with it.

Actually Mr. Thomas' argument is not based on Christian doctrine. I don't believe he invoked the name of Christ in his article, however, the responses are mainly directed towards the Christian faith. Christian faith is not a form of fire insurance, but the response to a real life encounter with God. To a Christian, all acts of kindness and good service to others are not to gain merit with a distant God, but a response out of appreciation for what God has already done in that individual person's life by grace. This simple but radical concept is what separates Christianity fom other religions.

From reading the above responses, I understand what a person with an athiest belief stands against, but what are you for and what does your belief system offer to benefit humanity other that doubt and dismay. To the arguments concerning the desire to show others compassion and consideration, Darwin does not provide an answer. However, the Christian does in the belief that God is compassionate and considerate and God's creation exhibits these attributes of its Creator.

R.A. Early

I can't decide between all the religions that are the true way. Must I decide that they are ALL wrong?

Anonymous,

if you truly are an thiest how do you defend your "faith" in the idea that there is no higher power?

Atheists: the straw-men/whipping boys of the Right.

Atheism in vogue? Oh come now! Every relevant poll shows that Atheists are the most despised minority in America. Why keep beating the dead horse of the Atheist/Secular Humanist menace? Why don't you let this tired old straw man rest in piece? America has never been more religious than it is today. Can't you find another scapegoat? There must be someone else you can blame for America's decline.

---"How can this be experienced?"---

---By looking inward--intently and without letting up.---

You mean "pretending"?

---What's the point of kindness if ruthlessness gets you to the top of the evolutionary heap faster and more reliably? What possible use could the "Golden Rule" have for a "rational", "scientific" person?---

But ruthlessness does not get you to the top of the evolutionary heap. Just the opposite. It shows you know little about evolution or even social evolution.

As for what good the Golden Rule is for "scientific" people (I guess that means athiests), well, we all have to function in society. Those who do not follow these social rules wind up in jail, or dead, pretty quickly. So the Golden Rule, if nothing else, is a rule of survival in human society and the societies of other species. And if you look at children they mostly follow these rules innately, learning hate and ruthlessness as they get older. Ignoring the Golden Rule has grave consequences as anyone who has broken the Golden Rule can tell you. Maybe that's why it appears in so many religions.

"While the idea that you are more than the some of your parts is understandable even somewhat believable it cannot be "experienced""

When your skull splits open and your bones fall to dust, there is something which experiences all of it. It is not what you refer to as your "self", but you are entirely free to use it in any way you please.

Jimmy -

Is rain a miracle? I don't think so. It happens for a reason.

To say that your existance is a miracle and the product of billions of miracles is to put too much importance on your own existance.

You're here and our current environment is here because it happened, not because it's so important that a diety or "billions of miracles" happened. You are here because you are, the earth is the way it is because that's what happened.

If I catch onions on sale, it's not a miracle. I just found onions on sale.

Cal Thomas' arguments are what I'd expect from an early teen who hasn't matured enough to question how he knows what he believes. I found it an insulting post and complained to the Ombudsman of the paper - not because I disagree with him, but because his writings are more suitable to the flame-bait comment section.

Here's the thing, the universe is much bigger than our observable universe. Our observable univers has about 100 billion galaxies, each with about 100 billion stars. The age is 13.7 billion years, and so the furthest distance from which we've received information (light) is 3 x 13.7 billion light years (factor of 3 because it's expanding - if no expansion the 'horizon' distance would be 13.7 billion light years). That's the observable universe - observations limited by light travel time and the age of the universe. That's not the edge though. The actual size is roughly 10^30 times larger than this. We know this because observational cosmology has made remarkable advances in the past decade, and all observations support inflation theory to a remarkable degree. And since volume goes as radius cubed, the volume of the entire universe is roughly 10^90 times larger than our observable universe. This number is supported by observations - it is not simply a belief. This fraction of the universe that is unobservable to us (1-10^{-90}) has the same laws of physics, so if we were magically transported 10^100 light years away, we'd still see stars, galaxies, and yes, on suitable planets, life, and very rarely, intelligent life with technology. This fraction corresponds to the size of a grain of sand relative to the size of our observable universe. And it's reasonable to believe that ours is not the only universe, but that's another topic.

This raises problems for a loving and caring god (big buddy in the sky) in that the speed of light is the fastest speed that can transmit information, so either god is not itself in causal contact with itself, or it is so far outside our universe and the physical laws that govern it as to make a mockery of the simplistic concept that the majority of proclaimed believers attest to as 'the truth'.

Gods used to live in the forest just outside the range of the campfires, then God lived in the clouds and the Devil underground. Then we went to those places and gods habitat continued to shift as our science and technology has progressed.

Evolution is *driven* by the second law of thermodynamics, which says that the disorder in the universe must increase. Seems paradoxical, but the disorder is quantified as the number of available 'states' to the system. If you have only atoms, you have a certain number of states available. If you now allow diatomic molecules, you vastly increase the number of available states, and these molecules will form. Allow more complicated molecuase, and again the *total* disorder (entropy) increases, and these must form. Give the system an energy supply in the form of a nearby star at the right distance, and a suitable home, and eventually the disorder can lead all the way to self-aware life forms. This isn't magic, it doesn't require active intervention to make it happen, it just takes the right conditions and a lot of time.

As a scientist (I'm an astronomer), I have to be agnostic - I see no compelling evidence for a god, but no compelling evidence there is no god. However, the no-god hypothesis is *completely* consistent with all of our reliable observations and theories. And because of this, I believe there is no god, and call myself an athiest.

Finally, it is truly insulting to proclaim that athiests have no morality. In fact morality predates humans - you can find evidence for it in the animal kingdom.

Cheers,
Matt Wood

If you assume that non-believers go to Hell, and believers go to heaven, the concept of Hell is logically impossible. Why? Because with no one to praise the Lord, speak in tongues, and sing in the choir all day long, it won't be Hell. The believers would have to be in two places at once - impossible.

As to the afterlife - ask yourself, how many dead people do I know? How many have I heard from lately? Be honest.

I must agree with anonymous. While the idea that you are more than the some of your parts is understandable even somewhat believable it cannot be "experienced"

This "opinion" is nothing if not antagonistic and insulting. Insulting not just to athiests, but to anyone who believes in any way differently than Mr. Thomas. Certainly those who believe it's right to use available evidence to make rational decisions, anyone who believes it's arrogant to judge others, anyone who believes it's arrogant to assume the nature of God are all, in the all-knowing Mr. Thomas's vast judgement, sinners.

But, the deep sin is Mr Thomas's, the terrible sin of pride. Mr. Thomas mistakes his own "faith" for truth and according to rules he himself has assumed the nature of, condemned all that don't conform to those rules to hell. Mr. Thomas has no right to do this. Mr. Thomas is not God. If you are a believer, then you believe that only God decides.

Mr. Thomas has used the terms "intellectually lazy" and has been both intellectually arrogant and intellectually misguided. You can't base an intellectually rigorous examination on concepts that themselves are intellectually unsound. The idea that believers go to heaven and non-believers go to hell cannot be assumed. The existence of hell and heaven can not be assumed. Both must be proven before Mr. Thomas's other strange presumptions maybe examined.

Mr. Thomas and others of his ilk might say that the Bible itself is proof and yet there's nothing other than the bible itself, to give evidence that the Bible is somehow more authoritative in the cosmology it describes than any other ancient text. And the bible itself doesn't really describe the vast war between Heaven and Hell that Mr. Thomas's worldview seems to require. It would be John Milton who did that.

But still we're left with that fundamental problem: God's intentions and the ultimate nature of the cosmos remain unknown. All of Mr. Thomas's "intellectual" presumptions flow from a cosmos whose rules conform to his cultural folklore not to proven principles of the universe. It would be intellectually lazy to say otherwise.

WOW, Cal you really struck a chord w/atheists. Let me say this, if there is no GOD, then how did this all happen? Even if you believe in evolution, something had to pull the trigger! We ALL believe in miracles. The christian believes in one miracle, GOD. The atheist believes in billions of miracles. For w/o GOD everything that exists is a miracle and defies explanation. For me, I did not choose to believe in GOD, rather GOD chose to believe in me and showed HIMSELF to me when I needed HIM the most. That, I believe is the course for all who exist. You may not want to voluntarily go to your knees and worship the CREATOR of all, but someday you will find yourself in desparate need of HIM, where noone else can help you and guess where you will be?...on your knees! May the LORD bless you and keep you!

"Which is exactly why atheism is so incredibly stupid, unscientific and small-minded. Why cut yourself off from a possibility for no reason other than personal preference? It's idiotic. Exactly as idiotic as claiming that there absolutely IS a God."

Exactly. :) It is very idiotic, unscientific, and stupid to claim there is a god.

"How can this be experienced?"

By looking inward--intently and without letting up.

To bstew34864,

You seem to be overlooking the obvious. Respecting someone's right to speak his or her mind is not the same as giving a stamp of approval. I am grateful to Mr. Thomas because he does reveal the truth that he, and his ilk are wrong.

As for your argument about race, well we have those people in this country as well. David Duke anyone? How about good-o' Virgil Goode? Most of us agree that they represent a most abhorrent philosophy. But, how would we know if they did not have the right to spew their nonsense? It's more than respect, it is a valuable tool in the pursuit of truth. So, yes. Let these people try their poison on us. Even an infant knows when something tastes yucky!

To paraphrase the great PBS, half-hour artist of the week, William Alexander: "You cannot have light, if there is no dark."

Just wanted not to be confused with the anonymous whos posts I have been reading. I will claim the last post that ends in

Cal Thomas is either a moron or he just likes to "stir the pot"

"There is not enough information either way to make a determination as to whether or not there is a God whether it be the one spoken of in the bible or not."

Which is exactly why atheism is so incredibly stupid, unscientific and small-minded. Why cut yourself off from a possibility for no reason other than personal preference? It's idiotic. Exactly as idiotic as claiming that there absolutely IS a God.

"The Golden Rule" is productive and functional.

Many people think that one gets ahead by being ruthless. This has not been my experience. One gets paid when people like and respect you, not when they fear and hate you. I know many in the GOP and in religious circles think otherwise, lest we'd have a much different goverment right now.

"In the long run, intelligence counts for very little. What good does your intelligence do you when your atoms are scattered across the Universe?"

That's hard to say. Both gravity and electro-magnetism are forces with infinite fields, so who knows whther intelligence disappears upon molecular or even atomic dispersal.

"If you take away everything that you call your "self", still there is something there. This can be experienced, but never explained or described in any way."

I suppose, although it seems that the act of stripping away that self requires self to do so, therefore you never get to the absolute zero point.

---In the long run, intelligence counts for very little. What good does your intelligence do you when your atoms are scattered across the Universe?--

Your atoms were scattered across this universe and only 100 years ago were probably scattered all over the planet. Where was your "self" then?

---If you take away everything that you call your "self", still there is something there. This can be experienced, but never explained or described in any way.---

How can this be experienced?

It must be nice to be able to believe in a god and a paradise to go to after death. Very nice,very comforting.
But how do you do that? I can't voluntarily believe in something just because I'm told to.
This is where "groupthink" comes in handy I suppose.
If I'd been adopted as a baby into (say)a Mormon family...I'd be a Mormon today in all probability.
I'd be a catholic today if my parents had been catholic;a Muslim if my parents were Muslim,
and an evangelical if I'd been brought up that way.
Surely this is enough to give one pause when contemplating belief.
I would say religion is groupthink plain and simple,
and that god and life after death are fictions.

Anonymous -

You have a problem with athiests being aggressive because you are so rude to them.

I don't need a magic being or a witchdoctor to tell me what is right and wrong.

Something is wrong when it is destructive.

I know that's hard for some to understand, but that's why I think we need to recommit ourselves to better education.

One more thing - yes, the church was horrified that people would use an impliment to eat, they bannned the use of eating utensils at one point. Just like they damned Darwin and Galeleo.

"Ever hear of the "Golden Rule"?"

Yeah. It's unscientific and counterintuitive, and you apply it as a businessperson or a world leader, you'll most likely get your butt kicked. What's the point of kindness if ruthlessness gets you to the top of the evolutionary heap faster and more reliably? What possible use could the "Golden Rule" have for a "rational", "scientific" person?

The fear of the faithful that man has an innate sense of morality based on an evolution of mammalian social behavior must be frightening indeed.

I have been reading all the responses to the article written by our friend Cal and even the responses to some of the responses. Though I am agnostic myself there have certainly been times when I have leaned toward athiesm as way of life. There are however several undeniable truths exposed in all the posts.

1. There is not enough information either way to make a determination as to whether or not there is a God whether it be the one spoken of in the bible or not.

2. Anyone who proclaims that #1 is incorrect has departed from logic at some point and is relying on faith.

3. Whether there is or is not some diety has no real affect on how I or anyone else lives there life.

4. Cal Thomas is either a moron or he just likes to "stir the pot"

---My point is there is nothing superior or even clever about taking a scientific view. It's just different. Death makes all views equally meaningless.---

So when you have a life threatening injury and are facing death where do you tell the ambulance driver to take you, a hospital or a church, or do you tell them to just leave you alone beause its all meaningless?

"Agreed. Although I also believe in hierarchies of intelligence that may be beyond our comprehension."

In the long run, intelligence counts for very little. What good does your intelligence do you when your atoms are scattered across the Universe? If you take away everything that you call your "self", still there is something there. This can be experienced, but never explained or described in any way.

---Upon what set of beliefs do you claim to base your morality? Is it some "internal knowledge" of right and wrong? Something innate? Are you your own god perhaps?---

Ever hear of the "Golden Rule"? It predates christianity and most other modern religions. Its self evident to many people. No god is needed to state it or enforce it. A person uses it to guide their behavior rather than fear a god zapping them with a bolt of lightening. Why is this so hard for God fearing people to understand?

"As long as you include yourself in that Universal Consciousness, you're probably on the right track. The problem with most peoples' vision of God is that they leave themselves out of it. God is not someone or something outside of us. We ARE God."

Agreed. Although I also believe in hierarchies of intelligence that may be beyond our comprehension.

A starfish and I are virtually indistinguishable on many levels, yet I doubt that when I stand next to a starfish or even touch it, there is any comprehension on it's part of what is happening to it generally or my presence particularly.

Therefore, for all I know there could be some far more intelligent being standing (figuratively) right next to me and tickling my chin and I have absolutely no comprehension of it's presence or even what is happening to me.

Tez

"So what is your point, or do you have one?"

My point is there is nothing superior or even clever about taking a scientific view. It's just different. Death makes all views equally meaningless.

Cal Thomas is a foolish man. It is impossible to say that all of Athiests think or believe the same things, just as it is impossible to say that all Christians believe the same things.

Now, onto ME and his comments regarding the Declaration of Independence.

1. The DI is NOT the founding document of this country, the Constitution is our national charter.

2. The DI says "endowed by their creator." What makes you think that Thomas Jefferson, a famous Diest, was referring to the God of Christianity?

3. If you had actually taken the time to read all of the work that ended up being carefully broken down into the DI and Constitution, you would discover that MOST of the founding fathers believed in God, but that they also mostly had a conflicted relationship with the diety.

4. One of the most radical things about the DI and the Constitution is the specific rejection of religion as a basis for rule. It was an illegal thought at the time. Several founding fathers suggested that the world would be better without religion.

I have a serious problem with most of the people who claim to be atheists because they're often so aggressive and obstinate about promoting their claimed non-belief in God. I think most of them DO believe in God, and deep down inside, they HATE the God that they won't admit to themselves they believe in. If they seriously didn't believe in God, they wouldn't have the need to fight so hard to prove it.

---What God? Who said anything about God? I agree: it IS a leap. But I didn't say it--you did.---

So what is your point, or do you have one?

"Eat with your fingers. That's what the church said you should be doing. At one time they said people who ate with forks were all going to hell because they were thwarting the will of god."

That is the biggest pile of crap I have ever heard in my life.

There are many logical problems with this commentary, as well as an intentional obtuseness regarding explanations of the natural sciences -- too many to address here. However, I suppose there's no reason to do so ... since it is not clear that the point of this message is in any way meant to be constructive.

In fact the whole commentary seems to be very easily summed up with the following statement: "Atheists are foolish and blind." Apparently, if you cannot convince one with reason and you cannot convince one with evidence, you resort to insult. A sad and facile tactic.

For the record: I don't doubt the sincerity of Cal Thomas' beliefs, nor their effects on his life. It's is clear that my respect is not reciprocated -- so be it. While I have no investment whatsoever in what others think about my ideology, I am passingly annoyed that Mr. Thomas couldn't make a more constructive and informed effort.

So his theist readers will feel emboldened and his non-theist readers will feel insulted and nothing will have changed accept that an already passionate divide with be deepened. I suggest that you re-examine your goals before writing, Mr. Thomas.

Unlike Mr. Thomas, I remain open-minded, respectful but unconvinced, and still very comfortably and profoundly non-theistic.

"How dare you. Just another theocrat with poor manners."

Upon what set of beliefs do you claim to base your morality? Is it some "internal knowledge" of right and wrong? Something innate? Are you your own god perhaps?

Eat with your fingers. That's what the church said you should be doing. At one time they said people who ate with forks were all going to hell because they were thwarting the will of god.

Cal, If God has chosen not to reveal Himself to Me, isn't that His business?

Amoral? Are you from Alabama?

Morality can be devoid of witchcraft and supernatural superstition.

I know public schools suffer in some parts of the country.

One does not have to fear the retribution of a magic creature to be a moral person.

Amoral?

How dare you. Just another theocrat with poor manners.

I sometimes find Cal Thomas' perspective challenging, but this column provokes no thought at all. It's a simple straw-man arguement to say at any time, "Why is it “in vogue” to disbelieve in a Creator of the universe, who loves us and wants to have a relationship with us and not “in vogue” to believe?". It's particularly flimsy and disingenuous to say it today, when religious participation in the US is booming. Perhaps believing is the vogue--one must wonder how many of the boomers now finding God after their freethinking youths have come to Him through a deliberate, arduous process of spiritual growth, and how many of them found Him because they thought it was just an inevitable part of growing up at long last, like a bald spot and a mortgage?

"If we took everything the religious folks had to say seriously, we would not be eating with forks"

Yeah, wow. That would make a huge difference in MY life. You've convinced me: the "scientific" view is FAR superior. In fact, I'm gonna go eat with a fork right now.

If you are so confident in your unbelief, why challenge Cal Thomas at all? Why not just sit back and ignore him? Because, you cannot. You feel the overwelling compulsion to prove him wrong. To shut him up. To silence him.

I'm sure many were also confident in their belief that Naziism was evil. Maybe they should have just sat back and ignored Hitler's rantings. Religion has the blood of millions on its hands. Mostly because it's adherents decided they knew what was best for those of a different mindset.

"Your point? That these principles are therefore created by God? Isn't that a leap?"

What God? Who said anything about God? I agree: it IS a leap. But I didn't say it--you did.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God, not some weird philosophy.

The burden of proof is on YOU Cal, to prove that there is a God. I don't believe in a supernatural being for the same reason I don't believe there's a man sitting under my desk now, or hovering over my head on a cloud. There's no evidence.

And don't give me that nonsense about the universe needing a creator. This invites the question of who created the creator, a question obvious to most clear-headed 13-year-olds.

While you're at it, please prove that God is the strange being described in the ancient Jewish texts you revere, rather than one described in a different culture's mythology.

If we took everything the religious folks had to say seriously, we would not be eating with forks, we'd still think the earth was flat, and that all the things in the sky revolved around the earth, that epilepsy was caused by demons, and that red-headed children should be stoned to death.

"As A practicing Nichiren Buddhist, I believe in people."

You may spit on him. I prefer to pay my respects.

"Athiests are all stupid and immoral, and are damned to hell. - Whatever..... doesn't he have a child to molest somewhere?"

While I agree that atheists are stupid, I think it's going a bit far to call them immoral. Amoral perhaps...

Don't you get it Pat?

His opinion is the word of his diety. :)

He thinks it, and so it is the will of the magic being in the sky that loves him.

---It's easy to forget that all of these principles were discovered by man--not created by him. We observe, we note, and we predict, but we do not change one iota of what is possible.---

Your point? That these principles are therefore created by God? Isn't that a leap? Your argument is cicular - need a universe to have a god that created the universe - Yes the existence of these principles were discovered by men but I'm confused as to what you think this proves. Guess you're not a Last Thursdean.

God is an invention of Man's own doing. Actual Proof is more valuable than either Documentary; The Bible; or Theoretical Proof; Existance of God.

When you can prove God exists you can judge other's belief or disbelief of God, until than it is just your opinion. Most people lack the ability to discern fact from opinion. This is one of those instances, I believe.

As A practicing Nichiren Buddhist, I believe in people.
Pat

Mr. Thomas has no right to speak for me. He's a typical theocrat - he knows it all - about everything.

Athiests are all stupid and immoral, and are damned to hell. - Whatever..... doesn't he have a child to molest somewhere?

"But, as thinking people we have an obligation to try and pursuade Cal to reconsider his silly and childish thinking."

You evangelical realists are as closed-minded and arrogant as your fundamentalist christian counterparts.

Who did Caine marry after he killed Able?

Albert,

Cal Thomas does indeed have the right to beleive as he wishes. But, as thinking people we have an obligation to try and pursuade Cal to reconsider his silly and childish thinking.

Just think if Cal's arguement or belief system was structured around race instead of religion. What if Cal claimed slavery was ok (which it is according to the Bible) would we not try to pursuade him otherwise.

Sam Harris made a good point in his book when he said that it is the liberal religious thinkers who give the fundamentalist the greatest boost. He felt this way because liberal religous types always fall back on the, " it's ok for you to have your beliefs as long as you respect mine". Sam Harris says that this type of sentiment is hogwash and I agree. Not all belief systems deserve equal respect. There is most certainly a right and wrong. And, oh, by the way there is also a thing called Truth.

Muslims who claim that women should not be educated are Wrong! People in Africa, Indonesia, and Russia who participate in slavery and human trafficking are Wrong! People who think homosexuality is a "Sin" ae wrong. People who thought it was ok to exterminate the Jews were Wrong! It is ok to say it. Fundamental religious beleifs are wrong and do our societies and our global communities much harm.

Cal Thomas, Falwell, Robertson, and the rest of the people who share their fundamental beleifs are wrong and completely brainwashed. I am not saying these people are in herently bad, just misled into believing silliness. That goes for Pastor Joel, Paster Warren, Pastor Jakes, and the rest of them.

I am sick and tired of giving these people a free ride just because there wrong belief systems are wrapped in the shrine of "faith". Because of this our government has stymied stem cell research, repudiated global warming as a liberal initiative, and invaded our bedrooms by deciding what a woman should do with her body and how two consenting adults can have sex!

These fools are ruining our country and our world by continuing to inflame nationalistic pride and seeing the world as us versus them. With us on the right side of a white haired, chisled, old white man who supposedly knows every move we make and will make. And even when 250,000 people are killed by a Tsunami we are supposed to beleive it is for our good and the good of human kind. This is foolishness and it is dangerous!

So, please, enough of the "they have a right to thier beleifs" drivel. They don't if their beleifs are hurtful, and more importantly demonstratably wrong!

"The designs are not random but due to the mathematical outcomes of processes."

Upon what scientific principle are these processes based? It's easy to forget that all of these principles were discovered by man--not created by him. We observe, we note, and we predict, but we do not change one iota of what is possible.

I like how this pompus idiot presumes to speak for all athiests. Who is this omniscient baffoon? There are plenty of non-supernatural philosophical basis for being both anti-abortion and an athiest at the same time. One of which is the distruction of human intellect and the resource of ideas - the human mind.

This man is a typical athiest hater. He has no understanding and wants none. He is blinded by hate.

There is an all-powerful being that knows everything, hears everything and can control everything all the way right down to the neural level. It is called the NSA Domestic Bedroom i mean Terrorist Surveillance Program in Karl Rove's War against the American people. People like Cal Thomas know nothing about this war because they are not targets for persecution and hundreds of burglaries - they are the beneficiaries. If Bush were truly a Decider of Faith, he would not murder Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein has information that can bring peace to Iraq. What a huge relief it will be for the the Decider having Hussein silenced for ever so he will not be in a position to ensure that history books accurately implicate past administrations for the role they played in the slaughter of the Kurdish people while they were helping Hussein against religious nuts in Iran. Of course it is "in vogue" to be a Moonie in Bush's America. He simply parrots the arguments of the ones who are being attacked by the the Bush administration's domestic terrorism apparatus.

It seems to me that this is the worst kind of argument for belief in God in general, or Christianity in particular. To say that your better off beliving in God becuase you might end up in Hell if you don't is a very childish and "intellectually lazy" (as well as intellectually dishonest) rationalization for belief in something that is by definition beyond our ability to comprehend.

Mr. Thomas also makes not a single reference to the reasons one might want to believe in Christ - such as the Sermon on the Mount, the commandments to "turn the other cheek" and to "love thy neighbor as thyself". Instead, it is all fear and ridicule - as though those who question God's existence have nothing worthwhile to say on the development of life or the universe.

I'm afraid that Mr. Thomas does not even have the strength of his own belief to tell us why we ought to believe in God, only that we ought not to disbelieve or else we'll be sorry. Maybe if he could do that, he might not worry whether he was "in vogue" or not.

If there were an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent entity it would know what kind of person I have been and would not give a hoot about whether I worshipped it or not.

Else it would not be very benevolent, nor modest, nor understanding, not tolerant nor decent and hence not worthy of my respect let alone worship.

Unless of course it would rip my beating heart, beating from my body and hold it up for the cheering masses of believers to see.

In which case I'd have been one stupid honest guy.

So what is your point Mr Thomas? That I should deny my real beliefs and pretend that I believe something I do not so that I can fool an omniscient entity?

In which case I'd be one stupid dishonest guy.

Believers like you scare the life out of me because you are telling me how ungenuine human kindness is for you.

Like many people, I struggle with the belief in God. My problem is when I grew up in the South (50's and 60"s) I use to listen to my family (Christians) discuss hate and intolerance to Blacks, Jews and others who were different and they would say it was OK to hate them because God said so. How can you tell me that your God is about love as long as you are a white christian. To much horrible things have happen to to many good people by the religious people in the name of God. The religious right is the most racist group of people in this country, they only like other christians and hate Jews, Blacks, gays, middle easterns.

Cal Thomas' comments are right on target. To not believe in God Almighty takes a lot of leaps of faith, in my opinion, whereas to believe takes a lot of good sense. I am not bothered by those who do not believe, except saddened by the joy they are missing, by the love they will not experience, by the hell they will have to endure. God bless one and all!

Ick of the East:
....."He (God) is hands off for now...but only for a short while longer- since mans 6000 years is nearly complete."
========================================

That's interesting. But since Homo Sapiens has been around for more than 100,000 years, I guess your hypothesis has been disproven.

=========================================

Yes, isnt it (interesting). Genesis 1:1 translates correctly (from the original Hebrew) "In a beginning...." emphasis on 'a'.
God is not the author of "without form and void". There is much more to the story prior to Adam, but he (Adam) was the start of a different age. 6000 years of mans futile rule that he chose for himself to be specific. Not hypothesis, my friend, but more factual than theories such as evolution. That (evolution) is where hypothesis lives.

---And what scientific principle explains random choice?---

I think he means that there are scientific principles that explain what appear to be designs in nature (snowflakes, etc). Here is a web page that helps explain one of them:
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fib.html .

The designs are not random but due to the mathematical outcomes of processes. These same mathematics are used in computer programs to reproduce the very real looking trees and other computer generated images we see in pictures and movies. Cool stuff but not magical nor supernatural. Just misunderstood by those who look at anything they do not understand and attribute it to the supernatural, just like primitive societies.

"An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right. If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences."

From a devout Catholic upbringing, I have evolved into an aetheist. I am really philosophically an agnostic but functionally an aetheist. I did not arrive at my current state of unbelief after witnessing or experience some traumatic life-changing event, I just used the power of reason and logic to come to the conclusion that there appears to be no god. ("Appears" because you can never prove a negative.)

In short, intellectual honesty has brought me where I am. There is no way I can make myself believe in a god without feeling deep down inside that I am lying to myself. Choosing to believe in a god for me is as strange a notion as choosing to be gay (or straight, if you wish).

If there is a god and I do go to hell, then so be it. If I pretend to believe in a god, and he/she is as omnipotent as believers claim, then surely he would have easily seen the deception in my heart and send me straight to hell anyway.

I am literally damned if I do and damned if I don't. I am damned by my own integrity. I and my ilk would be punished for an act that under any other circumstance is viewed as virtuous. One more reason that the proposition that there is a god leads to a logical inconsistency.

I ask all theists: If you choose to believe in a god because you fear you'll go to hell otherwise, you think god wouldn't have figured out your insincerity from day one? Or does god not care what you think deep down as long as you go through the outward motions of being a devoted believer? I don't think a god who thinks like a despotic megalomaniac is one worth worshipping.

C'mon "Anonymous", use your real name, I double dogma-dare ya... or is this St. Cal incognito?

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."-- Delos B. McKown

what a tool.

"These things are easily explainable by scientific principles as outsomes of random choice."

And what scientific principle explains random choice?

Mr. Thomas,

You state that "...if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please." You are making a very broad assumption that people cannot make ethical decisions, or live by the Golden Rule, except as they are informed by religious doctrine. That's just not so. People can live decently without accepting a particular religious belief. Also implicit in your statement is the Christian, or at least biblical, version of belief as the only way to salvation or the hereafter, where rejection of your particular god will result in going to hell. Well, you'd have a hard time choosing one religion over any other, without some literal belief in one of the scripts as the revealed word of god, be it the Old or New Testaments, the Koran, or Hindu or Buddist books. Atheists or Deists just can't make that choice as easily as you apparently have. Your thinking is closed, and there's no way to offer you an alternative.

The bet you propose, that you gamble all and lose if there is a god that you reject, is a version of Pascal's thesis that one might as well believe, because if there is no god, you gain nothing believing that, but lose all if you reject a god who exists.

As for your examples of the snowflake or the finger print as evidence of some purposeful (call it intelligent) design- you show a lack of science education. These things are easily explainable by scientific principles as outsomes of random choice.

"If god is all that good and just,how do you explain him killing his own "children" by floods, droughts,earth quakes and other "acts of god"?"

God doesn't share in our delusions. If He did, our delusions would be real and we'd all be in a lot of trouble. There is a fundamental difference between what God has created and what man has made. One is real--the other does not exist.

What if the Designer is entirely unlike your conception of a paternal authority figure "who loves us and wants to have a relationship with us"?

You die and go "Oops"?

"What about those of us who are prepared to accept some higher universal consciousness, but don't think that it's Yahweh (or Odin, or Amun, or whoever)?"

As long as you include yourself in that Universal Consciousness, you're probably on the right track. The problem with most peoples' vision of God is that they leave themselves out of it. God is not someone or something outside of us. We ARE God.

the god you refer to was invented about 4000 years ago,while the homo sapiens,who was able to think and talk, existed for over 35000 years.Befor your Abraham god was invented, people had their local gods: sun, moon, tree, rain, any kind of animal, river, name it.Christianity in particular has been imposed by teror (inquisition, massacres in latin America etc.)Other religions have followed the same path.These days, you americans do not do not have to face the same type of teror but ,as TV slaves, are mislead by people like that tv quack who earns heaps of dollars to make you believe in something he most probably does not believe in himself.
If god is all that good and just,how do you explain him killing his own "children" by floods, droughts,earth quakes and other "acts of god"?

There have been several comments decrying the decision to invite Cal Thomas to write his opinion for 'On Faith'. He has been severely criticized for his opinion. To my way of thinking, rightly so. But, therein lies the genius behind the first amendment's right to free speech. The founders understood that only by allowing the exposition of unfettered thinking can the truth be revealed. For this, I am grateful to Mr. Thomas. His simple little essay, though thoroughly flawed, has revealed much truth. Unfortunately for him, it is not a truth that supports his purported faith.

Mr. Thomas, you are free to believe in your God, in your way. I have no right to try to persuade you otherwise; though I have a right to disagree, not withstanding the fate of my immortal soul. Will you not grant that same courtesy to your atheist friends?

First, a (non)disclaimer: I'm a real atheist, and this is my real name.

(Cal Thomas writes) "It takes more faith not to believe...than to believe..." "It is also intellectually lazy".

Cal, you genius. You couldn't have made my own argument any more succinct, although I'm sure you had no such intention.

Let's parse: Not to believe is a greater act of faith than to believe, not to believe is intellectually lazy. Not to believe=a greater act of faith=intellectual laziness.

Cal Thomas is on record as believing faith equals intellectual laziness, and the greater the faith the greater the laziness.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

What about those of us who are prepared to accept some higher universal consciousness, but don't think that it's Yahweh (or Odin, or Amun, or whoever)?

Or those who think that there could possibly be a cosmic intelligence, but it doesn't pick sides in the sense that we understand it?

Or those who think that morality, ethics, and caring for our fellow living beings doesn't necessarily require an anthropomorphic reference construct or marketing character?

"Seriously, dumbest paragraph I've read all year..."

There is no good reason or argument for believing in God--or not believing in God. Both sets of beliefs rely totally on faith.

Cal,

All I can say is what many others have said, what in the world was the Post thinking to let you write that simplistic and juvenile opinion piece? I hardly know where to begin because your comments are so just plain silly.

First, your beliefs are founded on pure faith sans reason. This is ok, but just remember, faith requires no evidence. So, equally as valid as your beleif in the Bible and a personal God is the Flying Spagheti Monster, the Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus.

Secondly, read the End of Faith by Sam Harris before you speak anymore on this subject. His intellect and prose is so sharp that even the best believers will be given pause.

Third, if in the present people cannot walk on water, feed the multitudes with one fish, live for three days in the body of a real big fish, and come back to life after three days, (sorry, I forgot about the burning bush), then what makes you believe those things can be done today?

Finally, for the agnostics, atheists, and other folks of non or doubtful beleif please stay strong in your convictions. Are ilk are often called mean and arrogant, so be it. Understand that a literal interpetation of any holy book that seeks to explain the natural world through superstition and myth while also trying to castigate oppositional views is both dangerous and menatally unstable. This meme of fundamental religion has caused more damage in the long view to human kind then any other memeplex. People who believe silly things without evidence are the same type of folks who beleived in the Flat Earth theory even when evidence refuted that claim.

Fundamental religious beleifs are really "viruses of the mind"...

---An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right. If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences.---

I agree with a previous poster that this is the worst reason for believing in a god. Even Jesus never used this argument instead pushing for the "love of God" to persuade unbelievers to believe.

Cal also seems to think that there are only two possibilities, belief in God and no belief. There are others you know, many of which doom people like Cal to things worse than hell.

As for me, I'm a Last Thursdaen. We believe the universe and all of its contents were created last Thursday by some supernatural process and continues to repeat itself every Thursday like a giant record skipping over and over again. Like Christians we have the same explanations for being able to see stars whose light took billions of years to get here (it was created in transit), fossils (put here to confuse us), etc... But unlike christians we believe memory is implanted so we think we've been here before last Thursday. Christians laugh at us for this belief while we just keep our cool knowing next Thursday is just around the corner, sort of like how christians keep their cool knowing the apocolypse is coming any day now. Cal, I dare you to prove my belief wrong. What would you use to show me I'm wrong? Science? Facts? None of these are used to justify Christian or other beliefs.

Oh yea, Last Thursdeans also believe that all people who write columns insinuating that people who do not believe in their fairy tails are doomed to hell are themselves doomed to repeat what they do in this universe again starting next Thursday while the rest of us get to live on an earth where time never repeats itself. Go ahead, tell me my belief is wrong, show me how it is wrong and different than biblical based religion. If that is too tough, try showing how the ancient egyptian beliefs outlined in the "book of the dead" are wrong. Like most christians Cal assumes his faith is backed up by facts when in reality all faiths are called "faith" for a very good reason. Cal, by your own argument and based on your age, you need to start building your pyramid asap or follow my faith and stop writing these columns, quickly!

"It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance."

Seriously, dumbest paragraph I've read all year...

Mr. Thomas: I am an agnostic, not an atheist, but I will take you to task on the "atheist's wager". All of us make wagers, religious or otherwise. The great problem with religion is that its dictates are ultimately those of men, not God, and those prescriptions and limitations are quite capable of frustrating and limiting the only life we are sure we have. The believer wagers that the eternal reward, assuming it exists, justifies the limitations religious authorities currently place on him/her.

Evolution does not justify treating other human beings in any way we please. Properly understood, evolution shows us that we are inextricably part of a vast biological and social framework that we violate with great risk to ourselves and those we care for. There is no license for capricious cruelty in that realization.

"An excellent suggestion Sir. The Post should have a supernatural section for the fiction readers out there. Let's keep the non-fiction separate."

If you don't like it, don't read it. And certainly don't waste your time commenting on it. What's the point?

Heck, Anon., "jihad" really means "holy struggle" and while there is a lower jihad against enemies of the faith, the higher jihad is the war against evil within yourself. Speaking of holy struggles.

Wayne:

An excellent suggestion Sir. The Post should have a supernatural section for the fiction readers out there. Let's keep the non-fiction separate.

"At least I can question myself if I am doing the right thing, something that is not allowed in muslim, judism and christian religons."

Who told you that? It's garbage. Someone lied to you.

Hey Cal: You are a very brave man to have talked to so many atheists without a body guard around. If they weren't so consumed with aborting babies, they probably would have turned their forked tongues and fangs to your jugular.

Please watch your step because in all of our free time (from not going to church) we are plotting ways to torture the lame believers like yourself. O, I'm sorry, that's what the believers like(d) to do to the the non-believers.

Hello from Canada, where many up here (unless you're an Alaskan -- then let's say 'down here') suffer under the misapprehension that the majority of Americans are raving fundamentalists and war-mongering fanatics. The comments here prove otherwise.

It's odd that I've never been approached by groups of atheists or agnostics wishing to 'convert' me, nor have I read newspaper columns exhorting me to drop the supernatural stuff and get with the godless program. Maybe they're just not good proselytizers.

I particularly agree with another comment posted here; your publication loses a bit of credibility by printing this type of snide, uninformed, religious drivel. If you must, please place it on the same page as the horoscopes ...

All the best.

Here Cal dismisses other unbelievers, and is proven wrong.

"People opposed to the liberation of Iraq have deceived themselves about the following: There is not sufficient proof that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction or that he is willing to use them (there is and he is); the United States will suffer large numbers of casualties (that's what they said about the Gulf War in 1991 and it didn't); America will enrage Muslims and Arabs around the world (they're already enraged, as Sept. 11 proved). "

Cal Thomas article of Oct. 1, 2002

Or see "Colin Powell's slam dunk" from Feb. 6, 2003

at:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas.html

He is your God - They are your rules - You burn in Hell!

I have more faith in myself then any deity forced upon me to believe and never question.

At least I can question myself if I am doing the right thing, something that is not allowed in muslim, judism and christian religons. Examples: Bush and all the other democratic and republican religious fanatics in government who do not have the capacity to question anything including the death of innocent soldiers and civilians.

"One great thing about rational thought is you come to understand change is inevitable. Mr. Thomas has not achieved that level of wisdom."

You are an incredibly arrogant arse.

Cal Thomas is worried the things he's learned in his life will be discounted or otherwise made obsolete in his waning years and after his death.

One great thing about rational thought is you come to understand change is inevitable. Mr. Thomas has not achieved that level of wisdom. He's desperate to know his entire life was not built upon a trove of ancient lies.

I pity him.

"Why is it “in vogue” to disbelieve in a Creator of the universe, who loves us and wants to have a relationship with us...?"

That viewpoint is easily as childish and idiotic as the one that says there is no God. You seem to think you can ascribe some human characteristics to God. You're attempting to anthropomorphize the unknowable. It's not wonder the atheists don't believe in God. The Bible doesn't refer to the "unspeakable name of God" because it's a sin to do so or because God's name is difficult to pronounce. The name of God is unspeakable because it's wholly outside the realm of possibility or impossibility. Think deeply about the possible meaning of this phrase:

Before Abraham was I AM.

God is not some gigantic, friendly teddy-bear in the sky. Leave the 12-year-old fantasies behind.

If TV Evangelists were atually honest and interested in helping their fellow man, and opened their books to srcutiny (the only one who ever did was Billy Graham) rather than cashing in on senior citizens and poor people lacking hope, we would have fewer athiests.

If christian leaders were honest about their ties to big business and started promoting the needs of the average citizen and the environment over political contributions and cashing in for themselves we would have fewer athiests.

If the pope had come out and swept away any and all questions of pedophile priests with an open admission of their crimes and those of the bishops who sheltered their crimes, if he would have unequvically supported the victims we would have fewer athiests.

Get it?

I stopped reading upon seeing the logical fallacy contained in the statement "if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please." These are the only 2 choices, God or Satan? Please. The world is not a nursery school.

Well, now that I think about it, maybe you're right. The only reason I killed and ate that baby this morning is that God doesn't exist. Please, somebody, make God appear so I don't do it again.

Cal speaks of the wager of atheists. But what about the wager of believers? I have heard many christians say that there is no harm for them if there is no god. In other words, they are treating god and religion like car insurance-there is no harm in having it, but if/when you need it you are covered. Essentially, they are on the other side of the bet.

When you consider that many believers hardly follow the word of their respective god, it amazes me that even they believe in what they claim to believe. Just witness the destruction of Iraq for instance. Our President, whose stated role model is Jesus Christ, ordered the mass killings of innoncent men, women, and children. Yet, in the bible, it explicitly speaks against killing. It is this loose interpretation of the bible that causes me trouble. How can a christian perpetrate such acts and claim a strong belief in god? Who knows that the muslims in the 9/11 attack were not thinking the same thing.

Religious affiliation is more geographic than anything. A person born in the US is as likely to be a christian as a person born in Saudi is likely to be a muslim. So who is right? The person that chooses the wrong god would be scorned in both religions.

OK, the double-post was an accident.

And hey, E in TX, it seems kind of incredible to me that intelligent life evolved by accident, too. But then, our choice isn't between "evolved by accident" and "created by God". I mean, even if you accept evolution as a purely mechanical, scientific process, it's not really an *accident*. It has design. It's simply not intelligent design. Maybe "structure" is a better word. And there certainly seems to be a body of scientific evidence behind that concept.

Or maybe some intelligent life-form out in space created the Earth and its people, for whatever reason or purpose. It seems unlikely to me, but it's about as likely as God doing it. Maybe nature itself needs intelligent life for some biological or spiritual reason. Maybe people created God and then God created people. Hells bells, maybe there are no people and it's all in your imagination. I wouldn't think too hard on that subject (personally speaking, it freaks me out), but it's a possibility. Now I'm just talking crazy, but my point is: maybe maybe maybe.

And maybe not.

So why believe or disbelieve it? What's the point? We're here and--for the moment--alive. And we're all floating in the same boat, viz., the Earth. That's something we *know*. All else is frippery.

http://www.reverendatheistar.com/malevolent_design.htm

Malevolent Design

By now I'm sure you've heard of Intelligent Design, which focuses on alleged irreducible complexity, and perhaps even Incompetent Design, which focuses on the mysterious designer's shoddy handiwork, but have you heard of Malevolent Design? This takes ID and turns it on it's head. The Intelligent Design Creationists always love to focus on the benevolent to be found in nature such as a flagellum or an eye. But why stop there? Why, unless you are intentionally avoiding the negative in order to preserve an image of deity that loves everyone? Why not take things a bit further and look at the flip side of the equation? Seeing as I lack belief in all gods and goddesses and have no such agenda to preserve anything about their alleged personalities, I shall delve full into this fascinating mythological concept.

Malevolent Design (hereafter MD), simply put, is the secondary negative quality that one should see if one first sees intelligence. If there be a master designer then one should be able to gauge how he feels about his creations by the interaction between them. There various body parts should spell out he/she/them/it's intentions. Are we the darlings of a deity or merely part of an experiment led by a pantheon of gods on Lab Earth? Are we no more than white mice to be toyed with in order to test out new MDs and their effectiveness?

Mosquitoes have a special facial appendage known as a proboscis. This appendage has six parts, two pairs of cutters for opening up the skin of the victim and two fine tubes. One is for sucking up blood and the other is for dripping in anticoagulant, which keeps the blood from clotting. Why would a benevolent designer create such a little monster? And why, for their traveling companion would said designer create special pathogens to go along with it?

Mosquitoes carry many diseases. They include Malaria, West Nile virus, Dengue Fever, Encephalitis and Yellow Fever. All of these diseases kill indiscriminately, cutting swaths through the young and old, especially in third world countries. Death from these is neither quick nor pleasant. They kill regardless of religion, race or social status. The believer and Atheist can die just the same without medical treatment. Why would the mysterious designer create these tiny beings? To watch us die slow, torturous deaths? To see if he/she/them/it could overcome the immune system that he/she/them/it designed previously, kind of like a hacker breaking into his own program?

Carnivores have sharp teeth, perfect for cutting flesh, a strong digestive system perfect for digesting meat and various other body parts that aid them in acquiring their victims. A great white shark, for example, has rows upon rows of very sharp, serrated teeth that, when lost, turn to replace the old ones. They can smell minute traces of blood in the water from miles away. It would appear to show excellent signs of MD! Is it too far off to assume the designer wants his other creations, upon entering the water, to be eaten by this beast if given a chance?

There are countless other examples I could cite to show the prevalence of the neglected obvious but these few examples prove my point: if you believe you see intelligence, there is malevolence right along with it!

Keith dude, i got two words for you: PINK and INVISIBLE. okay, three words.

I am not an atheist, but I find it baffling and amusing that we put such a human personality on a god that we will never be able to truly comprehend in this lifetime. We personify him with anger and love. We say he will punish us as a form of bribery to keep us in line. Isn't God really above all of this? He knows more than we will ever begin to comprehend in our tiny human minds and a book will not be able to explain it all to us (the bible.)

The other mystery to me is that somehow the concept of heaven, again a human concept, is a good one. In this world, there is no good without evil. We need one to be able to recognize the other. There is also an infinite amount of gray area that contains both good and bad. 'Living' in this alternate universe of only 'good' would be like living in a vacuum and would be incredibly boring. But again, that is only my human perspective speculating what something I really have no idea about would be like.

http://www.reverendatheistar.com/true_christian.htm

True Christian

Mark 16

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

The biblical character of Jesus laid out a simple test to show who was, and wasn't, a True Christian™. The first is that you must "take up" snakes. Many like to dance while doing this and well, that's ok. I propose using several adult king cobras. Don't worry, Jesus said that they won't hurt you. Now, while dancing with your adult king cobras, I suggest also drinking a gallon of cyanide. Again, don't worry, Jesus said it's ok. It won't hurt you. After completing this task you'll need to travel on a plane to Africa and find yourself some people infected with Ebola. Since you are now infused with magical Jesus Power™, you shall now proceed to lay your hands on these poor brothers and sisters infected with this terrible hemorrhagic fever virus. Instantly they'll be up and dancing with snakes, drinking cyanide and praising the sweet name of Jesus! Don't you want this to be true? Follow his simple three-fold path and it can be yours today!

Again, Cal's "logic" fails my purple unicorns test:

The purple unicorns will get really mad at you and kill you if you don't believe in them.

So the best bet is to believe in the purple unicorns. After all, what do you gain from not believing in purple unicorns?

http://www.reverendatheistar.com/the_seven_day_atheist_challenge.htm

The 7 Day Atheist Challenge

I am sick and tired of all the theists who like to whine and complain about how persecuted they are. Some even go so far as to state that discrimination is only ok against them, while all other groups, supposedly, get away with the world. Really? Is that so? Theists, as a united group comprising of all the world's faiths, nearly completely dominate the planet. We are the minority, not them. They have millions of places of worship, not us. They have holidays recognized by governments around the world, not us. They hold the lion's share of control over the media, not us. And many of them are violently against our very existence. Admitting you're an Atheist in a theistically dominated culture amounts to a virtual suicide. It can, quite literally, get you killed. Much less, it can get you fired, evicted or divorced, amongst other unsavory things. We have been so completely demonized in their holy texts that the mere word offends. And they're the persecuted ones! Right!

So, in light of the persistent misconception, I propose a challenge to any and all willing theists. I call it The 7 Day Atheist Challenge. The rules are simple. You pretend to be an Atheist for the period of seven days. During this time you must tell as many people as you possibly can. Tell your mother, your father, your grandma, your grandpa, your boss, your co-workers, your significant other, your friends, random people on the street -- everyone that you can get a hold of. No slipping up, either. There will be no letting anyone in on the secret. Only you will know the truth. Then, after this period of time is over, you come back and tell me how it went. You tell me about the depth of the persecution you felt. You tell me how the people who you thought were your friends turned on you. Tell me your stories of discrimination and then you will see just how good you have it.

Richard Dawkins book,"The God Delusion." And once you get the book READ IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH! Then if you want to have a discussion you will at least not have to argue from complete ignorance.

Also: - Charles Freeman: The Closing of the Western Mind. The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason. - Kevin Phillips: American Theocracy - Israel Finkelstein, Neil A. Silberman: The Bible unearthed.

....."John 3:16-21 "For God so LOVED the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."
--------------------------------------------

Oh thanks. Never heard that one before.
Now let me put it into words that are more honest;

"For God so loved the world that he temporarily sacrificed himself, to himself, to appease himself of his anger at his own creation. And if anybody does not believe this story, they shall be tortured without mercy for all eternity.

Because He LOVES you.

Christianity in a nutshell. And I do mean nut.

I'm quite shocked that the Washington Post would publish such a poorly reasoned and divisive article. It smacks of blind-faith holy rolling and has no place on the pages of this newspaper.

Thanks to the other comment writers for filling out the viewpoint shared by atheists and others who refuse the notion that they must live to please one arbitrarily selected form of higher being. There is, after all, something to the idea that it makes sense to avoid specific belief (and the concomitant rules that go along with that belief) in the awareness that we can never know what is really out there. We live our lives the best we can in the meantime according to rules that make sense for human society; any god that gave us this sense of reasoning will certainly not judge us for using it and cast us into Hell, as Cal Thomas suggests.

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." -- Richard Dawkins

I seriously lean towards Atheism, but do you know what I pray for Cal? That someday people will wise up and stop paying you and your ilk (are you listening Jonah? Mona?) to spout this sanctimonious pap you call intelligent discourse, you daffy old right-wing troll. Go away, shoo.

I agree with Wayne--Any god that placed more value on believing in him and obeying rituals like going to church to worship him over doing good in this world is a god I choose not to worship. Doing good in this world does not require belief in a deity and any god that I would respect and worship would support and reward that regardless of belief and ritual.

What in the hell is the Washington Post doing with this 'FAITH' thing every day? Hundreds and hundreds of silly posts back and forth where no one learns one single thing. I highly recommend that each of you, if you really care about the subject of faith and religion and especially morality, get yourself a copy of Richard Dawkins book,"The God Delusion." And once you get the book READ IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH! Then if you want to have a discussion you will at least not have to argue from complete ignorance.

" ... and pray that the One who brought me to belief will do so with them."

This is what makes athiests upset. Athiests don't go around trying to convert zealots into athiests. If you want to believe in God, if it comforts you, go right ahead. But why don't you do the same in return? Stop going around knocking on doors, and publishing statements such as the one quoted above, trying to convert me ... I'm not asking for your 'help' okay? I don't want it! You are wrong, there is no God the way he is depicted in the bible, and I 100-percent know it is true, so stop being such a smug, pompous, smirking, holier-than-thou jerk about it.

A belief harms no one, but when you try to force that belief into being public policy, and the only belief that anyone is allowed to have -- that is when you are likely to start a war.

I am not an athiest. I am, however, a skeptical agnostic. I see potential for a guiding good force in the world, which may be intelligent, powerful, and independent of human beings. I hope it exists, because d*mn, the ethical people need help. It may be that some obscure field of quantum physics might even prove that the Big Guy exists. Stranger things have happened, though only in novels.

However, *hoping* for something doesn't mean *believing* in something. Could an invisible man in the sky be directing our affairs toward some master plan? Well, I can't prove that there's not, but if there is, I doubt it's God. It's impossible for a force to be omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good). If he knows everything, is all-powerful and compassionate why didn't he stop the Holocaust, or 9/11, or any one of the equally terrible mindless cruelties and stunning injustices of the last 6,000 years?

OK, maybe it all works out to a divine plan, maybe he's got a thing about free will. Fine. Great. But I can't be the only person in the room thinking: Not Good Enough. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to be able to kick back in the Kingdom of Heaven if I know that we had to let the Holocaust happen to get there. I prefer to think that such a being, if he exists, is good and all-knowing but (occasionally) incapable of action, as so many of us are. But such a good but flawed soul would never ask his fellows to get down on their knees and bow and scrape and beg him, would not ask them to empty their minds of everything but him--and send them to Hell if they didn't, and Heaven if they did. That's not mercy or justice or even free will. That's just power.

The just heart rebels against such power. The democratic spirit flinches in its face. And the rational mind says: no flippin' way. If there is a good God/pantheon, then what he demands of us is rational moral action, nothing more, nothing less. Rational: based on objective reasoning that tells you, this should be done because it makes sense and is right, not because God Said So. Moral: It eases, relieves, or prevents suffering. Action: you're out there *doing* it, not fiddling with the obscurities of belief, praying for peace, and sorting the world into neat little columns of spiritual winners and losers.

If there's *no* God, then you must demand rational moral action from *yourself*, and you must act with even more courage and humility, because nobody's going to come down and save your cookies at the end. You must learn more--we all have to learn more. People say: oh ho, if you don't believe in God, what's your moral compass? Well, for me it's empathy--the ability to feel another's suffering as if it is your own--and the marvel that is the human mind, which seem inherently valuable to me. Murder is wrong because it destroys a person, a person who will never raise a child or tell a story or fall in love or make a choice ever again (which, BTW, is the logical basis for the Biblical commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill). Fascism is wrong because it makes people live in fear, for their lives and for the future. And what they fear is that they will be tortured, imprisoned, killed, subjected to a thousand hells... *based only what they believe and do*-- or on nothing at all.

Compassion, kemosabes, is a *rational* position. I'd be much more worried about the people who arrive at compassion by the short route: "It's good 'cause God said so." That's not a compass. It's a sheild. It protects you from making decisions on your own. It saves you the trouble of working out the real ethics of modern life. And it convieniently divides the world into black and white: those of us behind the shield are good.

That kind of simplistic thinking causes a lot of problems. Like the Crusades. Like Spanish Inquisition. Like 9/11. Beware: behind all those people that are all smug and confident of their goodness are a whole bunch of guys who are ready to break out the thumbscrews and hot wax for God or State. Agnostics don't really do that; we're too skeptical. Haven't seen a lot of athiests stringing people up by their thumbs either; they don't believe strongly enough.

On the other hand, I've heard of plenty of athiests, scientists, rationalists, and other wrong-believers getting strung up. Just one of those things, I guess.

Perhaps that's the real atheist wager: stop applying all those brain cells to awe and prayer and hoping really really hard that you're going to get into Heaven--and start using them to solve some suffering in this world. If there is a God, then you'll be hooked up in the afterlife (our best religious figures led lives of poverty, humility, and hard work), and if there isn't, at least you contributed while you were alive, left a lasting legacy, made some friends, and didn't spend every day in church or wishing you were there.

It's a win-win.

I am not an athiest. I am, however, a skeptical agnostic. I see potential for a guiding good force in the world, which may be intelligent, powerful, and independent of human beings. I hope it exists, because d*mn, the ethical people need help. It may be that some obscure field of quantum physics might even prove that the Big Guy exists. Stranger things have happened, though only in novels.

However, *hoping* for something doesn't mean *believing* in something. Could an invisible man in the sky be directing our affairs toward some master plan? Well, I can't prove that there's not, but if there is, I doubt it's God. It's impossible for a force to be omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good). If he knows everything, is all-powerful and compassionate why didn't he stop the Holocaust, or 9/11, or any one of the equally terrible mindless cruelties and stunning injustices of the last 6,000 years?

OK, maybe it all works out to a divine plan, maybe he's got a thing about free will. Fine. Great. But I can't be the only person in the room thinking: Not Good Enough. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to be able to kick back in the Kingdom of Heaven if I know that we had to let the Holocaust happen to get there. I prefer to think that such a being, if he exists, is good and all-knowing but (occasionally) incapable of action, as so many of us are. But such a good but flawed soul would never ask his fellows to get down on their knees and bow and scrape and beg him, would not ask them to empty their minds of everything but him--and send them to Hell if they didn't, and Heaven if they did. That's not mercy or justice or even free will. That's just power.

The just heart rebels against such power. The democratic spirit flinches in its face. And the rational mind says: no flippin' way. If there is a good God/pantheon, then what he demands of us is rational moral action, nothing more, nothing less. Rational: based on objective reasoning that tells you, this should be done because it makes sense and is right, not because God Said So. Moral: It eases, relieves, or prevents suffering. Action: you're out there *doing* it, not fiddling with the obscurities of belief, praying for peace, and sorting the world into neat little columns of spiritual winners and losers.

If there's *no* God, then you must demand rational moral action from *yourself*, and you must act with even more courage and humility, because nobody's going to come down and save your cookies at the end. You must learn more--we all have to learn more. People say: oh ho, if you don't believe in God, what's your moral compass? Well, for me it's empathy--the ability to feel another's suffering as if it is your own--and the marvel that is the human mind, which seem inherently valuable to me. Murder is wrong because it destroys a person, a person who will never raise a child or tell a story or fall in love or make a choice ever again (which, BTW, is the logical basis for the Biblical commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill). Fascism is wrong because it makes people live in fear, for their lives and for the future. And what they fear is that they will be tortured, imprisoned, killed, subjected to a thousand hells... *based only what they believe and do*-- or on nothing at all.

Compassion, kemosabes, is a *rational* position. I'd be much more worried about the people who arrive at compassion by the short route: "It's good 'cause God said so." That's not a compass. It's a sheild. It protects you from making decisions on your own. It saves you the trouble of working out the real ethics of modern life. And it convieniently divides the world into black and white: those of us behind the shield are good.

That kind of simplistic thinking causes a lot of problems. Like the Crusades. Like Spanish Inquisition. Like 9/11. Beware: behind all those people that are all smug and confident of their goodness are a whole bunch of guys who are ready to break out the thumbscrews and hot wax for God or State. Agnostics don't really do that; we're too skeptical. Haven't seen a lot of athiests stringing people up by their thumbs either; they don't believe strongly enough.

On the other hand, I've heard of plenty of athiests, scientists, rationalists, and other wrong-believers getting strung up. Just one of those things, I guess.

Perhaps that's the real atheist wager: stop applying all those brain cells to awe and prayer and hoping really really hard that you're going to get into Heaven--and start using them to solve some suffering in this world. If there is a God, then you'll be hooked up in the afterlife (our best religious figures led lives of poverty, humility, and hard work), and if there isn't, at least you contributed while you were alive, left a lasting legacy, made some friends, and didn't spend every day in church or wishing you were there.

It's a win-win.

If there is not a Creator (be it Jehovah or Allah or whatever), then the ONLY OTHER possibility is that we came into existence as the result of an accident, of 24875692348756 things coming together JUST RIGHT in order for life to exist.

And I refuse to believe that we are an accident, even a very fortuitous one.

Now Mr. Cal can claim that he is persecuted.

poor Mr. Cal

by the way, for what papers does Mr. Cal write?

So. Cal Thomas has resurrected Pascal's Wager, proposed by Blaise Pascal, French philosopher, in the 17th Century. To see criticisms of this Wager, and its weaknesses, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

I have another wager: give me a reason to believe in God which does not already entail that belief, in some aspect. I'm betting no one can do it.

Incidentally, Thomas has incorrectly stated the Atheist's wager (giving Pascal's Wager instead). The Atheist's Wager is: "It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him."

I am what you might call a hard atheist. And I'm also a scientist. Religion is a farce. Humans had to come up with something to ease the horror of finding out their mortality. There is no heaven or hell, except that which we create while we are alive.

"It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him."

That is nonsensical. A disbelief is not a matter of "faith." Like the rest of the biological organisms of the planet, I am an animal. I see my place in the animal kingdom, and have the humility to realize that many animals are more capable than I am. After all, they need no "faith" to live out their lives. Neither do I.

In addition to agreeing with the rest of the critiques of this opinion (I find the logic contained throughout Mr. Thomas's writing poor, to say the least), I would like to counter another one of his assertions, that being a non-believer is "in vogue." I can't remember the last time a public figure admitted to being an atheist. Certainly all those seeking public office or mass popularity almost all claim to be of one religious sort or another, or risk alienating a god fearing populice. I wonder what the base of Mr. Thomas's assertion is that atheism is "in vogue?"

It strikes me as typical of a evangelical Christian "victim" mentality that has allowed advocates to strike up a certain amount of activism among evangelicals on the basis of an imagined underdog status. Where would the excitment be in reinforcing the hegemonic?

Dear Cal:

Your holier than thou, prejudicial, unsubstantiated viewpoint is immensely offensive to this ethical and law-abiding atheist.

As an aside, if there is a supreme all-powerful being that wanted me to believe then he/she/it would simply tell me so. That said, yours must be a pretty insecure God to insist that only the believers will have a reserved seat in the clouds while the non-believers roast their chestnuts.

Freed of religious guardrails, let me turn my non-spiritual mind back to the business of trying to abort as many unborn babies as possible.

As usual, people like Mr Thomas truly show us the height of intellecual laziness.

His classic, "See that tree? Isn't it pretty? God exists!" argument is still, and always will be a logical fallacy.

To say it takes more "faith" to not believe in a God is another fallacy. Seeing as faith in of itself, is an irrational epistimology, is basically stating, "It takes being irrational and unreasonable to not believe in a god, when you can be irrational and unreasonable to believe he does."

*shakes head*

Can't the religious fundamentalists of this nation ever present a cohesive, logical argument?

Is this the best they can muster?

Thomas assumes that atheism is the active rejection of a diety. Perhaps my atheism is a bit different. It is definitely the non-acceptance of a diety, but it is not the renouncement of any supernatural being. I can't renounce what has not been presented to me. It's my analog to those who dispute global warming. They say with such serene smugness, "The jury's still out." Well, OK. The jury's still out on whether God exists, at least for me.

I've always found the "Maybe you should believe in God, just in case there is a hell," to be the most morally bankrupt reasoning for being faithful. One should choose a belief system for affirmative reasons -- how it helps you live your life better, be a better person, make a better world -- whatever that belief system is. It shouldn't be chosen as some sort of hedge bet against damnation. If you're not that sure of God, why is the Devil any more legitimate.

Can I just say how happy it makes me to read all of these thoughtful, rational comments and know that there are people out there who, like me, value reason and logic above blind belief and faith! I know we are a small minority, but rational thought has changed the world many times, in spite of irrational, small-minded people like Cal here who stood in its way; this commentary makes me think that it'll happen again. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it'll happen.

Because there is no rational explanation for the beginning there is awe.

When you take the time to experience that awe it is entirely sane to want to share it with God and also not necessary for there to be a God.

That is why many Quakers believe the start and end of religion is uniquely within each of us.

By Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh (From the book Interbeing)

"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrow-mindedness."

Mr. Thomas et al:
Study history, in particular comparative religious theories. You will find that there is nothing new in christianity from the "virgin" birth to the resurrection. All aspects of christianity can be traced to an earlier religious developments that were documented in other texts. The bible is a compendium of earlier events, fables, moral lessons, etc. It may also benefit the serious religious believer to study the linguistic roots that underlie their beliefs. In many cases, the "word of god" is a mistaken or questionable translation. The bible, particularly the King James version (best in the French version), can be a lyrical and instructive cultural document; however, it is not definitive and certainly no basis for belief.

Belief in God is not the problem, rather the problem stems from God's so-called representatives on earth. I've never had an issue with the principles of right and wrong, etc. taught us by Jesus Christ---it's a perfect way to live your life. My issue is with the various religions (Catholic, Protestant, Islam, Evangeligal, et. al.), preachers, interpretors, zealots, fundamentalists, and so forth, that try to impose their will on mankind, run nations, and create wars.

More people die in the "Name of God" in stupid wars over some zealots interpretation of who's God is better than all other causes of death put together.

Believe in God, all Gods, no God, your own God, or whatever---just keep it to yourself and stay out of my/our government.

I find all of these remarks to be very interesting because I once felt the same way, except that I thought that atheists were just as dumb as believers since both assume a knowledge that they can't possibly know. In other words, a believer can't know that there is a God and an atheist can't know that there is no God. They are both assuming a knowledge that they do not have.

I was as arrogant in my ignorance as so many of the contributors here. I could spout out what all of the great philosophers of the past and present said about it. I could give all of the logical arguments against the existence of an all-knowing and all-powerful God. In my folly I laughed at the Almighty and felt pity for the fools.

On the 3rd of August of 1961 I was teaching an advanced undergraduate course in mechanics at the Physics Department at Indiana State. After class I was walking across the campus to get a cup of coffee. I was thinking about the problen that I had been solving for the class. Then that Almighty God that I had for many years laughed at spoke to me---and for the first time in my life I knew without a shadow of doubt. I met Him and He removed all of my doubts. And my life has never been the same since that moment.

I know how you feel because I was there. I was an educated man, a professor of physics, a man of understanding, a man of rather large experience in life since I had spent 5 years in the army as a paratrooper and had experienced combat in the Korean War as a rifleman. I was wounded and disabled. I saw my three best friends die. I saw first hand the sufferings of the world. I looked evil in the face and knew its depths. How could I believe in a God that allowed such things to happen? I rejected God and blamed Him for man's folly.

Then I met Him and all became clear to me. I could now see because He opened my blind eyes. I no longer believe or disbelieve---I now know. But I don't know because I am so smart. I know because of the only reason that one may truly know---because He came to me and revealed truth to me. In my blindness I could not logically be any other than I was. After all, I stopped believing in Santa Claus when I was 4 years old.

If you are interested, you may visit my Web site at www.calledtoholiness.com. I am not selling anything. You couldn't believe, even if you wanted to. But who knows, He may also visit you. Then you will know.

James G. Wolfe

Bill C wrote: But what if I believe in the wrong God and I go to hell or some form of it anyway? Or what if there is a God and there is no afterlife? I don't see why God would be obliged to give us one. Or what if God just plain hates us? Can anyone prove these things aren't true? If so then I will believe but if not then I won't waste my time living life according to some made up fatuous Bronze Age myth.

Janice A replies: In your bible it is proven that God LOVES us -- John 3:16-21 "For God so LOVED the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God".

Faith is defined as: belief and trust in God; knowing that God is real, even though one can't see him. God the Father of All - God is the Father of all as sustainer of life. Every person is an object of His fatherly care (Matthew 18:10) and a candidate for His kingdom (Luke 18:16) Furthermore, God is not willing that any should perish (Matthew 18:14; 1 Timothy 2:4). Even when men and women reject God He still provides for them as He does believers with rain, fruitful seasons, food, and gladness (Matthew 5:45; Acts 14:17).
I take this opportunity to pray for the non-believers that someday you will believe and have eternal life in the presence of God. I pray for your salvation. As a Christian I am to spread the gospel (good news) of God throughout the world. Thank you for the opportunity to witness.

I find the Christian God inspiring.

Spider-God and Sock God, not so much.

I guess Two Gods has the potential to be okay, but Two Gods don't have a well-formed theology, scripture or tradition.

Rationalist God seems rather narrow in scope. Brain evolution has imposed serious limitations on our human ability to comprehend the world by reason alone.

All in all, as a scientist I find the Christian God definitely speaks the most to me.

Thanks Thinking Bum -- your post really made me think!

A couple of simplistic points from a guy who has fretted over the existence of God since I was about 12.

*How can a Christian god be the only one? What makes theirs real, and not the Hindus, Moslems, Animists, Bhuddists, etc? There's no compelling reason to accept the existence of one over the others.

*Since all mankind comes up with the notion of a creator, if one exists, perhaps it is the same entity described by all the faiths of the world?

*Christians can't even get their faith on the same page: Catholics are scorned by the rest of Christianity. Fundamentalists believe it is only their Christianity that is the true faith and means of salvation. They mistrust and minimize each other.

*If God, any God(s) are real, and love the world, why has nearly every major war been about religion?

*If God represents love of man, why has so much torture and cruelty come out of Christianity? Look at the torture and barbarism conducted by the churches: the Inquisition, Savanarola, Junipero Serra clubbing the feet of Indians who tried to ecape his prostelytising.

*As other posters have noted, ethics serve humankind enormously. We couldn't have advanced this far as a species without cooperation, trust, charity. However, these traits exist outside religion, just as they do within.

*If God exists, why isn't there a shred of scientific or documentary evidence of his existence? This whole idea of "faith" seems conjured to fill the mighty hole created by a lack of evidence of God's existence.

*On the other side of the "faith" question sits the scientific evidence of evolution. We can see it, measure it, document it. Evolution is real.

*I'm calling myself "Agnostic in Annapolis" because I would like to believe in a god or creator. I'd like to have an afterlife and not think my life ends in a dirt nap. However, I can't find any basis to do more than hope for it.

*Finally, don't all the other posters remember back in college how a professor would throw out a preposterous chunk of red meat, just to get the class worked up? Uh, Cal just served ours rare.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WESTERN-RELIGION IS IN DECLINE. THE BAD NEWS IS THAT ISLAM IS NOT.

Angus Reid polls on the importance of Religion in daily life in 2006 indicates:
63 percent in the USA in 2006 down from 83 percent in 1992
39 percent in Canada down from 61 percent in 1992
France down to 17 percent.
Great Britain down to 23 percent
Germany down to 24 percent
Spain down to 31 percent
Italy, down to 51 percent

Read Sam Harris: __Letter to a Christian Nation__ and __End of Faith__ for the truth about Religion

>>Finkelstein and Silberman in "The Bible Unearthed" make the devastating point that the "Old Testament" or Tanach is about as true as the Iliad.

This is NOT true. Troja has been unearthed, and are there numerous indications for conflicts between the Greek and Asia minor in the 12th centuries including diplomatic correspondence by the Hethites.
In contrast there is not a single trace of Salomon's and David's grand empire. Which was almost cetrainly invented by king Josia in the 7th century for political ends.

If I choose to believe in something, why not believe that there is a God who is glorious, who is madly in love with us, who desperately seeks us, who is just, who gave his most precious possession away so that people like us can be called his children, who forgives us as a father would, who makes us heir to promises more wonderful than we can imagine?

Yeah, I want that.

Mr. Thomas' contribution does not tell us what the atheist thinks at all, it tells us Mr. Thomas' profoundly ignorant and narrow-minded view of atheism. He creates an intellectually dishonest straw man: I have neither met nor read of an atheist who wagers anything: they make an intelligent, reasoned, and highly moral choice based on evidence or lack thereof. It is Christians, for example, in the guise of Pascal's morally-repugnant wager, who are merely gambling. Closing your eyes and wishing or hoping really hard is not honest rational endeavor. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, mere assertion bears the same relationship to honest intellectual endeavor, as does thievery to an honest day's work. The greatest minds in history have tried to prove God's existence and not one of these so-called proofs stands up to close, honest scrutiny. In the end they look like bald assertions using God as a name to fill in anywhere we come upon something we do not know (yet), resulting in a God who is no more than a "God of the gaps." Not merely belief, but justified belief is what counts as honest, epistemologically valid knowledge. It is this justification, and willingness to follow reason wherever it may lead without bowing to intellectually-dishonest, faith-based, superstitious, religious belief that makes atheism highly moral, and religion morally dishonest.

Funny the first time, Robert, but not the second.

"I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."

Perhaps even if there is no God we feel a kinship with one another and because of this, feel responsible for each other. Thus... Morals.

Cal, nobody KNOWS anything about God. It is silly to talk about what nobody knows anything about. There is the unknown. Some people like to give it qualities and elaborate about it(Trinity, Virgin Birth, Transubstantiation, etc.)For some others the unknown is just that: the unknown. The unknown was much larger earlier in history than it is now. Science is chipping away at it. I know plenty of atheists who are exemplary citizens. I also know plenty of religious people who behave very badly. It is not what you believe but how you behave that matters.

to Robert Bailey

Your baiting and abusive behaviour should be noted by the editors and acted upon. And you should realize that you reflect poorly upon other believers.

Casper: My name has nothing to do you. You may proceed.

DZ-

Re: "I live in the Hawthorne district of Portland."

I knew as much from your IP address. What is your social security number?

Regarding your comment about atheistic prolifers having an inadaquate basis for their position and its implication that ethics and morality must have a basis in God: I believe that if the only reason you are doing good is fear of punishment in the afterlife, then you are not a good person. Whether we are products of evolution or God's will, we should not harm each other because it is wrong to do so on this world, not because we fear being caught and punished in the next. Are you saying that if you could somehow commit murder without God catching you, you would? In this, I believe the atheist is a better person, because they believe that one should not want to harm others, not that one should want to but be afraid to.

Sir,

If you and your "values" are represnative of a beliver , then I want no part of it!
If there is a god, I am not too impressed with his / her "reps" on earth, they will have to do much better to convince me.

To the WaPo editors:

I'm an avowed fan of your opinion page, but that's because your writers generally try to come up with a new angle on the nagging problems(political, philosophical, what have you)of the day. I reckon that's why you hire them. But in the case of this column, I just don't get it: why pay Cal Thomas to make a less-than-watertight summation of Pascal's Wager when you could instead just reprint Pascal's thoughts on the subject? Thomas hasn't added anything of substance to the matter, save perhaps some inflammatory rhetoric and overly-generalizing language.

-Adam

Robert Bailey-

You may very well be a fine person, Robert, but I will not give you my exact address. LOL

I live in the Hawthorne district of Portland.

Mr. Thomas's use of the quaintly old-fashioned phrase "in vogue" is an indicator of how current his knowledge of attitudes toward atheism is. The 2006 University of Minnesota survey found atheists were the least-trusted minority in America, ranking below gays and Muslims.

What is "in vogue" is not atheism, but intolerance toward atheism. Many states still officially bar atheists from holding public office and testifying in court. Many people (including former president George H.W. Bush) do not consider atheists American citizens, or capable of harboring American values.

Mr. Thomas's perception that atheism is fashionable, or even tolerated, speaks more to his rarified circle of friends than to the reality of being an atheist in America today.

It’s "in vogue" to disbelieve in a Creator of the universe? Oh my, is that so? Ha ha ha! Nice try! Victimizing the Abrahamic faiths will not hold up to the facts of everyday life, Mr. Cal. Even in the allegedly 'liberal' world of California I am reminded practically every day that the 'tooth fairy' created the universe. But hey, you are getting paid to be a provocateur, so, as Mr. War says, 'bring it on!' FYI - Atheists are not the only ones who find creationism to be a mistaken point of view.

[It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance.]

This is a REAL gem...

Intellectually lazy? The irony is almost too much to bear. Observation, analysis, and comprehension of the fundamental nature of the universe around us is intellectually lazy compared to sitting on your fat posterior and resting on the unsupported belief that a deity simply willed it into being?

After a century of discovery unhindered by the shackles of religion, the lifespan of the universe is now known and understood to within 1x10^-34 seconds of its beginning, its future growth and development is revealed to us with every new piece of the puzzle we discover through extremely dedicated intellectual work which is anything BUT lazy. The Earth is no longer believed to be the center of the universe, as your barbaric predecessors once held true on pain of death to those who challenged it, and is understood to be but one of an untold number of objects which may very well be more common than the wasted neurons hidden within your skull.

We do not know all the rules, we're still learning them, but we are comfortable in the knowledge that someday, those rules can be learned, and that at some point in the future, we'll know how the universe began, and understand the process which sparked its initiation, and maybe someday we'll learn its not the only one out there. Understanding the universe has been a long process of defeating the concept of singularity. There is more than one world, there is more than one star, there is more than one galaxy. The failure of religious belief is to fail to understand that there is no need for intelligence to be all powerful and dominating over the universe around us.

The greatest power is not control of the universe, but comprehension. You don't understand, therefore you fail at humanity.

DZ-

You are currently near Mt. Hood? At exactly what address?

Is God bound by the rules of logic? I think if you believe that Jesus is both 100% human and 100% divine, you'd also see that he can make a rock so big that he can't lift it.

To Robert Bailey:

Why do you hate:
Agdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Amaterasu, An, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, and Atlas?

And after you explain why you hate them, please explain why you hate gods/godesses B-Z.

Calling athiests god haters and talking about the risks they take is more of Christian extremist arrogance. If an athiest does not believe in God, IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. If an athiest does not believe in God then there is no risk in his or her perspective. Unfortunately what has become "in vogue" is religious exremists, Islamic, Christian or otherwise trying to jam their beliefs down everyone elses throats and propogating the standard Karl Rove pap for the masses that religious freedom is not freedom from religion.
Cal, LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE AND MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

Barbara: "Have you ever heard of atheists causing a war?"

Yes, actually, communism with a capital C. ;-)

That said, I’m surprised that Christians are surprised atheists and skeptics have responded as strongly to Thomas’s fantastic account of atheism. Thomas’s last paragraph aside it’s quite insulting, and defending Thomas’s article is just a religious knee-jerk reaction.

Robert Bailey: I don't know how to tell you this, but people do not hate things that they do not believe exist. Atheists do not 'hate' God - we just do not believe in supernatural beings, especially supreme ones.

Just for the record, I'm on vacation in my joyous house. My wife of 35 years, my 4 Siberian Huskies and I will be heading to Mt Hood soon for a few hours of fun in the snow. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Cal Thomas is using metaphysics to prop up his particular religion. He appeals to the universe to demonstrate the existence of a higher force. Yet he harangues and chastises on the basis of his religion, of questionable veracity given the human tendency to subjectify all history. The comfort of an imponderably vast universe trumps the varieties of constricting, small-minded creeds that men on this small planet have concocted (in a pre-Copernican world view moreover) to serve their insecurities and provide explanations for things that they are too lazy to pursue with their intelligence.

I cannot understand why you "believers" think you are right, that there is a God and that we atheists are wrong. I do not know who is right but I will not force my beliefs on you. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere in the world that proves there is any kind of God, just as I do not have evidence there is no God, but until I see some evidence I am not going to make a God up in my mind. Religious dogmatic beliefs are the cause of almost every war in history. Have you ever heard of atheists causing a war?

Sorry, I didn't read the entire article because I couldn't get past this:
"... if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."

Cal! We all DO treat each other as we please!!!
The difference is, if Christians treat other people like crap, Christians say, "Oh, I'm not perfect." Yet what did Jesus command?
BE PERFECT! (Matt. 5:48)

It's very obvious that Christians have no special claim to being unselfish... their Santa Claus not withstanding.
If only they would be a light unto the planet, instead of a bunch of fearful, warmongering, unmerciful holier-than-the-rest-of-us hypocrites.

Only Christians would believe that if they weren't rewarded with "heaven" and/or punished with "hell" then it's okay to treat others like crap. Why? Because they treat others like crap anyway.

How about if we all just treat each other unselfishly, God or no God?

Or, is that idea too far "out there" for Christians to understand?

To: All the God-haters,

It's time to change out of your pajamas, leave your lonely house and get a job and a life and give the blogging a rest.

Check into getting some friends as well.

Well, this article should make it clear why atheists come back at you believers like we sometimes do.

Atheism is not 'in vogue'. It's simply that there are a lot of us (15 million or so), and we are tired of subsidizing your religion, tired of being discriminated against, tired of listening to anti-intellectual idiots telling us what we should believe, etc. We are here, there are millions of us (more every day), and we are not going away or becoming religious.

Now, that said, most atheists don't care what you believe. We have no desire for the government to teach that there is no God. We don't want to convert you. That's your business. What we want is for you to leave us alone. Keep your religion out of my life and away from my family. And, keep your theocratic fingers out of my pockets. I will do the same. That's called religious freedom.

A huge percentage of you believers, however, can't handle that. You don't really believe in religious freedom. You seem to believe in limited religious tolerance. Many of you seem obsessed with imposing your religion on the rest of us.

Other atheists should chime in here, but we mostly just want the religious freedom that we have been promised our entire lives but have never experienced.

Cal Thomas is fighting a border war. It tells me that he feels threatened. If he and all the other glazed over evangelicals were comfortable w/ their religion, then they wouldn't still be arguing w/ this Straw Dog, the Atheist, as if we were back in the 50's w/ Madeleine Murray. Is it that they are slowly and surely losing the culture war to the Media Idols? Why isn't he talking about the Islamic threat?

Perhaps, he needs a wedge issue topic to attract Internet participants, or he loses his job. His faulty logic is sure to raise ire, although as far as he's concerned the topic could just as well be abortion, gay marriage, he doesn't care, just as Bush and Rove didn't really care about those 'Christian nuts', quoting Karl Rove. Maybe Cal Thomas is in denial about the fact Bush/Rove used the evangelicals to get elected.

I tend to think humans are a species of endoskeletal insects who have EVOLVED a defense mechanism in the brain called self consciousnes. One of the stabilizing features of this part of the brain is the social development of religion. Religion is used to explain away cosmological phenomena beyond our science. Science often functions the same way, which is why the so-caled paradigm shifts occur. Religion is a learned behavior like language, which is why there are different religions. Which religion u r raised in determines your outlook, like language. If Cal Thomas had been raised in Tibet he would be taking us on a piligrimige around Sacred Mountain w/ Richard Gere. Thus, as the first poster here rightly points out, your religion is a matter of indoctrination. Your world view of God is arbitrary, and thus hardly absolute. As to all the seemingly vast permutations of the world as an explanation for the existence of God, one can easily argue the opposite.

I agree with Charles about Anonymous. I would modify his/her suggestion in the way suggested below:

For Anonymous - you called Cal *sad and pathetic*.
Of all the posters I felt most sad for you. I sense you feel a void that you are desparately trying to fill. You obviously have searched hard in your readings for an answer to that void.
I hope you find a Caspar Worshipper you admire and sit down with him/her and open your heart. You may find that Caspar has alot to offer, and that his textural resemblance to marshmallows is oddly conforting.
I pray for your understanding and peace of mind.

I believe Gordon Clark's argument is:

Every statement depends on the law of contradiction. The law of contradiction is that there is a difference between truth and falsehood, they are incompatable.

We are making statements.

God exists.

If non-belief in a deity is considered "vogue" then I've been way ahead of the curve since I was introduced to biology in junior high school. This was quite some time ago.

What came before the singularity point that expanded into where we reside today, to me, is more wonderous and mysterious than any belief in a jealous and hateful deity that promises eternity in hell if one doesn't believe in IT.

Of course it is possible to live a good and virtuous life without adhering to religious doctrine. Personally, I'll take Socrates, Nietzsche, Spinoza or Confucious anyday, thank you very much. Nature, to my way of thinking, reflects ultimate reality.

There most definitely will be an "End of Times" to most of life on this planet. It won't be in the form of Armageddon as promised in the Book of Revelations or hucksters cashing in on peoples fear and ignorance. It will be in the form of a massive extinction event caused by an unexpected visitor from somewhere within our solar system. Not Jesus mind you, but just a very large and ordinary asteroid. And guess what? Life will recover, as it has many times before. Hopefully it will not include Homo Sapiens.

How is that for a Killing Joke?

....."t's funny (well, sad) to watch the same type of God-haters to pounce on whoever or whatever subject is brought up."
========================================

Tell me sir, why do you hate Odin?

You don't? Oh.

Now do you understand?

Having read all the posts to date I am impresed that the vast majority of posters are against Cal and religion. Says something about the WaPo readership - or rather - confirms it.
For Anonymous - you called Cal *sad and pathetic*.
Of all the posters I felt most sad for you. I sense you feel a void that you are desparately trying to fill. You obviously have searched hard in your readings for an answer to that void.
I hope you find a religious person you admire and sit down with him/her and open your heart.
I pray for your understanding and peace of mind.

“I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please.”

What a bunch of hooey. I’m pro-choice and a Christian. I’ve heard arguments against abortion from Christians and atheists, and I have to say the atheist’s argument against abortion is simpler, and more compelling than an argument based on a religious preference. Atheists don’t need to think about the presence of a soul in a zygote/fetus. They don’t need to guess how many souls inside a newly fertilized egg coded for twinning has and when these souls appear, or why God’s respect for life includes allowing lactating mothers to ovulate but put off another pregnancy with the lining of the uterus unable to sustain another pregnancy so soon after birth, resulting in a spontaneous abortion.

The atheist’s argument relies on DNA—not our varied and limited understanding of God.

To "Ghostbuster"

I am concerned that your choice of a name reflects a certain intolerance for my views. If so, I think it would better to resolve our disagreement through discussion rather than through this continued namecalling.

Re: I believe that a 6x6x6 foot inflatable Caspar the Friendly Ghost is floating in the sky above me and governing my every move. How dare you criticize my beliefs.

First, the believers in God are more "in vogue" or at least have more power than the non-believers. A few atheists/agnostics stick their heads up and the intolerant race to claim that their beliefs are being attacked. If your beliefs are sincere, they need not fear the disbelief of others. Second, they "have no base" for being pro-life? Cal Thomas decrees! "Have no basis" would have sounded better, but I quibble. A secularist can believe that life starts at conception as much as someone who believes in God. Who are you to declare what must and must not be believed? Isn't that lacking in humility? Further, the only reason you don't stab your neighbor when he irritates you is because some God down the road will punish you? How horrifying are you? It seems to me, then, that the secularists are far more moral than believers like you. For you, everything centers around yourself. Will this hurt me? Then, I won't do it. Not, will this hurt others? The reason I don't worry about that wager is that, if Christ is real and what he said is true, then I'm pretty sure that he is going to like the way I lived my life better than the way you live yours.

Such pervasive atheist-bashing puts to rest the myth of the humble theist and the arrogant atheist.

Which god is going to send these nefarious atheists to "Hell?" Allah, Yaweh, Jesus? Not too long ago, Catholics and Protestants in the southern US believed for sure that the other bunch was headed straight for Perdition. And they were both Christian sects!! Cal Thomas is an infidel to Muslims, and I'm sure most of them believe he is going to the bad place. Cal Thomas is not honest enough to admit he is preaching Christian fundamentalist tripe, ala Jerry Falwell and Prayer Boy Bush.

I notice that none of the atheist writers has seen fit to contradict Jason Bradford quoting Gordon Clark. This is not so surprising as it seems very difficult to make any sense out of his arguments. As a mathematician, I would, however, like to point out that many seemingly infinte statements are quite easy to prove with a short proof. For example, "There are an infinte number of prime numbers," or "There is no fraction whose square is two." Perjaps there is more to this logic stuff than the religious are willing to believe.

David: Good post. I find an agnostic perspective interesting because it is pretty rare these days. Most of us are more close minded than we like to admit. I agree with you, Atheist and Christian believers justify their own positions by facts, faith and personal experience. The average Atheist relies more on facts, the average Christian more on faith. Both sides know they are right and the more fundamental they are in their position, the less likely they are to budge.

From my vantage point, as a Christian, I have found that the only way to transcend this ever widening gap is through grace. Grace is perhaps the most basic Christian principle, but it is also difficult to comprehend and practice because it runs against our human nature. Too often, the gospel of ungrace is communicated from Christians, and that is a shame.

Dear Mr. Thomas,
I grew up as a middle-class, American, white (Anglo), Protestant male, so I always wondered what it would be like to be part of a persecuted minority. In 1999 I escaped my faith, and now I know.
All of your statements are preposterous. Atheism is 'in vogue' the way being an illegal immigrant is 'in vogue.' Meanwhile, you receive national exposure on the basis of your faith, and little else. There is no god of goddess to be the author of life, and yet I have an encompasing morality, based on the understanding that my rights depend on the rights of others and the idea that you shouldn't destroy things in case you might need them later. I also understand that a degree of immortality can be obtained in this world through the impact you have on the thoughts and memories of others and the physical records you leave behind.
You make a common mistake; athiesm isn't about believing in the absence of deities, it's about the absence of belief in deities. But it does not serve your interests to grasp the distinction...also, fingerprints and snowflakes are not necessarily unique, it's just that the number of possible configurations far exceeds the sample we've taken the time to collect data on. It is indicative of a certain intellectual laziness on your part that you thought otherwise.
You can believe in the afterlife that comforts you, but I recognize the absolute importance of what we do in this world. As you bend your efforts to perpetuating the immortality of the prophets, a selfless act which nevertheless serves the selfishness of others, I will concern myself with the preservation of humanity and all of the things we may someday benefit from, or need to survive.
Faith grants a horrifying clarity of purpose, to which I greatly prefer my freedom. When your Master asks you to carve up your firstborn, I would stop you if I could, because someday that child might be my friend.

No, what is intellectually lazy is to accept without question whatever religious dogma is provided by your parents and assert that it represents 'the one true way' -- to never question the obvious inconsistencies and obvious fictions of your 'divine book' of choice -- and to throw scorn at those who don't reach the same conclusion.

=======================
AMEN!

wow, cal gives us Dostoevski's "The Brothers Karamazov" as if it were some kind of news. "With no God, everything is permitted"? "Information will not sway them, they must believe"? He's lucky the novel's old enough to be in public domain, but that should tell you all you need to know about the freshness of the ideas.

Ever notice the astoundingly high percentage of those that are hostile to faith and religion on this blog--no matter the subject matter or writer? In fact, most people of faith have long since left paying attention to far left publications like this. You ceratainly aren't going to get a representative sample of what people are thinking via the Washington Post!! It's funny (well, sad) to watch the same type of God-haters to pounce on whoever or whatever subject is brought up.

Jaw:

"Historically, it has always been the people of religion who have been persecuted for their 'belief' not people for their 'non-belief'. So, it has always been easier to be on the 'non-belief' side then the belief side."

Just out of curiosity, could you site some historical examples of persecution that you think illustrate your point?

Thanks.

Scientists have recently identified a "god" gene, which is thought to predispose those who carry it to belief or faith.

So it may be that what you are hearing in the silence of listening isn't god, but your DNA humming.

Wow, "Jaw" has squeezed more misinformation into a few lines than I thought possible. Quantum Mechanics violates his precious "common sense" but is the basis of most of the electronic inventions of the last half century. His statement "the fact that all this occurred accidentally violates some of the very laws of physics that we as man have designed" is almost classic. If he read Brian Greene's work, he would know that the theory that Mr. Greene likes says that our whole universe is nothing but a quantum fluctuation caught in the period of inflation. There is nothing more purposeless than that.

So do I! Lets form a group! By the way, I've noticed that there are a few people out there who believe that there is an inflatable Batman floating in the sky above them governing their every move. I have sadness for the misguided path they have chosen.

In reply to: "I believe that a 6x6x6 foot inflatable Caspar the Friendly Ghost is floating in the sky above me and governing my every move. How dare you criticize my beliefs!"

". It's not only intellectually lazy to be atheistic but also cowardess. Historically, it has always been the people of religion who have been persecuted for their 'belief' not people for their 'non-belief'. So, it has always been easier to be on the 'non-belief' side then the belief side"

BS!!! how many athiests are there in congress? how about in ancient Rome? how about in Parliament? Atheists, and agnostics, have been prosecuted in this country by the religious right by virtue of them trying to pass laws based in religion; by telling atheists and agnostics that they will suffer in hell, that they are uninformed, etc..

How exactly is it lazy to be an athiest? Because we have to continually explain ourselves to others? Because we have to learn other peoples religious beliefs to understand common references and sayings? (and not just christian beliefs)

Is it lazy becuse we've done some research and have concluded using our own minds that faith in something without proof isn't for us? Because we don't have the easy answers: 'because god said so', 'because the bible said so', etc..
If someone, anyone, could offer proof that doesn't end in 'because god said so', because the bible/koran/etc said so', I'd listen very closely; but I've never heard that.

Your assumption that it was the athiests who persecuted other's religious beliefs is typical. Look to history - christians, jews, muslims - all fighting each other, all trying to kill each other over thier beliefs. Most of history has been dedicated to 1 god versus many gods.

The thing that religious people don't get, is that we athiests don't really care if you believe in god or not - I personally feel its none of my business. Religious people, on the other hand, feel sorry for us athiests and for some bizarre reason can't accept that we have different, equal views.

Us athiests have just taken it one step further than established religions of today - we have one less god than you do.

Ranting about Cal Thomas is a waste of time. The best way to treat the tripe that he writes is not to read his column - no readers, no column. Easy!

I've been reading a lot of these lately and Cal's is so far, the worst, the most insulting, and the least thought out.

I'm not an atheist or a practicing theist, but that was both lame and absurd.

God is an imaginary friend for adults.

The Devil doesn't knock on the believer's door dressed in a red cape and horns; the "Father of Lies" shows up looking like what the believer wants God to look like. Calling oneself a "believer" proves nothing about whether one believes in God, but it does prove a lot about what the "believer" believes about his own righteousness.

Cal's wager has the wrong point spread. Someone who has devoted his spirit to a false god as if it were God is in far worse spiritual shape than a good person who can't believe in God because of the evil and falsehood spread in God's name. The first is driven to error by Pride, the second is driven to error by good intentions.

Most atheism is a consequence of "believers" whose belief doesn't extend beyond their own ignorance and self-interest, whose god is in reality the idol of their own sect or social group rather than the Creator of the Universe.

The reality is that neither the atheist nor the sectarian idolater "believes in God," but good atheists have but a small change to make in their lives. Worshippers of a sectarian (i.e. henotheistic, and thus polytheistic) god have not only a conversion to make, but also contrition for having fallen for the partisan dupe of the Devil.

"It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy"

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

It's lazy to take what others say as truth without proof or self investigation; its not lazy to make up your own mind through research and understanding.

"it's in vogue not to believe" - where has this ass been for the last 6 years? We have a moronic president who TRULY BELIEVES that his personal invisible friend (god), wanted him to be president. Assumably so bush could wage another 'crusade' (bush's words) against our enemies...; We have the religious right putting gay marriage FAR ABOVE helping the poor (which, last time I checked, is one of the paramounts of being a christian);

This whole discussion is ridiculous - faith, in all forms, (single god, multi god, etc), is not subject to proof - there is none, nor will ever be.

In what other form other than god, would adults not be looked at as crazy for talking about an invisible friend who does this and does that, and thinks this, and thinks that, is all knowing, etc etc? None. We'd keep them away from our children. I plan to.

I am very confident there is no heaven, no hell; the risk Cal talks about is his own - his god will not look kindly upon his words here. Assuming he/she is a just god. (Oh no! I suggested that god could be a woman! Oh No!!!!!)

Pray all you want - you're only talking to yourself. Let's keep it that way.

Cal is a superstitious, judgmental clown.

Faith... If the Bible were correct all of the time, we'd still be forbidden to lace leather shoes which cotton string

The Sun would revolve around the Earth.

Surgery would still be Heresy.

Women would not be permitted to be educated.

Religion explains what we are too ignorant to comprehend. Unfortunately, this very dogma stymies education.

This article is nothing but ignorant ramblings.

Perhaps this is why Faith in a god is in the decline: We actually learn things today. When it rains, we don't need to think there is a God of Rain. We *know* why it rains.

AH! But there is One True God now, because we can't comprehend the Universe!!! No need to learn!!! We have god!!!

Give me a break.

Tell all the Iraqis how create Dogma in religion is.

BAH!

....."Yes Ick, it does tell us who cares for their fellow man and who does not."
=========================================

Maybe. If you measure everything in dollars. But it says nothing about whether or not gods or godesses exists.

==========================================
....."And the difference between what Christians give versus the atheists is measured in the billions of dollars, not a single $. ;-)"
==========================================

What is your data group? The United States, where Christians outnumber atheists by a wide margin?
Here in atheist Thailand, atheist give far more than Christians. It proves nothing of consequence.

Other posts have said it, but it should be said again.

No one who paraphrases Pascal's Wager (without appropriate citation, I might add) to prove the existence of God should then discuss intellectual laziness. The wager suffers from a profound false dichotomy; e.g., what happens if the duality of entry into heaven is a matter of (a) whether you use your human faculty of reason to investigate the existence of god while at the same time adhering to many of the basis tenets of enlightenment morality and ethics (you get into heaven) versus (b) believing in God and accepting Christ but using that belief to foster division, intolerance, ignorance and hatred (then straight to Lucifer's welcoming arms), etc., etc., etc.

Cal Thomas once again proves himself the perfect fool. Of his many false, really non-arguments, look at this one, above: Poor Cal can't understand how an atheist could be "pro-life" in the abortion debate,"----because if God is not the author of life, we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."

Or, as intelligent creatures striving to create the social order which best serves: first, our individual needs, and only secondarily the
needs of others, we may long ago have learned that a secular government, as was first defined in the United States Constitution, is the best system to serve our selfish personal needs,
because only by protecting the rights of all under a secular government of laws can our individual rights be guaranteed. For
after all, each of us is no more than one of the many.

And none of this has a goddam (oops) thing to do with religion,
faith, or any of the other specious crap which this goon has
been peddling all his stupid life.

I stopped reading the rebuttals to Cal's comments after the 7th or 8th. It was that same old humanistic rhetoric. The gap between 'book smart' and common sense has always been there. People with 'book smarts' label themselves as 'intellectuals' and people who are not book smart usually use the term 'common sense' to describe the way they reason and the basis for the conclusions they come to. Common sense says 'how did all this happen as a result of some cosmic accident'? A question that makes good 'common' sense'. Intellectually, the questions are, well, more verbose and with bigger words but all the same. In actually when looked at intellectually the fact that all this occurred accidentally violates some of the very laws of physics that we as man have designed. It's not only intellectually lazy to be atheistic but also cowardess. Historically, it has always been the people of religion who have been persecuted for their 'belief' not people for their 'non-belief'. So, it has always been easier to be on the 'non-belief' side then the belief side.

If the only reason that Christians chose right over wrong is the penalty of hell, what does that say about Christians? The "atheists lack a sound basis for morals" is the oldest argument in the book, and probably the most incorrect. You don't have to be superstitious to respect your fellow man.

This article is insulting to both Atheists AND Christians.

What sanctimoniousness, what smugness!

And what artful misdirection. So long as you cleverly frame your position as theist versus atheist, there can never resolution. Hateful argument only for the sake of promoting more hateful argument.

First and foremost, it isn't a case of either/or. There is a simpler third case -- agnosticism. Whether god or God exists or not is completely beside the poit, irrelevant.

Though you won't be receptive, here's a sample of your errors:

"...if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."

Not so. There is, for those who wish to find it, a rational, naturalistic version of the golden rule, with sufficient reason in the here and now to live a moral life.

"In conversing with an atheist, it is important to understand that such a person will never be brought to faith by information alone, because the same information is available to everyone."

Twice not so. First, the same information that is available to everyone is quite sufficient for a naturalistic, humanistic religion; supernatural hocus-pocus is quite unnecessary. Second, contrary to what you profess, the real faith in life is the faith that humans can be mindful even though life is full of uncertainty.

"It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance."

Not so. What is truly intellectually lazy, if not downright arrogant, is to claim that you are privileged to understand everything by way of the overly simplistic answer that god is the ultimate first cause. More intellectually honest and humble would be the recognition that humans ultimately may not be capable of understanding everything about existence.

"An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right. If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences."

Still wrong. I should wager that god would smile on a nontheist who humbly did his or her best with his or her abilities, god-given or not, to do justly and love mercy. If the story in the Bible about the Pharisee is correct, then god won't be pleased with smugness and sanctimony. And, if it turns out there is no eternal future, then my way would have been a good life well spent.

Becoming an atheist is like learning how to ride a bike, with belief in God as the training wheels. The training wheel industry wants you to believe that if you take them off your world will collapse, but when you do the world is the same as it ever was, the sun still rises and sets, and you experience the same joys and sorrows along your ride.

This is one of the most arrogant, misinformed pieces I've ever read in a major publication.

Anti-Emm:

Firstly, I’ll admit to a degree of hypocrisy. My words were sharper than they needed to be. Sadly I seem always to fall short of my intention to behave as I believe Jesus has called me to do. For this I apologize to Cal, to you and to the others who have read my comments.

Secondly, I willingly confess to being both a Christian and a liberal. Your putting the word Christian in parentheses appears to imply that you think my Christianity is in doubt. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Still I’m quite comfortable that my profession of faith is both sincere and secure.

As regards your other comments:

***Unfortunately no human being is ever in possession of “absolute knowledge of right and wrong”. We wish we could be, but absolute knowledge is reserved to God alone.

***I never attempted to “disprove a negative” or made any assertion that there is no God. As a Christian I believe in God. But I would never suggest that I can prove that a Designer or God exists. No such proofs are available and they would be useless in convincing others regardless. I do have what I believe are intellectually honest and valid reasons to believe in God, but none of them could be considered a proof.

***I also do not subscribe to some “liberal - equality of belief”. I make no claim in support of some “absolute relativism”. All ideas are not created equal. However, I would suggest that separating the wheat from the chaff is a far murkier business than most of us, believers and nonbelievers would like admit.

***I surely would make no claim to having a “better” God. However, as a Christian, I will readily admit that I am personally called to a far higher standard than my sharp words to Cal displayed.

***Finally, discussions about our chosen religion, faith and/or worldview seem somehow to bring out the best and worst in us all. Obviously there is a great deal at stake for all concerned. If any person could be absolutely certain of their knowledge and understanding on matters of God and religion, there would be no need for faith. Uncertainty and doubt are intrinsic elements of faith. I believe that when we are unwilling to admit that our faith, religion and/or worldview contains doubt and risk, we inevitably move toward intolerance. Tolerance and respect for people with other viewpoints and understandings about these most important of issues leads to dialogue, and dialogue is critical to living in peace and harmony. It is my hope and intention to continue in this dialogue with greater care and attention to my choice of words and the impact they may have on others.

Yes Ick, it does tell us who cares for their fellow man and who does not. And the difference between what Christians give versus the Atheists is measured in the billions of dollars, not a single $. ;-)

Faith is not a logical discussion. You can't logically talk about concepts outside of your existence without running into contradiction and illogic.

Atheists always use logic to as a way of saying religion is wrong.

Personally I've realized that I can't understand in a logical way these concepts. So I don't try.

A person's faith is personal to them and cannot be explained or proved. It's a "Self evident truth"

i am not a believer myself, but i will listen to any well-stated, respectful, intelligent argument for the existence of a god or the correctness of any one philosophy or point of view. unfortunately, here and elsewhere, those who would argue for s supernatural explanation for existence don't often make it past "well-stated," and if they do, "respectful" gets them every time. Earth to believers: we don't know for sure, and we never will. Absent that knowledge, no one has any right whatsoever to attempt to order and manipulate the thoughts, actions - indeed, the lives of others - based on a mythology with which they may not be on board.

The persistent belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, just and loving god defies all observable evidence to the contrary, i.e., megasuffering inflicted upon the innocent as often as upon the wicked.

Mr. Thomas' theology is a childish form of magical Santa Claus for grownups. Sure it may make him feel "special," but would we celebrate any other irrational belief just because a majority mindlessly accepted it as gospel?

There are some misguided people posting who are using the statements and sayings of people who purport to be Christians or other believers to support non-belief. For example, the joy of seeing other people in hell comment. As a Christian (Catholic) nothing pains me more--actually pain in my soul and physical pain than to think that someone would end up in hell. Further, I am moved deeply and experience pain from seeing misfortune in the physical world. In my faith, we are taught to do the works of mercy and these are what lead to salvation. Without listing all of the seven corporal (of the physical world) and seven spiritual works of mercy, I can say that they are good deeds for others. If in the end, there were no God (something I find hard to believe--but if it were true), then performing these works for God, because of the love of God is still good and has made a positive impact on humanity. As Jesus said, you will know His people by their works and those who take delight in seeing others in hell or misery are not His people, for He does not take delight in such things.

It is not "in vogue" to be an atheist. Exactly the opposite is true. That's why the "born again" vote has become the most powerful lobby in this country in the last decade, and we have evangelical, PowerPoint megachurches sprouting on every streetcorner.

Anyone who wonders why there is so much acrimony between Christians and non-Christians in the US need look no further than Mr. Thomas' above essay.

Instead of arguing the merits of each side, we attack each other and say things like "intellectually lazy."

I guess acrimony is much more marketable than the Socratic method.

If you mean that it is intellectual laziness just to reject rather than to understand the existence of God you might be right. However, the understanding of GOD is very different and not consistent in each of the three monotheistic religions. I am not sure which God is going to save my back: Yahweh, Jesus or Allah? On the other hand atheism is very consistent for rejecting all of these three Gods in the sake of finding true scientifical answers to the world.

I have to say, it would be much easier to be an atheist if every believer was as much of an ass as Cal Thomas. I think you're scoring points for the other team here, Cal.

Cal, you and I are more alike than you care to admit. We are both atheists about nearly all the gods to rule over human kind. I just go one god further.

....."He (God) is hands off for now...but only for a short while longer- since mans 6000 years is nearly complete."
========================================

That's interesting. But since Homo Sapiens has been around for more than 100,000 years, I guess your hypothesis has been disproven.

For those who keep asking why the Post would post such drivel, there are advertisements at the top and dare I suggest that this drivel has paid their electric bills for today. In addition, the debate is rather fun.

David mentions the "Christmas Holy Day". To be expected of those sworn to Catholicism. There is nothing holy about Christmas. Never has been, never will be. Satan has deceived the whole world..of which we are told in Revelation. How true that is today. Men, since Eden, have chosen their own wisdom over God. He (God) is hands off for now...but only for a short while longer- since mans 6000 years is nearly complete. Those who disbelieve need to consider that the God they think is so wretched (killing firstborn, etc) is merely letting man live out this current age of existence in the way we have chosen to, which is obviously apart from Him. "Where is God?" some ask in times of great human suffering? He's there and He hates what we have brought ourselves to. How puny we are to question Him when we would rather lean to our own 'wisdom' at all times.
Bravo, Cal Thomas. Just remember God chooses the weak and base to confound the mighty. That reality will be evident sooner than later.

An athiest has an inadequate basis for being pro-life? In other words, morality can only come from God? Cal, as usual, you've got it backward. Moral tenets arise from the accumulated wisdom of millenia of man as social animal. For instance, we figured out a long time ago that murder is bad and should be banned because of the resulting havoc it causes in the community. Thus, murder is immoral in all societies, regardless of religious belief. So it goes with all universal moral principles. Ascribing this to the commands of a God, e.g. The 10 Commandants, is nothing more than the usual manipulations of power-hungry priests.

Also, I'm not an athiest, but my money is on no one being able to say "I told you so." And what a pity.

The trouble with columns like this is having a believer of one faith/religion/philosophy attempt to speak of the tenets of another faith/religion/philosophy. Let atheists define atheism. Atheism is not monolithic. As it is the denial of something, rather than the affirming of something, what it is we do believe in runs across a broad spectrum. For myself, I believe in the what may be called the scientific view of our origins. Science, based on what can be observed, does not postulate on what caused the Big Bang, or what, if anything, happened before. We are careful to not that even words like causation and "before" are loaded with preconceptions.

....."One of the truest tests between Christianity and Atheism is to consider the charitable works done in the name of each."
==========================================
So if Christians give $1 more to charity than atheists, Jesus is the Son of God?

Who'da thunk it.

And how if Muslims give 1$ more than Christians? Is there no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet?

Man, I never knew it was so simple. Somebody inform the authorities.

Cal, I think you have it just backwards. If people had information, they would NOT believe in a supernatural being. It seems to me that the US has become increasingly religious, not decreasingly, so it is strange to read that you think believing is not in vogue. My point about information is that there is no evidence whatsoever for supernatural intervention in anything, it is purely a matter of faith. I also find it curious that you seem to think that belief in a supernatural power is required for what you consider moral behavior. If a person can't simply be a "good" person, I worry about the weakness of character that suggests.

Wow. I'm shocked this one-sided broadside against a group of Americans would be page one linked on the Washington Post website.

The content of the brief opinion is antagonistic and dismissive. It is another microcosm of what the faith based world has brought us. I would write at greater length but I see many have done so ahead of me.

I was raised in the church and one of the reasons I moved away from it was because the true believers, like old Cal, looked and acted as though they drank blood. Creepy.

Why should Cal or anyone else for that matter care what I believe at all as long as my beliefs don't impinge on their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness?

Assuming the existence of heaven and hell and assuming that God decides who goes where, it still strikes me as unreasonable to assume that God is less merciful than I am.

I had a teacher at a little community college who queried as to how it is just as possible, should there be a God, that the "True God", is the "Great Mumbumba", worshiped by a small group 10,000 years ago who subsequently died out and left no trace of themselves or the religion. Stranger evolutionary accidents have happened.
I'm not one to tell anyone that they can't believe in the god of their choice any more than I would tell them they can't be a republican, though I might argue against both. Both of those beliefs have mostly to do with who their parents are more than anything else. I will take the moral high ground when said beliefs affects the health and safety of my loved ones. That is why, when the believers of the "one true religion" (whichever that may be) mock the scientific method (anti-evolution, anti-stem cell research), put my daughters' life in danger (anti-abortion), and my put my children in a war that has all the appearance of another crusade, I say "NO!" I will not let them steamroll me into buying into their self-serving belief system.
Though not a specific religion, Christianity is the majority belief in the US, but there is no majority belief in the world. That means, no matter what "truth" is out there, most people are wrong about their religion being the one, true religion. So, why would any all-powerful god allow that?
I am agnostic, not because I think that any one of the thousands of beliefs might be right, but because, as a human, I might be wrong. There is, most likely, no god out their that we can comprehend, and, no god out there that is like we imagine.

One of the truest tests between Christianity and Atheism is to consider the charitable works done in the name of each.

I believe that a 6x6x6 foot inflatable Caspar the Friendly Ghost is floating in the sky above me and governing my every move.

How dare you criticize my beliefs!

In the matter of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, if you are to claim something as complicated and intricate as the universe needs a designer, then wouldn't it stand to serve that the 'designer' entity would be sufficiently complex to require a designer of their own? The god of your god, so to speak.

If I'm supposed to take it on 'faith' that this designer has and will always exist, then logically, I could just as easily take it on 'faith' that what is has and always will exist.

....."Much of what is currently in vogue as separation of church and state is actually a matter of imposing the faith of atheism."
=====================================

No. It is enforcing neutrality.
Unless you have some examples that can convince me otherwise.

I can only wonder what Cal Thomas' relationships with others and his life in general would have been like had he not been directed by his understanding of an eternal life in heaven or hell. His understanding does raise certian doubts and suspicions as to his actual feelings and motivates towards self and others. It must create a gnawing doubt for both Cal Thomas and others as to whether or not he has direct or mediated relationships.

"You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer ..."

Well, no. I have a different option. The ordinary point of view is that an eternal God (or gods) created (and can destroy) a transient cosmos, of which man is a part. I think otherwise.

I take on faith that an eternal cosmos exists. There is room for an eternal God in this cosmos; a "God" that is one with the cosmos. A God that can shape the cosmos but never truly create or destroy it. If there is such a thing as holiness all things partake of it.

"I do not have the power to persuade anyone that God is, but I can demonstrate the difference He has made in my life and relationships – including with atheists ..."

Faith is worth defending. Defending faith is different from imposing faith. Much of what is currently in vogue as separation of church and state is actually a matter of imposing the faith of atheism. Fight on.

Reading all these comments make me think that "logic" really is the doctrine of fallicies.
Everyone has their particular view of the universe and we seem to never agree on anything. How did we become so divided as a species living on the same planet ? Knowledge is like the pollen of the flower, from it the bee makes it's honey and the spider makes it's poison.

yes i agree homophobic cal thomas is an ass.but why waste time on him ,just look around and you see that "religion is the problem and NOT the answer"!

Finkelstein and Silberman's books are only a few among many which demonstrate conclusively that believing in the bible, old and/or new testament, is like believing in the Iliad or the Bhagavad Gita. These primitive writings are impressive from a literary point of view but they contain nothing that warrants belief.

Atheist claim to take the high ground when it comes to intellectual reasoning and thoughtfulness. I don't doubt that most atheist are indeed thinking and moral and kind to their neighbors. What I wonder about is why they are afraid to allow open discussion of Darwinism versus Intelligent Design theory in schools. Is that in fact they are afraid that evolutionary theory will be shown to be wrong? Why is it that when it comes to discussing the possibilities in terms of how life came to be, that evelutionists are censoring debate on this subject. Have evolutionist become the new theocracy robed in sacred garments of intellectualism?

The faith of most people is based on almost total ignorance of the source of their faith, the Bible. Bart D. Ehrman in "Misquoting Jesus" makes the telling point that scholars have long known that what passes as the "New Testament" for most people is very different from the original which is unknown to anyone.

Finkelstein and Silberman in "The Bible Unearthed" make the devastating point that the "Old Testament" or Tanach is about as true as the Iliad. Abraham was using camels centuries before they were domesticated, etc.

I think you are all missing the point. There are "good Christians' but there are also "good atheists." To judge someone based on their faith (or lack thereof) alone is a fallacy that Jesus would never accept. I find it unfortunate that anyone professing Christian beliefs should find it in their hearts to be so negative and critical of those practicing other faiths (in which I include atheism).

As a very uncertain agnostic, I admit I feel somewhat out of place between the "believers" from both the Christian and Atheist sides. I say "Atheist believers," because they actively deny the existence of God, or a god, or "some god."

I was brought rather late in my childhood into the Episcopal Church and have never practiced, but my father is a retired (third career) Episcopal Priest. I have since married a Catholic and sworn to raise my children Catholic, but I have not embraced that faith either. I have seen personally good Catholics and bad, good Atheists and bad, good Jews and bad, good Muslims and bad, indeed good Buddhists and good Hindus and bad in my 45 years. It's not how you classify yourself, it's how you act in life that matters.

Instead of seeking out and highlighting our differences, why aren't we - now after the Christmas Holy Day, and before the New year - looking for ways to find common ground and join together to help those in need. Surely all those "good people" (whatever that means) on both sides of this discussion should focus their energies in a more positive and constructive way.

Happy New Year

"But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences"

One cannot "reject" what one is incapable of believing in. I did not become an atheist in "rejection" of any particular god or gods but rather was an atheist for as long as I have struggled to understand the believers I am surrounded by. I have read the Bible, the Koran, and every other major and minor religious text and while I find bits of truth in each, have never seen anything "supernatural" or "divine" that could make me a believer. I ultimately decided long ago that if indeed there is a god, true atheists fulfill a necessary part of the grand scheme of things in that one cannot understand one's own belief unless one can observe the absence thereof in others (i.e. you are never so thankful for food as when you are aware of the starving).The true atheist's wager is that if/if there is a god, he/she/it/they will understand this "disability" and may have indeed engineered it--the atheist drafted into the role of making the believer thankful. If there is no god, this argument goes a long way to help an atheist determine which of those who attack atheism are doing so out of compassion (those who really want to "save your soul") or are doing so for political, malicious or vindictive reasons.

Quate:

"It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance."

This is such foolishness. It would be laughable if it weren't so widely believed and, at the same time, being pushed into public schools.

Craig Ryder

This is not an article about religion, it's merely a mean diatribe to stroke the ego of a man with very secular needs. For all I know this man may have a large following of equally mean, petty people who like his vitriol, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be posted on this site.

Jethro Tull said it best:

"In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me, as you lick the boots of death born out of fear".

So tired of religious people telling atheists that if they don't believe in A or B (but not C!) that they are doomed to burn in some make-believe hell.

As a child we found out that Santa and the Tooth Fairy aren't real, even though many kids fervently believed. Why, as adults, people continue to believe in make believe god(s) always astounds me. I guess it is the fear of death and the need to control the behavior of other people.

Cal....I'm no particular fan of yours, but in this instance, well said.

Richard Mitchell once asked the question "How can we trust the intellectual integrity of a professor who has not mastered seventh grade English? Thomas writes above of his conversations with atheists "everyday" as one word. Of course, he should have written "every day" as two words. Why pay attention to a lowbrow on such highbrow issues?

For DL: And those with a brain will think.

"An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right. If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences."(Cal Thomas)

Hmmm...belief in your God as 'insurance.'
Oh, that's a Great reason to believe. If I were a deity, I'd be insulted.
Then too, you're wagering that you took out your 'insurance' with the right company. In addition to the various deity companies advertising on earth, there may even be some still unknown.

Anyone who has read Cal through the years will recognize this kind of simplistic, moronic nonsense.
Cal, you really do need to up your game a little...but what am I saying, you write solely for your simplistic Christian audience and they wouldn't know a sophisticated argument if it bit them in the behind.

Petunia wrote: **** "you don't need [a god] in order to see that beating someone, stealing their property, or deliberately hurting their feelings is cruel and unproductive." *****

Cal doesn't specifically mention which god he believes in but I expect it's the god of the Judeo-Christian bible. The biblical god gave some pretty explicit directions to do all that Petunia describes and more: 1Samuel 15:2,3 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, .....Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." This is no isolated incident (read Joshua). Check out the end of Psalm 137: "Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

So I think the bible also has a lot of beauty and wisdom in it, but the god it describes is not a guide to a morality we would recognize.

"An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right."
The foundation of Western religion is fear, not love. No statement could ever demonstrate the inherent evil in religion than the one you make about those who dare to doubt and the hell that awaits them. Hell is the greatest fund raising gimmick in the sad religious history of this planet. Either join our club and give us your money and your subservience or suffer damnation. If hell exists, there must be a special place there for those that peddle fear in the name of god. It could be dismissed as an inane horror story if it did no account for so much psychological suffering. The concepts of heaven and hell, empowers and provides jobs for people who are otherwise unemployable. Give us your obedience and you get a condo in paradise. Dare to believe in that which we do not sanction and hell awaits you.
The only story we need teach our children about morality and the human spirit is the Wizard of Oz. Read it sometime. It has much to say about what is inside us and the phony wizards who make a parasitic living off creating fear.

Fifty churches within two miles of my home. Fulminant Christian radio all over my AM dial. Creches battling menorahs in sundry city parks. Then two atheists write prominent books, and suddenly THAT'S the "vogue"? Well, they do say a fish in water doesn't know it's wet...

As an atheist and a scientist, it certainly is interesting to learn that humans have no reason for compassion or ethical action unless placed under cosmic duress--or that studying and marveling at the intricate interplay of random energies and forces that make up our ordered, beautiful universe constitutes intellectual laziness, whilst accepting some ossified Creation Myth is the mark of sophistication.

But thanks in any case, Mr. Thomas, for articulating one of the main reasons I am no longer a Christian. Added to your recap of the 'Divine Watchmaker' argument, your equally tired retread of Pascal's False Dichotomy is nothing but a crude threat, of the sort one expect from thugs in a blind alley.

Having inherited a bubble of dogma to explain and insulate youself from the unknown (to speak of 'intellectual laziness'), you smugly project your own fear of it in my direction, oblivious to the almost comically mixed message it sends. God is Love, yada yada...and, oh by the way, you're gonna burn if you don't buy our brand of righteous living.

This is nothing more than the common fear-the-future stratagem used to sell hazard insurance. That's one thing when money or possessions are involved...but is the Christian faith so desperate for new blood that it will reward such naked, calculating cynicism of the spirit?

This argumentum ad baculam is invariably the last resort of frustrated evangelizers, and if that's your trump card, I'd advise you to fold your hand, or at least steer clear of my table. I'll take the humanist ethics, so elegantly summed up by the Golden Rule, and leave your metaphysics, thank you very much.

Cal,

Your comments were Truth...thank you for your stand...those who have ears to hear will. Regards, DL.

Shiloh, Otter Creek, USA: I suspect Mr. Thomas is laughing up his sleeve at the fools who fell for his goading, comic relief caricature of belief. It is amusing.

Sorry, Shiloh, but if you read a few of Mr. Thomas' columns on TownHall.com, you'll see that your expectation is misplaced.

What sophistical arrogance! I'll just respond in kind with the same level of reason by quoting Archie Bunker on faith: "Faith is believing in something that anyone in their right mind wouldn't ordinarily believe in."

Mark Eaton wrote:

"You can suppress all of us, but you cannot fool us or fool God. We know the truth. You have to work so hard to prove that there is not a God, because deep down you feel that there is one. You shake your fist in the face of God and then call us hypocrites. You are one also."

Mark, I can't speak for the rest of the sane world out there, but I'm trying so desperately to shake your shoulders because your noodle-headedness hurts people. You (literally) self-righteously say that you know the truth and then you try to use this proclamation to situate yourself politically and economically over others, e.g., by crusading to outlaw peoples' families. I don't shake my fists at god, who I don't believe exists, but at your transparent pretentiousness. I don't "work so hard to prove that there is not a God." I work so hard because I'm p.o.'d at your lazy attempts to sink to a non-existent moral highground just so your own life can appear Safe and Secure even as others' are made into living nightmares.

Similarly, anti-Emm (what a gracious name!) writes:

"With belief in any God, you can have absolute knowledge of right and wrong. You can find among the write-ups here several examples such as a wearing a garment with two fabrics that many Atheist love to mention to display their incredible command of Old Testament moral code. Who decides for an Atheist? Who decides between Nazi values and those of Plato? If we are just a bunch of Carbons, Hydrogen, Halides, etc. floating around how do we defend morality except when it can be shown to be in our benefit?"

Perhaps we "decide" through shared discussion, openess to others, investigations of ground-level realities, etc. -- i.e., collaboratively, contingently, intelligently, and meekly.

You should have written: "With belief in any God you can PRETEND to have absolute knowledge of right and wrong." The pretense excuses avoidance of effort to work collaboratively and respectfully with others. This singular effect shows its effective purpose.

I do not have the power to persuade anyone that God is, but I can demonstrate the difference He has made in my life and relationships – including with atheists – and pray that the One who brought me to belief will do so with them.

*** If I did pray, I would pray not that others would come to believe as I believe but that they would just leave me out of their belief. As I once saw on a bumper sticker , " Please God, save me from religion".

Small correction to "Michael K"s post dealing with Islam. If Islam is correct and you are wrong you will end up in hell but it won't be forever. In Islam only the worst of the worst people stay in hell forever. It's kind of like prison you do your time and then you’re out.

And no I’m not Muslim I just happen to know that.

1.2 billion Muslims believe that Muhammad was God's Prophet. Muhammad had sex with children, one as young as nine, some of these children he had widowed , for example Rayhana and Saffiya, and he took them to bed the same night that he widowed them. He robbed Meccan caravans and stole Jewish lands and property and then killed thousands of male Jews many of whom were young boys who had just sprouted pubic hair and were designated adults. he then sold the widows and orphans into slavery and stole the lands and property. One of his concubines, Maria, was a slave girl. he owned other slave girls. He destroyed the idols in the kabbah thus denying Meccans the freedom of their religion and imposed Islam. All the above data is from Books that Muslims accep as genuine. I cite Muhammad to hopefully prove a point that God is our own construct. The Arabic god Allah that Muhammad constructed is not worthy of worship. A good God would never pick a man like Muhammad to be His prophet. the God that Christians constructed is marginally better but is quite not the Good God I would like to worship. Let us leave God alone. he seems to be content to leave us to own scruples. Why else would we have tsunamis and children born with musltiple birth defects? T otest them? Ha ha!!!

It is wrong to speculate that there is a God. And it is wrong to speculate there is no God. Because it is wrong to speculate on something that cannot be proved or disproved. Our limitations as a human being make us unqualified to answer this question about God. Snowflakes may or may not be proof about the existence of God. It is possible that there is a God who started the evolutionary process and then is watching as a bystander. I fully support the stand that no law should be passed that claims to have validity merely because of something stated in religious scriptures. There are some fundamentals such as respect for life that all humans must abide by and this respect makes both abortion( except if the mother's life is in danger) and capital punishment( even for Saddam Hussein) wrong. Other than wrongs against society must be punished, a murderer given a life sentence in solitary confinement for example. My own stance is that if God wanted to talk to us he would have sent his message to all humans simultaneously, for example during a football game, in all languages that humans speak. He does not need Sons or Prophets to deliver His message to us as this message would surely be and is warped when self-proclaimed Sons of God or Prophets of God take it upon themselves to manufacture the message and impose it upon us. For me God is like music. It makes life better for me but is not essentail for my survival. I have been an atheist but being a believer is better. Surely a good God will not punish us for non-belief in Him especially when He has never revealed Himself to us. I do however strongly support laws that would prohibit the teaching of religion to children before they turn 21. We ban drugs and alcohol and religion falls in teh same category. It is time that the department enforcing laws pertaining to drugs and narcotics be ordered to put all parents and religious teachers in prison for telling children and young adults that there is a God.

"I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."

You don't have to believe in a god to believe that treating other people with respect is the right thing to do.

"It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance."

If the universe was designed by god why is it so vast? What would be the purpose of the rest of the universe? Oh and fingerprints and snowflakes are random and can be explained easily by natural events.

"An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right. If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences."

I'm not going to believe just incase. No point in faking when god could easily see threw my lies.

Cal
How silly and stupid you are. It must be fun to be so disconneted from reality

Until those who claim to follow the bible and its teachings follow all the rules, as in all of them, each and every one, and I mean the antiquated and ridiculous among them, then I have nothing much to say to them about the few rules they DO choose to follow from among the many.

Are you really prepared to see all adulterers stoned in public? Really?

Oh, right. You didn't like that one did you?

That comentary is simply STUPID. A good example why mant non-believers have contempt for bible-thumpers.

What if God hates it when people think He exists? Seems plausible, considering He hasn't really shown His face recently.

The odds are equal you'll end up with a toasty afterlife regardless of what you believe.

"But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences."

So what are the consequences if you worship the wrong god? Maybe I will enjoy the Elysian fields for ever and you will be punished in Hades for worshipping your barbarian god.

To EMM:

From Emm "Really? Your claim is that unless one believes in God, they have no basis upon which to reverence life and creation. This is astounding to me. It shows a disturbingly uncharitable and judgmental chauvinism."

**** - Lots of adjectives but not one reason why Cal is wrong. Cal's point is simple. With belief in any God, you can have absolute knowledge of right and wrong. You can find among the write-ups here several examples such as a wearing a garment with two fabrics that many Atheist love to mention to display their incredible command of Old Testament moral code. Who decides for an Atheist? Who decides between Nazi values and those of Plato? If we are just a bunch of Carbons, Hydrogen, Halides, etc. floating around how do we defend morality except when it can be shown to be in our benefit?
*******************************************
From Emm "You say: “It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance.”

Once again I find your comments condescending and judgmental, not to mention intellectually lazy, the same claim you make against atheists. You may find more comfort in believing in a Designer than not, but this decision of yours (and mine), is one of faith, not rigorous logic. The arguments for a Designer are the same as those for a first cause and such arguments are at best intellectually lazy. If God requires no cause, neither does the universe. It’s that easy to dismiss the first cause argument. Is your position: God can exist by chance but not the universe? Surely your belief rests upon something more substantial than that?

***One can never disprove a negative. Saying there is no God is a logically absurd position. I can always create a proposition for a God that is consistant with whatever constraints are laid. Any true intellectual would have to always be open to the possibility even if they did not see it as relevant or necessary. A person who defines themselves by a negative is illustrating something more about there own character and there fear of a Creator who will bring them into judgement.
************************************
From Emm

You say: “I do not have the power to persuade anyone that God is, but I can demonstrate the difference He has made in my life and relationships – including with atheists – and pray that the One who brought me to belief will do so with them.” As Christians, I believe we are called to a far higher standard than your comments would indicate you're comfortable with. Condescending, judgmental and arrogant claims to the supremacy of ones faith or worldview seem sorely lacking in the love and charity that Jesus called us to display, even toward our enemies."

***Thank you Emm for a fine display of hypocrisy and simplicity that is found in many liberal "Christians". You condemn Cal for his "judgemental and arrogant claims" while your total argument is filled with judgements against Cal. Any one who has to judge will be in some measure condecending to the subject under examination (like I am doing to you :)). This is just a consequence not a personal fault.

The message for Emm leaves on the highest possible statement of any liberal - equality of belief, How dare you say you know that your God is better. A person who worships Adolph Hitler as the messiah and representitive of his God is equal to your belief and should not be judged? OK if that is the way you want to leave it...

As an agnostic living in an age when "believer's" are in the majority, I often feel alone and isolated. Talking to a true believer about God and the bible can only lead to frustration because their belief is based on circular logic.
They believe because they believe.

This discussion has been great because it makes me see that there are lots of clear thinking, practical and moral people in this world who understand that there are some questions to which we just don't have the answers.

There may very well be a 'God' or a 'Force' or whatever. But if there is, we know less about him/it/her than a goldfish in a fish-bowl on a table in a Kansas farmhouse knows about the 3rd moon of Jupiter.

Discussions like these that expose the banality of religious belief systems are vital. I for one don't want to see a return to the Dark Ages in which "The Church" was the greatest power and those who challenged it were put on the rack until they saw the error of their ways.

I suspect Mr. Thomas is laughing up his sleeve at the fools who fell for his goading, comic relief caricature of belief. It is amusing.

That it is "in" to not believe is being blind to reality. When was the last presidential hopeful athiest? What persent of the population admits to being athiest? We are out numbered, and viewed by the majority of society as an oddity, simply because we have a different belief. We feel that other's beliefs should not be forced upon us. Does this sound familiar? It should it's the reason for the founding of our nation.

Over the last decade there has been a growing hostility between us of "hope" and you of "belief". From our side we see it as an attempt to force your values and beliefs upon us. The changes that we seek, we see do not have to effect any of you personally (Gay marriage). But the changes that you seek do effect every one of us personally (prayer in schools). Instead on attacking abortion, why not focus on preventing the need, Something we all can agree on (Even though we support the ability to have an abortion, we would be very joyous if they were available but never needed).

I admit over the years I have become more prejudice to those of faith, just as any group would become more hostile when they feel that another group is attacking their beliefs.

But this has been an accerted effort by the organizied religions to produce votes at the ballot box. To energize the base. Why not focus on the issues we have in common, For there are excuse the expression a "Hell" of alot. Even though I don't believe that Jesus can be the only way to be a good and deserving person, the majority of his teachings are true Bleeding heart liberal stuff, and most Athiests are Liberals. Why don't we focus on forgiving, helping and not judging others, as jesus said we should do???

Ted Hagard's potetial replacement ended his bid to replace him because the organization refused to add new focuses like helping the poor, that would reduce hostility between our two groups.

That was a tragedy, hopefully in the future we can be more respecting of each other and focus on what we have in common so that we can produce real change on this rock we call earth.

http://www.reverendatheistar.com/battered_believers_syndrome.htm

Battered Believer's Syndrome

Just like the spousal syndrome it's named after, this disorder is characterized by the inability to see anything but love in the actions of the abuser. Every hit is the victim's fault as this is the only rationalization to keep the image of someone who is loving alive.

And so it is with the believer. No matter what terrible event happens in their life they can't see their god as anything but a loving father. He never gets any of the blame. It's either a lack of faith, too much sin or perhaps not enough praise that day.

Suppose a believer's child was murdered. Can she conceptualize her god idly watching as the event took place, doing absolutely nothing? Yes, but it was for a reason. Her god still loves her, of course -- that's what she been programmed to believe. She'll probably come up with the standard answer designed to preserve the love like "god works in mysterious ways," "it was for the greater good," or "god wanted him in heaven."

All these answers skirt the real issue, though. To see how one need only exchange the deity in the equation with a person. What if a police officer sat and watched silently as a child was murdered even though he had the power to stop it? Oh, the rules are different now, aren't they? Why, though? Different programming, basically.

People are programmed to see police officers as people who have to help and should even risk their lives saving people. If one of them doesn't help, they're not doing their job and they become just as bad as a criminal. They are neglecting their duties to the people.

Gods and goddesses, on the other hand, whose "actions" are based on the hit and miss randomness of chance events, are expected to not do anything in many situations. These beings are also endowed by their creators, us, with great magical powers and control our destiny in the afterlives we made up. Add to this equation the endless stream of loving propaganda that is shot into the believer's brain and the resulting mix of expectation of inaction, fear and love combine to make a powerful formula able to transform an abuser into an angel.

Atheism frees a person from this madness. Instead of wondering why some invisible cloud father would allow or cause something to happen, we take it as it is: reality. Why did it happen? We look to real causes. Why was her son murdered? Look at the the murderer himself. Look at the events in his life that led up to the event. Where were the police? Could a stronger police presence have thwarted this? Look at the safety precautions the mother in this story could have taken in order to prevent this tragedy. Look at what the boy himself could have done to avoid such a situation in the first place.

By thinking critically, instead of superstitiously, we affect the real world in a positive way. We can come up with real solutions instead of asking for divine intervention that never arrives. It is only us who can save ourselves.

So many flawed arguments, so little time. Thankfully, many of them have been touched on, so I'll be short (relatively speaking):

"Why is it “in vogue” to disbelieve in a Creator of the universe,"

Since whenis it in vogue? 90% of Americans believe in God, and more Americans would vote for a minority of any stripe, a Muslim, and I'd be willing to wager even a homosexual for the Presidency before voting for an atheist. You start off on the wrong foot and just keep going from there.

"We can talk about everything, or nothing. I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."

Oh, wehere to begin... Maybe you should go read some classic literature. Start with Leviathan, then go to Mill's Utilitarianism, then Kant, then maybe throw in some Plato and Aristotle. Learn about how morality is basd on many things besides religion, and how many would even argue that being "moral" solely because you are instructed to by a religion is not a true moral act because a true moral act is done because the act itself is the right thing to do, not because of how one will be judged for acting (as God does). determining right varies depending on the school of philosophy, but all come down to the same inescapable truth spelled out in Leviathan: if man is free to act as he will and do whatever he can to get ahead, all are equally able to do so and therefore life is completely unfulfilling because we would be fored to spend all day watching our backs, and we all have to sleep eventually. Ironically, the answer is almost Darwinian- societies that develop basic standards of morality will survive, while those that don't will inevitably collapse. The absense of God does nothing to undermine morality, it only removes one justification for it (which might be a benefit, because if the law only exists because "God said so," if people stop believing in the god, they might reject the standards as well, whther they are right or wrong).

"It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance."

The scientific method, the study of philosophy and advanced mathematical science, etc. is not intellectually lazy. To simply say someone must have designed it, leave it at that, and turn away from these pursuits (as you obviously have) is intellectually lazy.

"An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right. If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences."

A Christian, too, wagers their future on the basis of whether or not he or she is right. Suppose Islam is the truth and you, not being such a believer, never performed any of the basic tenents of the faith? I know a lot of fundamentalists, and they've pretty thoroughly convinced me that belief in God is not sufficient, it's belief in a specific interpretation of Jesus that matters, anything else (sorry Catholics, Mormons, Episcopalians, us Lutherans, etc.) and you're going to hell for eternity.

Personally, I am a devout Lutheran, regular church attendee, and can quote scripture pretty well; I also realize a lot of modern Christianity isn't based on the Bible alone, but the interpretations of in some cases very flawed men. I believe in God and accept Christ, but there will always be a nagging in me that it might be flawed and am always open to new ideas. I trust the works of science over the interpretations of a 2,000 year old piece of scripture that, although inspired by God, might be incomplete, might have been manipulated by man, and might simply be misinterpreted by flawed man. I live my life as best I can, learn what I can from whom I can, and go from there. There is great value to faith in God, but there are great lessons to be learned from the true philosophies of many Atheists I know- since this earth might in fact be all there is to existance, we need to make the most of it while we can and live life to the fullest; if there is no paradise to follow, we need to work as best we can to bring about paradise here on Earth.

Now, for some other comments I've noticed here:

"If you are so confident in your unbelief, why challenge Cal Thomas at all? Why not just sit back and ignore him? Because, you cannot. You feel the overwelling compulsion to prove him wrong. To shut him up. To silence him. Just as you feel the overwelling compulsion to silence the Gospel, the Bible, and all people who speak about God."

It's not about suppression, as I don't think anyone is trying to ban Cal from peaking his piece, it's about demonstrating a flawed argument. After all, logical consistency must be the basis of any moral standard and as has been demonstrated the logic doesn't follow in this article. The flaws in logic must be pointed out because they are the basis for a right wing ideology that is also illogical but, unlike the posters on this blog, is a threat to other forms of belief because of the power they wield in this country. Cal Thomas isn't a panelist here because of his vast education, his reputation as a biblcal scholar or theologan, or anything like that. He is a well known political columnist with a broad following among conservative Christians, and those people wield a lot of power in this country. When they lead others based on a flawed philosophy, they need to be called on it. Information may not make a believer out of you, but it can disproved a flawed statement and a flawed philosophy.

"Wayne, it's too late to get the nation from under God. The founding document, DI, put's it there. "

Well, the Declaration doesn't put the nation under God, it puts all men under God (and being Jefferson, this was a Deistic god, hence "nature' God"and "Creator," etc.) with certain natural right and the state solely as a construct of men to preserve those rights. A difference with an important distinction that is lost on too many people today. They want to make us out to be a Christian nation. The Jews wanted a messiah who would bring about God's kingdom on earth too, and the Romans feared a Jewish leader who would undermine their authority. Jesus had to remind both of them that His kingdom wasn't of this world. Why would we want to try to build here on Earth what Christ himself refused to do?

Mr. Thomas first came to public notice as a mouthpiece for Jerry Fallwell and his ironically named Moral Majority organization, which sought to use people's religious beliefs as a means of mobilizing support for right-wing political causes. His approach to religion seems not to have changed much. As other commenters have pointed out, you can be good and moral without Mr. Thomas' sort of religious belief, but perhaps sharing his views on God is an essential to being fooled into supporting his politics.

The commenter who noted Mr. Thomas' "abusive boyfriend" style of theology was too kind. His "believe the right thing or burn in hell forever" notion assumes a god who is less an abusive boyfriend than a genocidal dictator, a heavenly analog of Sadaam Hussein or Pol Pot. Since Mr. Thomas' god would eternally burn the vast majority of humans who have ever lived, for not having known about or having sensibly rejected Mr. Thomas' beliefs, such a god is chargeable with a holocaust that makes Hitler look like a piker. Such a god should be hauled before the nearest tribunal and condemmed for crimes against humanity.

I grant Blert's point that Mr. Thomas' theology is not representative of the theological rationalizations that Christians more intellectually sophisticated than Mr. Thomas make to explain away the churches' teachings about heaven and hell. But I suspect that something closer to Mr. Thomas' version is the theolgical red meat served at the hard right churches that are part of the political faction he represents.

Oh, how tired is the false dichotomy this man is trotting out? Let it die, already. It is not Christianity vs. Atheism. It is *every* religion ever devised vs. Atheism or *all* possible gods and goddesses vs. Atheism. His chance is just as great for ending up in a negative afterlife as is mine. Would Allah treat him any different than me? Would the Greek Patheon? How about the Norse, or Egyptian or Hawaiian? I'd be willing to bet that Pele would be pretty pissed that he saw her awesome power and never once even bother to throw some praise her way!

Jason Bradfield,

The point you raise is exactly the same point raised at the trial of Galileo, and well known to any scientist. Science, unlike religion, is completely comfortable with doubt. Science, unlike religion, accepts that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Science, unlike religion, posits that all truth is provisional and subject to testing.

If you need absolute truth in your life, don't study science; just continue to believe in Santa Claus. And since you're interested in playing logic games, answer this question: can God create a rock so big that not even God can move it? If you want to give up sanity, believe in omnipotence.

Seriously, how did this get published? Absolute drivel. The Post should be ashamed of themselves.

So we Atheists are "betting their immortal souls there is no God".
Are Christians not also betting their "immortal souls" that the brand of Christianity each one of them practices is the one that God favors? What if the Catholics, Methodists, Jehova's Witnesses, and Baptists are all wrong and the "ONE TRUE CHURCH" is...(drum roll)... the Amish?
Then Cal Thomas will have lost HIS bet.

You can't reconcile an imperfect world with an almighty God unless there's Satan or some other counter force. So, left with a choice between God and Satan, how do you know you chose the "right" one to follow? Either you chose arbitrarily, acknowledging that there is no clear correct choice between God and Satan, or else you had some pre-existing sense that one force was right and the other was wrong.

But if that sense exists before picking sides, then it isn't dependent on any choice of deity. Thus, we should do the right thing whether or not God wants it; belief in God gets you no closer to doing what is right, and it can actually take you farther away in situations where God's will conflicts with what is right.

Thus, belief in God should not affect your understanding of what is right and wrong, and those who believe in God should strive to determine what is right and wrong independent of what their religion dictates.

Cal Thomas lives in a cramped and scary little world full of judgement and confusion. The reality he pushes is different from actual world in which we live. It is this descrepancy between how things are and how things "ought to be" in Thomas' mind that causes him to lash out like this. He is angry at the world because it doesn't measure up to the one he hears about in Church and holds vividly in his imagination. So he attacks atheists, or more specifically people who fail to buy his "Big Scary God" theory. First he uses a straw man argument to belittle athiests and suggest atheists may turn violent and preditory because we all "may treat each other as we please." Then he attempts to frighten people with allusions to hell and damnation and such. What he doesn't understand is that a person utterly free from the power of such ideas (big scary God) easily recognizes them as absurd manipulations.

Want to talk about intellectually lazy? Cal Thomas said nothing new in defense of the existence of God -- all his arguments are at least 500 years old.

Regarding the uniqueness of creation and the "finger print and snowflake" arguement -- this originates in Ancient Greece and was used by Aristotle to argue for the existence of a higher, in this case, pagan power -- it's the intelligent design theory. The intelligent design theory was expropriated to Christianity by Thomas Aquinas as one of the seven proofs for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica.

Thomas also did an exceptionally nice job of re-stating Pascal's wager. The problem with the wager (one might as well believe in God because they risk hell if they don't) is so sophomoric as to be meaningless. Thomas obviously doesn't realize the number of assumptions inherent in the argument / wager. I will lay them out for him -- the argument assumes:

1. If God exists hell exists;
2. If God exists God demands worship;
3. If God exists God sends unbelivers to hell.

The problem with Pascal's wager is that even if God exists there is no reason hell must exist. Moreover, even if God exists why should we be certain God cares enough about humanity to demand worship. It is entirely possible (to use Thomas' own arguments) that an Intelligent Designer set the universe and creation in motion and stepped away. There is nothing to say that God cares whether humans worship God or not.

Of course religions have a lot to say on the matter of worshipping God -- but that is the third hole in Pascal's wager. Even if God exists and even if hell exists -- what religion does God favor and HOW does God want us to worship and believe in God? Maybe God is a Buddhist God who only wants us to kill God; maybe God is Christian -- maybe God was the God of some disappeared ancient religion. If God is so vengeful as to send all unbelievers to hell, then certainly God has strong idea's about HOW God is worshipped. Therefore, it may not make a difference whether we believe in God or not -- the entire cause may be lost if we pick the wrong religion -- so what is the point of guessing?

Finally, Pascal's wager is an incredibly self focused. You're essentially worshipping God to avoid hellfire. If that is your only motive then you must question the sincerety of your beliefs -- do you worship because for spiritual reasons or do you worship because you want to cover your ass? If you only worship to cover yourself then you risk God disapproving of your motives and being damned anyway.

Mr. Thomas states that atheists do not value human life because they do not believe in God. The objections here are empirical and abstract.

Empirically, history shows that religion is just as capable, if not more capable of inspiring and committing violence against humanity as unbelief. I would argue that the entire middle east would be a much more peaceful place today if there was no belief in a God. Contrary to Mr. Thomas' assertions, your position on abortion is not the only measure of your respect for human life. In Iraq, in Israel, Palestine, in Lebanon, over and over again in history those acting in the name of religion and God have shown themselves perfectly able and willing to commit unspeakable acts of brutality and violence.

In the abstract, there is no logical reason why respect for human life depends on faith in God. If life is valuable in itself, we do not need God to justify its value. Nor do we need belief in God to make respect for others worthwhile and valuable. It is utterly illogical to say an unbeliever cannot respect life.

Mr. Thomas should do his homework next time.

Want to talk about intellectually lazy? Cal Thomas said nothing new in defense of the existence of God -- all his arguments are at least 500 years old.

Regarding the uniqueness of creation and the "finger print and snowflake" arguement -- this originates in Ancient Greece and was used by Aristotle to argue for the existence of a higher, in this case, pagan power -- it's the intelligent design theory. The intelligent design theory was expropriated to Christianity by Thomas Aquinas as one of the seven proofs for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica.

Thomas also did an exceptionally nice job of re-stating Pascal's wager. The problem with the wager (one might as well believe in God because they risk hell if they don't) is so sophomoric as to be meaningless. Thomas obviously doesn't realize the number of assumptions inherent in the argument / wager. I will lay them out for him -- the argument assumes:

1. If God exists hell exists;
2. If God exists God demands worship;
3. If God exists God sends unbelivers to hell.

The problem with Pascal's wager is that even if God exists there is no reason hell must exist. Moreover, even if God exists why should we be certain God cares enough about humanity to demand worship. It is entirely possible (to use Thomas' own arguments) that an Intelligent Designer set the universe and creation in motion and stepped away. There is nothing to say that God cares whether humans worship God or not.

Of course religions have a lot to say on the matter of worshipping God -- but that is the third hole in Pascal's wager. Even if God exists and even if hell exists -- what religion does God favor and HOW does God want us to worship and believe in God? Maybe God is a Buddhist God who only wants us to kill God; maybe God is Christian -- maybe God was the God of some disappeared ancient religion. If God is so vengeful as to send all unbelievers to hell, then certainly God has strong idea's about HOW God is worshipped. Therefore, it may not make a difference whether we believe in God or not -- the entire cause may be lost if we pick the wrong religion -- so what is the point of guessing?

Finally, Pascal's wager is an incredibly self focused. You're essentially worshipping God to avoid hellfire. If that is your only motive then you must question the sincerety of your beliefs -- do you worship because for spiritual reasons or do you worship because you want to cover your ass? If you only worship to cover yourself then you risk God disapproving of your motives and being damned anyway.

Mr. Thomas states that atheists do not value human life because they do not believe in God. The objections here are empirical and abstract.

Empirically, history shows that religion is just as capable, if not more capable of inspiring and committing violence against humanity as unbelief. I would argue that the entire middle east would be a much more peaceful place today if there was no belief in a God. Contrary to Mr. Thomas' assertions, your position on abortion is not the only measure of your respect for human life. In Iraq, in Israel, Palestine, in Lebanon, over and over again in history those acting in the name of religion and God have shown themselves perfectly able and willing to commit unspeakable acts of brutality and violence.

In the abstract, there is no logical reason why respect for human life depends on faith in God. If life is valuable in itself, we do not need God to justify its value. Nor do we need belief in God to make respect for others worthwhile and valuable. It is utterly illogical to say an unbeliever cannot respect life.

Mr. Thomas should do his homework next time.

Christ, why do they publish this man's drivel? He's a walking illustration of the utter insanity of organized, proselytizing religion.

"MY random collection of belief structures, myths, and moral guidelines, based on the collected ramblings of a tribe of illiterate, nomadic sheep-herders, is clearly superior to yours because my mommy and daddy told me so when I was a baby. Therefore, you must convert immediately or I will denounce you as morally inferior and possibly persecute you."

It's simpler to explain why something occurs than it is to say that God did it and then have to explain both how and why God did it. So, by Occam's Razor, it's most likely God doesn't exist. Not that this is proof that God doesn't exist, but it says it's unlikely.

Talk about intellectually lazy -- Cal Thomas discovers Pascal's wager 350 years after the fact!! Now if Cal could only discover all the errors attendant in Pascal's wager -- that it is not true belief; the question of whether God, if he exists, rewards belief alone (or belief at all); and the opportunity costs of belief.

You should have taken Western Philosophy 1301, Cal. It would have saved you a lot of embarrassment, or at least have allowed you to write a better article. For a freshman essay, I'd give this a C- or a D.

WICCAN:

Your "abusive boyfriend" description falls afoul of most Christian theology. The stance that most Christian theologians take is that God does not send people to hell, but that people send themselves to hell. Hell is often defined as an existence in the absence of God, and the rationale goes that if we choose to live life separate from God's will, we are making a decision to spend eternity separate from God as well.

Of course, God stands in judgment over all of us, making the ultimate determination about who ends up where, but this is hardly an "abusive boyfriend" situation. In situations of abuse, one person has all the power, while the abused lacks agency, and suffering is often inflicted viciously and senselessly, without regard for what that other person does. In a human relationship with God, however, we also have agency, and our actions are self-determining. In creating us, God respected, valued, and loved us enough to grant this agency over ourselves, but this agency comes with a cost: in order for it to be genuine agency, we have to have the capacity to make a genuine choice with genuine consequences.

The better description is a parent-child analogy. A child may know that a certain behavior is unacceptable by his or her parents' standards--this child knows the parents' will--but the child chooses to act otherwise, against that will. The consequence is that the parents banish the child to his or her room for a time, sending the message, "If you don't want to conform to our will or to the accepted standards of our family or society, then you have chosen to be separate from us and can remain so until you do wish to conform. Parents don't do this out of some sadistic or abusive streak, but to teach children the consequences of their choices and to show them the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Without this kind of firm instruction, society could not exist.

In extreme cases, if a child persists into adulthood refusing to conform to right behavior, working back into the parents' trust only to break that trust again and again, parents may cut ties with that child more severely, even permanently, not out of spite for the child but because they love the child and recognize the child's autonomy, but refuse to condone the child's behavior.

God is not unlike a parent in many of these respects. Death carries with it a finality--if a person hasn't chosen God's society by that point, then the person is forever separate from God's society, but to the extent that we are given opportunities and instruction in how to conform to God's will throughout our lives, we are held accountable for our successes and failures in following God's will.

One problem, I think, with many Christians is that the presume to know and to profess who will attain heaven and who will be sent to hell, which is very presumptuous on people's parts. At best, all we can know is ourselves, and the responsibility of judge always belongs to God, just as the responsibility for children rests with parents. To pretend that we know who deserves heaven and hell is presumptuous and even blasphemous.

Of course, Cal Thomas could have done a much better job representing these traditional positions of Christian theology in his piece, although I don't think he necessarily contradicts them.

Perhaps the real issue is, How do we know what we believe we know? In other words, what constitutes reliable evidence? Is something true because we are told it is so by someone we look up to? Or should we examine the basis for that person's belief?

If we believe we have received a communication from God, or an angel or whatever, how can we tell whether it is really what it seems, or whether we were dreaming or delusional? How can we compare it to communicating with another human being?

Can you conceive of any form of evidence that would persuade you one way or the other about the existence or nature of God? If not, I think you don't know what you're talking about.

I think almost everything I have heard or read on the subject of God, pro and con, is nothing more than bias. No one really knows or can know who or what God is, or if God is anything but a creation of the human imagination, founded on our fear of death and wish for immortality.

I once had a seminary student tell me, quite seriously, that "all those other religions are so easy to disprove." I suggested he recite those same "disproofs" while looking in the mirror.

Based upon my treatment by believers upon hearing my admission to agnosticism, I remain distinctly unsurprised that non-believers sometimes react virulently to comments like those above. Consider how believers react in the workplace, media, etc. when presented with less-than-flattering remarks about belief. The speaker is lucky to escape without physical damage!!

The unmitigated hypocrisy of demanding respect from me while feeling justified in attacking and insulting me still leaves me dumbstruck after all these years.

Lastly, my childhood in a large protestant church was nothing short of emotional abuse that I suspect will never be completely healed. What a horrid, despicable thing to do to an innocent, loving, empathetic youngster.

Cal Thomas states "That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."
Interesting. If this is the case, then why is it that Western European countries that have a HIGHER proportion of nonbelievers have LOWER rates of crime?

I read Cal Thomas and admire him greatly. But how he could be so ignorant of atheist views and evolution is beyond me. Really is lonely being an atheist conservative...

Silly man! Did Santa bring you something nice for Christmas?

John Raykowski and ME:

The "under God" phrase appears in the Pledge of Allegiance, and this part of the Pledge was added by Congress in 1954.

The Declaration of Independence phrases the matter somewhat differently, although it does clearly state that our human rights derive from God:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

However, the Declaration of Independence has limited legal weight in this country. Courts occasionally look to it as a secondary text giving insight into the founders' views, but the Declaration doesn't profess to do more than lay out grievances and declare a separation from Britain. The actual law of the land is the Constitution, which supersedes anything in the Declaration.

'That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please.'

What a whammer.
Mr. Thomas still seems to believe that the basis for moral behavior is extra-human, whereas humanism, biology and sociology all support the reciprocal 'golden rule' 'treat another as you would like to be treated yourself'. No need for a 'creator' to be a moral being.
Mr. Thomas obviously has never thought about the basic reasons men created god(s), such as our fear of dying and our need for explanations: we prefer a false explanation above 'there's no real reason'.
I'm happy to be an atheist, and I'm very happy to be an accident of evolution. Isn't evolution a great creator, even if the watchmaker is blind?

erik de koster

Anyone who truly values and employs logic and reason inevitably becomes an atheist because the evidence against any divine plan inevitably becomes overwhelming.

For example, the flaw in the entire Heaven proposition is that if it's so great, so much better than life on earth, why not go there sooner than later? Suicide may be a sin, but living dangerously isn't.

Many things people do that are reckless but not sinful, such as base-jumping, volunteering for combat, eating fatty foods, driving fast, and walking in dangerous neighborhoods, will all get you to paradise much sooner, so why tarry in the supposedly inferior visible universe?

Of course, if there is no Heaven, then having your life end sooner simply shortens your only chance at any existence at all. I believe the reason most people don't live dangerously, or callously throw their lives away, is that in the back of their minds they doubt their beliefs. They want to live as long as possible, even when life is difficult, just in case there is no afterlife.

I'm convinced most religions will fade away when stem cells allow us to replace all our body parts as they wear out, finally granting what all religions promise but can't prove they'll deliver, immortality.

You state that atheists whose beliefs are right but not for the reasons you state have an "inadequate base" for beleiving what they do.

This is why dialogue has broken down in this country. Because religious people are not able to respect people whose viewpoints differ.

I stopped believing in the Bible because the logical contradictions were too great. It isn't that I do not want to believe - it is that I can't. I simply cannot accept that a god could be loving, and yet the majority of people who think they are the correct faith are doomed to Hell because they guessed wrong. There are many other logical problems, but the biggest is probably the fact that if God is going to be so intolerant, He has an obligation to make His text so clear and precise that there's no room for people to choose wrong without knowing it.

But for years I accomodated religious types, and tried to honor their choice.

Until the "war on Christmas".

This is when I first became aware that Christianity requires everyone to adhere to their faith (I have no doubt that it is because, in fact, Christians are as nervous and insecure about their "loving" God's injustice as everyone else, and it is too faith-shaking to live among nonbelievers and learn to love people more than God ever can or will. "How could I enjoy a heaven while people I care about burn in Hell" is a serious problem for Christianity.)

Now, it is becoming increasingly clear to non-Christians that Christianity cannot live and let live. It must convert or remove all non-Christians, and Christians have started becoming aggressive.

Christians whine about how people "hate" them and/or their religion, unaware that everyone else is perfectly aware that it's entirely the Christians who want this war and are forcing it to be waged. Christians are the ones that started the hatred. Now, non-Christians are going to fight back. There's no choice left. Their existence is now defined by prominent Christians as an affront to Christianity's need for America to be a "Christian nation". People who thought they were obviously Americans are confronted with people who seriously believe that America cannot and/or should not include them.

There IS a war, and it isn't going to go away until either Christianity eradicates non-believers or Christians lose.

But the ironic thing is how small and limited Christians are when they imagine what others believe. Inadequate basis for belief? Do you really believe that the only reason humankind has for obeying the laws of social behavior is because a fictitious boogey monster is gonna come get ya if you don't?

How sad and pathetic.

Cal Thom is a funny guy.
He seems to forget that all his thinking and actions depends on the ten billions neurons of his brain that other six billions humans also have. He can be a wise and sharp thinker than millions of people but there are also millions of other people who can do better than he does. Here is one of his strange statements: “because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please” A smart specie is able to realize that survival can’t be maximized by treating each other as it please. Traditional, monotheist, polytheist, spirits, sun, stars, moon, trees or animal worshiper societies have rules and guidelines for order and survival. Many animal species don’t treat the member of their species as it please. Humans can do better than animals. His ideas are a mixture Pascal’s argument that it is safer to believe in God if we are not sure about its existence. Not everybody is supposed to think like that. My brain and my experience don’t show, prove or make me understand there is any god or God. I immediately discard the supreme being concept. However, I know I am not the smartest or the wisest human in this world. I respect others’ perceptions even if I don’t agree with them. That’s how human race has been and will always be. All humans, all societies will never agree about invisible things and beings that require just beliefs or speculations. Sorcerers, witchcrafts, priest, prophets, preachers… have never been accepted by everybody and never will. The reason is simple: They all talks about invisible things and beings that can’t be proved or disproved. Let’s people believes as it please them because a Noble Prize winner and an illiterate are all the same on this issue.

Cal says: Why is it “in vogue” to disbelieve in a Creator of the universe, who loves us and wants to have a relationship with us and not “in vogue” to believe?

Martin says: Who told you what is in vogue? Your basic premise is flawed. There is no "vogue" to spirituality.

Cal says: That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please.

I says: If we are evolutionary accidents we still need morality because morality is the basis of civilization. Your mistake is to think that morality is the basis of religion. Religion came after civilization, not before. Civilization cannot exist without morality, therefore morality came before a belief in God.

Cal: You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance.

Me: If this requires more faith then how can it be lazier? More = harder. Less = lazy. No?

That's enough of his drivel. He's clearly not thinking but only faithing.

Wow, it is really amazing how people can look at the same thing and see such completely different things. While Mr. Thomas looks at the vastness of the universe and sees that a christian god must exist, I look at that same vastness and see there is no way that any fable of being created in God's image could possibly be true.

And if the doors to heaven are locked to every being who does not believe in something or someone when there is absolutely no reason to do so, let alone any proof of reality, then so be it. I don't want any part of a supposedly loving deity that would be so callous and superficial.

Finally, I am appalled at the idea that atheists have no moral ground upon which to deal with one another. An atheist's morals are actually often more thought out than a believer's since they are based on considering the consequences of their actions rather than on some rote religious passage. I think that the crusades, the inquisition all the way to our currently immoral war in Iraq are all the evidence that is needed to show that christians tend to treat others as they please pretty frequently.

There is a choice. Believe G-d or not it is always a personal choice. All the rest is unimportant matter of opinion. I choose to believe He who sent me forth!! My life has been grate so far and I am grateful for all I got from life.
Cheers,
Southernlight

Simply because one is capable of understanding phenomena that lesser intellects attribute to a god, it does not follow that a god did not cause those phenomena which one does not understand.

Why some people do not believe in god - and specifically Cal Thomas' Christian god - can be explained with the same answer one might use to explain why they do not believe any claim: lack of evidence.

Cal Thomas and other Christians should understand that they, too, have rejected certain claims to god's existance for this basic reason - the evidence is not convincing. For example, it's not that there is good evidence to support the claims of Islam but the evidence for Christianity just happens to be better. No - there is no evidence to support the claims of Islam which is why Christians are free to reject it. Atheists view the evidence supporting Christianity in the same light.

Finally, Mr. Thomas and other Christians - if they truly believe in eternal life (both heavenly and hellish) - should recognize that hell is not only for the atheist who has consciously rejected the claims of Christianity. It's also reserved for those who were raised to believe other religious claims; those who have concluded, after careful analysis, that an alternative religion makes more sense; and those who have never even heard of Jesus. Of course the Christian beleives that all of these people *deserve* eternal hell, and this from their loving god.

Candide wrote: "The more you hear Cal Thomas the more you know you are in the presence of an ass."
I thought blogs were a place to express opinions and logical thoughts not a place for childish namecalling.

If the Bible is not true, then what was/is its purpose?

What if there is a real true God that is offended and 'disrespected' by the claims and descriptions in the Old Testament?

What if the Old Testament and New Testament actions were inappropriately co-mingled in the writings?

But people, in general, like the concepts in the Bible. So if the position is that the Bible is not accurate then there will have to be something to replace it.

I would also offer that since only a third of the world's population is Christian, were Hell to exist, Cal Thomas has a 66% chance of being wrong and burning in Hell.

Given that he probably doesn't include all forms of Christianity in his "wager terms", his opportunity to fry for all eternity is certainly much more probable.

Mr Thomas' problem is he doesn't really believe in God himself. He emotionally needs for everyone to validate what he says he believes by agreeing with him. If he really believed then he wouldn't need other to believe. He's a missionary like the Mormons and Jehovah's wittnesses crying out believe so I can be right.

Mr Thomas, it doesn't matter to those who themselves believe in God that anyone else believes. There's no need to sort people like grades of hogs at the market. If you believe then go on to heaven and let the rest go to hell.

Could the fellow who says the big money goes to those who lead others to hell be your problem? Are you trying to get others to follow you? Where are you going? Does money have anything at all to do with what you believe? Did money have anything at all to do with those who told you to believe what you say you believe? Is hell a gold mine? Could that be king Solomon's mine? Has king Solomon's mine been found yet? Anything else been found?

ME: DI puts it 'under God'? gotta link? Interesting that the Constitution explicitly prohibits a 'religious test' for qualification for public office in the US. The 1st amendment also has an interesting take on religion.

A wager? Heaven on "His" terms? Where am I supposed to go to discover these terms? Am I assume to that there is a "True Set" of terms to which I should adhere. Because truly, I am confused. So many people who actually believe in a God can't seem to agree on those terms.

To consider a "God" who requires "Terms" of his creations, requires a "God" with an ego. And any "God" who requires worship as admission is a prideful "God".

And we all know that Pride is a Sin, hence God vanishes in a Puff of Paradox.

Phew! Praise be to allah.

Isn't it ironic that the believers will only know if they're right and the non-believers will only know if they're wrong?

Mr. Thomas,

It has been some time since I've seen so many fallacious arguments in such a short article.

Non-belief in Vogue? Considering 90% of the population in this country are believers, and more people would sooner vote for a homosexual or a Muslim nowadays than an atheist (according to a recent poll)one could hardly say so with a straight face. Another poll recently released confirmed this, by showing that more people would be in favor of their child marrying a Muslim or someone of another race than an atheist. While it's obvious that excellent progress has been made against bigotry, the fact is that being prejudiced against atheists is one of the few socially acceptable injustices left to the general public.

Perhaps what you are referring to being "in vogue" is the recent public outcry by atheists whom are tired of being marginalized and disrespected simply because of their lack of belief. Books about non-belief are being written and snatched from bookshelves more quickly of late than anyone ever imagined. This has caused a public dialog about lack of faith, and this can do the public good.

Perhaps I'm merely being intellectually lazy, but it strikes me that, according to your logic, it must take more faith for you not to believe in Allah than to believe in Jesus Christ. Incidentally, this is the reason your "wager" (first brought up by Blaise Pascal) is invalid. In believing in Jesus Christ as your savior, you hedge your bet that you won't find yourself in eternal torment from one of the many, many other gods purported to exist.

You are right in that you do not have the power to bring anyone to God. I do feel the need to point out to you however, that if God has changed your life for the better, then perhaps it's time you re-examine your relationship with God. It seems you're not doing a very good job of listening when he instructs you to treat others as you would have them treat you.

Wiccan: I am not impressed woth your spelling.

Anonymous: Whichever one you are, define "believe in God" a little better. Here's a hint: it doesn't refer to merely believing that God exists. That's the thing that Westerners just don't seem to get, which is frustrating. You think you understand it, but reading stuff like this makes you sound like a second grader trying to join a discussion about critical discourse analysis.

Candide: Speaking of which, thanks so much for adding such an insightful and helpful comment to the discussion. Really. I salute you.

Davy S, I can smell the brimstone smoldering away for you. You had better call the 700 club and make a big pledge. Pledges are leagal and binding, a lawyer will call if you don't cough up.

Try http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul instead. It's free and will clear up any doubts you may have about why people call the 700 club and make pledges.

I mean, that is the problem with the "wager", isn't it? All those nasty gods who will do nasty things to you after you are dead, and no way to tell which one to appease. Luckily, dead people can't actually feel fire and brimstone.

Scientists know why snow flakes form the way they do, and it's not by chance.

How many gods do you believe in Cal? There are so many, it must be awfully hard to choose.

well, ive learned that you can say alot to an atheist but it seems their achilles heel is an accusation of intellectual laziness.
interesting

O.K> - why do athiests rebut Cal?? Because Cal and his ilk have done a good job until now at keeping non-believers in the closet. I think there will be a black lesbian president before there will be an out of the closet athiest president.

I have never believed because religion has never made sense. So many gods, so many contradictions. Take one simple premise of christians - god answers prayers. You can find testimonials on the web attesting to miracles. So - why does god hate amputees?? Not one case of a regrown limb although there must have been plenty of prayers. Further, how would god decide which prayers to answer?? Take the civil war. Both sides christian, plenty of praying on both sides - so how does big daddy in the sky make the call?? And now Iraq - How can those non-christians have been so deadly?? See? Does not compute.

If I ever find a need for mysticism and superstition, I'll take a native American system any day.Much more humane and close to the earth and all living things. Big plus, every bit as valid as the beliefs of the bible punchers.

This is Pascal's Wager not the atheist's wager. They are actually quite the opposite. The real atheist's wager is this:

"It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him."

It is surprising to see someone invoke Pascal's wager nowadays. That tired old argument has been toppled for over a century now.

Wayne, it's too late to get the nation from under God. The founding document, DI, put's it there. Arguing against it is agruing against America's foundation. God is innocent, does nothing overt, Lady Liberty, an abstraction. It's those who claim a patent on God that are the problem.

There is no way or reason to stop people from believing in God. What is missing is a damper on what believing in God will allow. The law has done that already but it's not being enforced. It allows children to be threatened with the greatest terror a human being could dream up, being set on fire to burn forever. That's just to mention one of several you will probably think of once you understand what religion and not God is all about. I believe the proper word to describe the process is extortion.

We don't have an "on ouji" blog. Why not? Because people who have faith in ouji aren't torturing children? Religion deserves the same respect fortune tellers, palm readers, witch doctors, the like get. Believe me, I respect religion jsut as much as any of them. Sorry, didn't mean to slight astrologers. Reviewed your horoscope reading recently? You may be in for something big.

CAL THOMAS: "But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences."

So glad you agree.

Cal:

The athiests you know must be very kind and understanding. You believe they are intellectually lazy, lack a basis for formulating any moral belief and have placed a bad bet on the future. You state this publicly and yet they still speak to you.

Their flaws can all be solved in a minute if they adopt your beliefs. The alternative is that they will be punished for eternity for not believing what you believe.

I'm curious. Who made a decision to provide you a platform to publish such drivel?

Sander

The more you hear Cal Thomas the more you know you are in the presence of an ass.

MARK EATON: "Cal is right, you will never be convinced by information alone. No one ever is. Only those who listen with their heart can hear from God."

Do you know who James Randi is? He's a former professional magician who exposes fakery by people claiming paranormal powers.

When their alleged powers fail to work under controlled conditions, they often complain that the powers won't work with skeptics present.

To say that God can only be perceived by people who believe is a pretty good approximation to not existing.

I thank God for people like Cal Thomas. A person who is not afraid to say what he feels and believes. A person who is not afraid to put his name and reputation on the line. Unlike a few of you posting here (anonymously).

It is quite humorous that in every way, what Cal Thomas has said about atheists is the same thing you are saying about him. So perhaps, you are all atheists.

If you are so confident in your unbelief, why challenge Cal Thomas at all? Why not just sit back and ignore him? Because, you cannot. You feel the overwelling compulsion to prove him wrong. To shut him up. To silence him. Just as you feel the overwelling compulsion to silence the Gospel, the Bible, and all people who speak about God.

Do you realize in doing so that you actually fulfill part of the Bible? Perhaps you do not. It is Romans 1:18b "men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness".

You can suppress all of us, but you cannot fool us or fool God. We know the truth. You have to work so hard to prove that there is not a God, because deep down you feel that there is one. You shake your fist in the face of God and then call us hypocrites. You are one also.

Why do it? Why try so hard? What convinces you that you are right? It is the lack of evidence?

Cal is right, you will never be convinced by information alone. No one ever is. Only those who listen with their heart can hear from God. He speaks to all, including you. You need to listen. Not with the world blaring around you. But in the quiet, in the stillness. Listen. He is there.

It takes little faith to believe in God if it is socially coerced and an outright obligation if one runs for public office. By reciting creeds and affirming majority views, one is free from defending any independent views or confronting the hostility of conformists. The least courageous belief is that which in response to the supposed reward of eternal bliss. How any of this makes people better is unclear. Does the US Bible Belt have lower homicide rates than Tokyo or Stockholm? Do Americans give more charity per GDP than the secular Europeans?

Atheism sounds a lot like libertarianism. Don't tell me to believe in God = Don't step on my rights. Libertarianism is spouted as a personal philosophy, but would it function as a basis for group society? Perhaps the people need our opiate, just as we need our democracy.

"You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance."

Real quick.

Do you honestly believe that each snowflake is actually designed by God?

That there is not a scientific way of explaining how a snowflake forms -- a supernatural agent has to be involved?

Snowflakes are not formed by "pure chance"... that'd almost be like arguing, "So you're saying that I throw an apple in the air, and it falls to the ground EVERY TIME by pure chance?"

No, most clearly is not pure chance.

Pascal's wager seems a reasonable to me if there was only one religion, Christianity. But what if Islam or Hinduism is correct way? Should I place my bet on roulette or craps? Perhaps croupier God considers all gambles equivalent, he just wants you to plunk your soul down.

Pascal's Wager is painfully silly. For example, consider this list of 5 different Gods.

1. Spider-God
2. Two Gods
3. Rationalist God
4. Sock God
5. Christian God

Now repeat Pascal's Wager with the reward being an infinite paradise for eternity for each case, the punishment being an infinite torture for eternity for each case, for the following "tests":

1. Treat spiders well, paradise, kill them? torture
2. The only thing that pisses these 2 off is if you call them One god. (all monotheists go to hell, everyone else is ok).
3. Only people who believe things for good reasons are rewarded.
4. Only people who wear socks every day go to heaven.
5. Only people who believe that a guy died and then came back to life for a little bit goes to heaven.

Are you seriously going to smash that spider? Is it worth possibly spending eternity in torture? It turns out that a Christian is in a worse position than an atheist in 2 out of the 5 possibilities that I listed; Christians are in a better position in only 1 of the 5 possibilities.

THAT is why Pascal's Wager is unimpressive. You can argue for ANY belief or behavior of ANY kind as long as you ignore all other possible gods/punishers.

Cal Thomas does not understand the world around him well enough to qualify as a panelist.
Bob Davies

Good post, Ashley. I'd like to expand a bit on this part:
"Morality stems from empathy and our nature as social animals."

If you doubt this, read "Our Inner Ape" by Frans de Waal. He's a Dutch scientist who spent much time at the Yerkes Primate Center, and his observations of the chimps and bonobos speak to the statement above. Not only do they show empathy to one another, but to other animals, as well. He tells the story of a bird that flies into something in the chimp enclosure and is stunned. One of the chimps picks up the bird and cradles it protectively. She tosses it gently into the air, but it flutters back to the ground. She then climbs to the top of a tree, gently stretches the wings of the bird out as they would be in flight, and sails it into the air. The bird glides to another tree, recovers, and flies away.

This chimp recognized that there was something wrong with the bird, cared, recognized that its needs and its place in the world were different from her own, and tried to do something about it. This is the very definition of empathy.

What a good Christian she was!

ME, insisting that America be "under God" will only insure that we will never be "one nation".

PS one nation under God. NOT one nation under religion!

Atheists are betting there is no God? Could they be betting there is no Devil instead? Is it God or Devil that wants people in hell? However will the Devil get the most people in hell?

The Bible? Interpretation 1501, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul says the Bible is the word of the Devil. God does not need trickery, killing firstborn sons or anything of the sort. It's the Devil that must resort to that.

Can the Devil keep a candle burning for 9 days? According to the religious authorities, Baptists being just one of many, the Devil is going to keep atheists burning for all eternity. Why? They don't believe in the Devil. What is this world coming to? Could it be God?

But what if I believe in the wrong God and I go to hell or some form of it anyway? Or what if there is a God and there is no afterlife? I don't see why God would be obliged to give us one. Or what if God just plain hates us? Can anyone prove these things aren't true? If so then I will believe but if not then I won't waste my time living life according to some made up fatuous Bronze Age myth.

"If information were sufficient to make a believer out of an atheist, then all would believe."

Certainly as solid an argument against prosteletyzing and missionary activity as I've ever heard.

Dear "Dependant" (sic)

You write: "Atheism is foolishness. It is the unplugging of the mind to justify one's sinful actions."

By the nature of your post, I wager that your name is taken from what you represent to your parents according to the IRS. By the merit of your post, I would guess that you will be able to provide this financial benefit to your ma and pa for about 6 or 7 more years, unless you choose to attend college on their dime.

Atheism is foolishness. It is the unplugging of the mind to justify one's sinful actions.

Dependant

I knew when I saw the Cal Thomas byline, that we'd be treated to the most simplistic and inane arguments ever offered by an On Faith columnist. Thanks for not disappointing, Mr. Thomas!

My favorite part is the dichotomy between his first paragraph - "why do the mean atheists reject the skydaddy, he just wants to love us and kiss us and give us adorable ducklings for ever 'n ever??" - and his Pascal's wager paragraph - "stupid atheists are going to hell hell hell!!!" In other words, "Gawd loves us and you better believe it or he'll torture you forever!!!!"

Mr. Thomas, your assertions about atheist ethics are ridiculous. Ethics and morality precede religion, and they certainly precede your particular brand of god. Morality stems from empathy and our nature as social animals.

Please provide some evidence that it takes more faith to not believe in (insert the goddess of your choice) than to believe in her.

Regarding snowflakes, is it your position that a god personally designs each and every one? I assume it must be since you ignore the scientific literature on the physics of snowflakes and since you don't seem to think chance is involved in their formation.

Anyone who invests any real thought into Pascal's Wager knows that it is a joke of an argument. I could point out dozens of flaws, but I'll restrict myself to just one here. Let's say Mr. Thomas' conception of his god is exactly right except for one thing: his god is a big fat liar, and actually sends all the people Mr. Thomas believes are blessed to hell, and all the damned to heaven. In that case, you're better off being an atheist.

This scenario is every bit as likely as any Christian conception, which is to say they both have exactly the same amount of evidence to support them: none.

Mr. Thomas

I would like to address, in a serious way, why some of your comments come across as arrogant and condenscending. Perhaps you don't mean to be that way, perhaps you don't care, but perhaps you should have the information.

I must say that I had to smile at Candide's post since she reflects a more personal reaction to your tone.

My problem with all of this "Creator" and "Designer" stuff does not start with dismissal of the notion of a Creator or Designer, but with dismissal of the notion that you -- or any other representatives of religions and creeds on this earth -- know who the Creator or Designer is.

If we get down to basics, even for those accepting the Big Bang or variations thereof, the unanswered questions include the standard: what came before and why, and who or what person/force is responsible? If one chooses to call that person/force GOD, that is fine, but calling it a "force" is just as valid.

The point is we do not know and there appears to be no way to find out.

In this circumstance, one can take two approaches: (i) admit that one does not know and continue to search, or (ii) believe something else -- i.e., that a particular belief system represents the answer. Many people have chosen option ii and become adherents of one religion or another purporting to be the final truth. Of course, the prevalence of so many different unproved and unprovable answers speaks to the probability that authentic answers have been found.

It does seem reasonable, however, to say that even if there is a Creator or Designer, there is nothing other than "faith" to say your religion or that of Ahmadinejad, or Saddam Hussein, or some Indian in Calcutta, or a nun in France, or whatever, has discovered who or what that Creator or Designer is.

But, it is okay for you, on the basis of faith to believe what you believe. It does not make you better or lesser than anyone else. This is why your efforts to demean those who do not believe what you believe, come across as arrogant.

You write: "I wonder about the question. Why is it “in vogue” to disbelieve in a Creator of the universe, who loves us and wants to have a relationship with us and not “in vogue” to believe?"

Well, actually, it is quite logical to disbelieve in the absence of evidence. It may appear to you to be logical to believe that the Creator of the Universe loves you, but it is equally logical to conclude that the Creator (whatever or whoever it is) doesn't really care at all for, after all, you will die and depending on which version of faith you have, either lie in suspension for some judgment day, or come back as some other creature, or perhaps find yourself in some version of heaven with some unspecified number of virgins.

Why should it be relevant that an aetheist or a theist tells you of his/her belief or non-belief? In fact, isn't it precisely the problem that people who believe in some creed or sect, feel compelled to proclaim it in public and to impose it on others? For example, your comment about those who are pro-life is condescending. It may well be that someone who is pro-choice has the better logic - for treating a living person's right to determine what she will do with her body and whether she wants to have a child, is respectful of a personal decision and not imposing one's views on another person.

You are free to believe in a pro-life stance, but what moral force or authority gives you the right to impose that on another person as a matter of fiat? Surely, you have the right to try to persuade, but not the right to coerce compliance with your views.

You write "That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please."

Well, actually, we have secular laws that guide our conduct, so you are factually incorrect. Many people have written about how so-called "word-of-God" holy books actually call for killing, maiming, torturing and disrespecting other human beings. I don't have to repeat those here, but if your so-called "Author of life" sanctions death, gouging eyes, lopping off hands, stoning, etc., where do you get off talking about others not having a base for taking any particular position?

You write: "In conversing with an atheist, it is important to understand that such a person will never be brought to faith by information alone, because the same information is available to everyone. If information were sufficient to make a believer out of an atheist, then all would believe."

Actually, the truth is there is no "information" -- only faith. If there is information, please say what it is and explain why, if there is information, there are so many religions. Why should anyone believe your particular version?

You then write: "It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance."

Well, I think I've addressed this above. One does not have to dismiss entirely the notion of some force or person -- even God -- as a Creator or Designer to come to the entirely intellectual conclusion that your version of who that God or Creator is, "has an inadequate base for being so" to use your own words.

The basic point is that yes, somehow, the universe we know came to be. But how or why that happened, we do not KNOW. You do not know and I do not know. One thing I know and you know too is that other than faith - based on no evidence whatsoever - except a book written by men well after the coming into being of the universe - you believe that you have found the word of God.

I know, and you know too, that this great discovery by you, will not change the design or course of the universe one iota.

You then write: "An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right. If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences."

Well, this is true enough but this is where you become condescending and appear foolish because you do not realize that this actually argues against your position. Do you not recognize that you too are "wagering" that you are right in picking the concept of God you have chosen? What if you are wrong and it is not Jesus, or Allah, or Krishna, or Vishnu, or Buddha, or any other choice known to us? Would the aetheist then not be better off in the eyes of whoever GOD might be for having the logic and wisdom not to choose blindly a false God based on lack of evidence whereas you will be deemed a fool for having believed mumbo jumbo without question? After all, every one of these religions cannot be right about being the true path to God -- if there are, then we have multiple Gods, or perhaps one God appearing in many forms to different people -- or perhaps they are all wrong and no one really knows the answer.

>

This is where you appear arrogant. Why should you think that ANYONE should be given the power to persuade others of the unprovable? Why, in particular, should YOU be given such power? What distinguishes you, other than blind faith?

If having faith makes you feel better, then please, feel better and go about your business. However, don't be condescending and treat those who choose some other religion, or choose not to accept your position for which there is no base, as being lesser beings than you.

After all, if you really have faith, then you must believe that if you have found the right God then he/she will not be too happy with your arrogance and condescension. After all, you could lie in a trapped state for thousands of years waiting to be rescued by a God who is pretty irritated at the way you have behaved.

Good luck.

"It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy."

This, along with most of the rest of what Cal Thomas just wrote, is quite possibly one of the simplistic and childish things I have read this year. Other commenters above have already said most of what needs to be said. I still marvel that the Washington Post lets this kind of drivel into press.

Cal,
You say that that atheists are wagering their immortal souls by betting that there is no "God".

Christians are making an equally significant wager. If their Christian beliefs, prayers, rituals, and so on turn out to have been mumbo-jumbo because no "God" exists, they have wasted their lives and ruined their minds, exactly as if they had spent the same amount of time watching TV reruns.

They could have better spent their "Christian time" doing good for themselves and others.

Not to mention that they won't be disappointed when they "wake up dead" and there's nothing there, including consciousness.

WOW! I was shocked that Cal Thomas would write something like this, not because of the view he espouses, but because of the utter and complete ignorance of atheism he displayed and the simplistic argument he regurgitated. He basically put forth Pascal's wager as if he thought it was a legitimate argument.

So does Cal Thomas avoid the woods on the off chance that Bigfoot really exists? Does he avoid the dark just in case he is wrong about the existence of the Boogieman? Would he argue that one should pay homage to Allah just in case the Muslims have it right? No he doesn't. Should an atheist avoid the truth about god on the off chance a god exists? No. It would be just as simplistic as the examples I mentioned.

Would Pascal's wager work even if one were simplistic enough to buy it? No. My understanding of the Bible is that salvation requires true belief, not lip service just in case. Saying you believe something and REALLY believing something are not the same. It would just generate one more hypocrite and the last thing christianity needs is yet another hypocrite.

There is no god Cal. I'd bet my life on it. You go on and hedge your bet with lip service if you want. But it sounds to me like the person you are most trying to convince is yourself.

What has God done in your life, Cal? Shall we blame him for your being a pompous, self-righteous ass?

No atheist has an answer to Gordon Clark.

Men like Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Clark, especially, have demolished atheism years ago. I have yet to see the atheist answer to the works of Gordon Clark.

http://trinityfoundation.org

As Bahnsen demonstrated in his debate with Gordon Stein, the atheistic worldview cannot account for the preconditions needed for any rational discourse.

Gordon Clark said it this way:

Every statement, even if particular, depends on the law of contradiction. Truth and error are incompatible. If all marhoucals are rhinosaps, there cannot be a single marhoucal that is not a rhinosap. We do not have to inspect the infinite number of the latter in order to assure ourselves that none can be found. Given the premise, we do not need to examine even one. That O ab cannot be deduced from A ab is a necessity of logic. And if our minds are not so constructed, we can never distinguish truth from error. But empiricism furnishes no necessity, no universality, no all, no none.

Indeed, it furnishes no some either. Whether the logical form be universal or particular, the proposition must have a subject term. All dogs are vertebrates; some dogs are black. Suppose now that the subject term, dogs, had five meanings. This is not unusual for English words. Consult Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. Look up the words fast, curb, domestic, race, land-not to mention love, emotion, grace, religion, and virtue. Each one will have possibly four, five and sometimes six different meanings. This frequently introduces considerable ambiguity, with the result that an argument, apparently logical, is actually fallacious. The fallacy can be avoided, sometimes with a bit of trouble, by specifying meaning one, meaning two, and meaning three. But there is a deeper problem. Suppose a given word has an infinite number of meanings. The word fast would then mean every word in the dictionary from the article “a” to “zyzzogetan,” plus an unimaginable greater number. “Fast fast fast fast” would mean, “Today is last Tuesday” and “Washington discovered America in 1066.” That is to say, a word that means everything means nothing.

***** But this which is so obvious could not be deduced from any finite number of observations. It is a principle which must be accepted even before the term “observation” could be given any meaning at all. Therefore the use of any single word in an intelligible sentence depends on an a priori principle. *****

No blank mind could ever discover this principle. One could phrase the principle as “a word, to mean something, must also not mean something”; or, “if a word means everything, it means nothing.” Like the law of contradiction, it is a way of maintaining the distinction between truth and falsehood. And this distinction is the basic element in the image of God.

____

in fact, scientists themselves have seen the problem:

Albert Einstein, for example, speaking of our knowledge of the universe, said: "We know nothing about it at all . . .. The real nature of things, that we shall never know, never."

The British philosopher Karl Popper wrote: "We know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses... In science there is no knowledge, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth."

Popper went on to say: "It can even be shown that all [scientific] theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero."

Paul Feyerabend, in his book Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, writes:

"On closer analysis we even find that science knows no ‘bare facts’ at all but that the ‘facts’ that enter our knowledge are already viewed in a certain way and are, therefore, essentially ideational. This being the case, the history of science will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as the ideas it contains, and these ideas in turn will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as are the minds of those that invented them."

Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of Christianity, stated it this way:

"All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based."

___

Bottom line: All scientific experiments commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

If you want to give up sanity, become an atheist.

WICCAN says: Pascal's Wager again. I am not an atheist, but I cannot understand why I must love a "God" because if I don't "He" will hurt me. I call this the "abusive boyfriend" brand of theology, and I am not impressed woth its reasoning.

Hi, Wiccan,

I too am a believer, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's a great descriptive phrase: "the 'abusive boyfired' brand of theology".

I've read that Pascal, who was a very great mathematician and was particularly interested in probability, thought up this argument as an exercise in probabilistic thinking -- consider the odds sort of thinking. (Not my cup of tea.)

Ann O.

Cal Thomas is a well-known, distinguished expert in matters religious. That's why the Post invited him to be a panelist. LOL! Of course the real reason he was invited is that he enjoys (and boy does he enjoy it) a modicum of "fame" (notoriety), which is the Post's essential criterion for issuing panelist invitations. The Post should invite me to be a panelist on quantum physics - I'd do a lot better than Cal does on religion.

*I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please*

An "inadequate base" for being so-called pro-life?! Really? Simple decency and love for one's fellow human being isn't an adequate base for being anti-abortion? Does one *really* have to believe that some omnipotent being created man in order to feel that all creatures, even the unborn, have intrinsic value?

And NO, Mr. Thomas, one DOESN'T have to believe in divine creation in order to see the need to treat each other decently. One only needs to be willing to consider the feelings of another. One doesn't need to bow down to some big ol' spankin' daddy in order to see that beating someone, stealing their property, or deliberately hurting their feelings is cruel and unproductive. If you think about it, athiests behave morally because we think it's the right thing to do. Christians do so because "god" says they should. (yes, I know it's a generalization, but HE started it!)

You, Mr. Thomas, must have nothing but contempt for those atheists you allege to converse with if you think that, without your god, atheists have no reason to behave morally.

Cal Thomas:

I sense in your comments why it is that so many atheists respond the way they do. Frankly, as a Christian, I find your comments shallow, judgmental and unchristian.

You say: “I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please.”

***Really? Your claim is that unless one believes in God, they have no basis upon which to reverence life and creation. This is astounding to me. It shows a disturbingly uncharitable and judgmental chauvinism.

You say: “It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance.”

****Once again I find your comments condescending and judgmental, not to mention intellectually lazy, the same claim you make against atheists. You may find more comfort in believing in a Designer than not, but this decision of yours (and mine), is one of faith, not rigorous logic. The arguments for a Designer are the same as those for a first cause and such arguments are at best intellectually lazy. If God requires no cause, neither does the universe. It’s that easy to dismiss the first cause argument. Is your position: God can exist by chance but not the universe? Surely your belief rests upon something more substantial than that?

****As regards the wager, you have it only half right. It might just be that you and I, as believers, have it all wrong and have spent our lifetimes worshiping an idol. The risk in belief and unbelief is equally weighty.

You say: “I do not have the power to persuade anyone that God is, but I can demonstrate the difference He has made in my life and relationships – including with atheists – and pray that the One who brought me to belief will do so with them.”

****As Christians, I believe we are called to a far higher standard than your comments would indicate you're comfortable with. Condescending, judgmental and arrogant claims to the supremacy of ones faith or worldview seem sorely lacking in the love and charity that Jesus called us to display, even toward our enemies.

I can assure you Mr. Thomas that you do not speak for me.

Cal said: " I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please"

This is completely bogus, and really offensive. Ethics are not the sole province of religion. I am a non-believer, but I don't go around killing, stealing, failing to help those in need, or living a completely hedonistic lifestyle. I don't need a big daddy in the sky waiting to reward or punish me, in order to be "good."

The foundation of morality - the golden rule - is not solely Biblical, but was expressed in many non-Christian human philosophies. It comes, in fact, from our evolution. We are social animals, and societies (both animal and human) require "rules." Without them, there is anarchy, and that is the antithesis of society.

Furthermore, I'll bet you cherry-pick those rules, just like every other Christian I've ever met. Ever participated in a public stoning of adulterers? Do you allow your wife (assuming you have one) to speak in church? Did she ever go there while menstruating?

You are also incorrect in your assumption that evolution is "accidental." It most certainly is not. While it isn't guided by design or any sort of intelligence, it IS the result of natural selection, which is not at all the same as random chance.

Tertullian was not your average Church Father, perhaps one of the worst exemplars. He was a misogynist who eventually became a (heretical) Monatist, which I believe was a follower of the prophetesses Maximilla and Pricilla (wikipedia is no help here).

Chris,

Anony didn't pigeonhole -- he expressed one type of intellectual laziness which is more associated with faith. Contrast this with Mr. Thomas -- who indicated that by definition atheism is intellectually lazy.

It is certainly easy to be intellectually lazy in one's acceptance of *any* position.

Assume that God exists, and that there is a life after death. Why is the afterlife eternal? It seems to me that to balance out a finite life you'd have a finite afterlife - you'd only get so much time in Heaven or Hell because you only had a finite time on Earth being bad or good. Wanting an infinite afterlife is wishful thinking. Then what happens after your finite afterlife is up? Are you recycled, like a Hindu?

OK, so the woman who gave you a free palm reading at a party tells you you're cursed and will die within a month unless you pay her $50 to remove it. What's fifty bucks compared to your life?

The possibility of a big payoff one way or the other is not a reason to believe in something with long odds against.

Anony, It is also intellectually lazy to pigeon hole all beleivers the way you just did.

"But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences."

Pascal's Wager again. I am not an atheist, but I cannot understand why I must love a "God" because if I don't "He" will hurt me. I call this the "abusive boyfriend" brand of theology, and I am not impressed woth its reasoning.

HTML ate my puncutation above...

It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance.

There is nothing more intellectually lazy than to answer the question "Why is (some part of nature) the way it is" and answer "Some supernatural force we don't understand made it that way."

"But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences."

Or perhaps you are both wrong -- maybe there is some type of supreme being that is absolutely nothing like the one decribed in your Bible -- boy, won't both of you be surprised.

It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance.

There is nothing more intellectually lazy than to answer the question "Why is the way it is" and answer "Some supernatural force we don't understand made it that way."

The Church father Tertullian in the 3rd century said that the greatest joy of the people who go to heaven is the Schadenfreude towards those who burn in hell. Wonderful humanitarian concept, isn't it?

Did it ever occur to you, that this very dichotomy of heaven and hell, of absolute good vs. absolute evil is the fundamental source of this very evil? (As for you, I will have to go to hell.) Look at St. Bush and Iraq and the rest of world history, and you know what I mean.

Gerry

"It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy."

No, what is intellectually lazy is to accept without question whatever religious dogma is provided by your parents and assert that it represents 'the one true way' -- to never question the obvious inconsistencies and obvious fictions of your 'divine book' of choice -- and to throw scorn at those who don't reach the same conclusion.