An Atheist's Creed

Peter Jackson

I have some experience in this area. I had a brother who was quite intelligent and lead the class at school, who in his 20's became eventually, very anti-social, would not see a doctor or psychologist and in the end left home and lived on the street, got sick and died. There never was any violence against other people which I put down partly to the inbred values, mental habits, and because of the attitudes of society in those days any small indication of violence would be immediately noticed by everyone.

We were brought up in the 1930's in the Great Depression. One great value in those days strongly enforced by society, not the law, was to forbid any personal violence. Even teen-age boys were not allowed to fight and never, ever, hit a woman. I played hockey in winter and football in summer nearly every day after school and on weekends we played teams from other neighborhoods. All of this was organized by our selves - no parents involved. There never was any fighting. If you did any fighting you and your team were instantly disqualified and no one would play with you again. Also no one would associate with you.
Discipline and responsibility were important also. For example newspaper boxes on the street were open - just sheltered from the rain. Even though money was scarce and sometimes food also, there was little if any breakdown of law and order.

We pay a big price in society today because of our great permissiveness and lack of responsibility, discipline, good values, ideals and attitudes.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=affirmations

The Affirmations of Humanism:
A Statement of Principles

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

It's not a creed, but I suppose it could be used as such: http://byandlarge.net/scuttlebutt/what_atheists_believe_000601.html

It's not a creed, but I suppose it could be used as such: What atheists believe.

The events that took place at Va. Tech are horrible indeed. I offer a sermon on "Prayer and Tragedy" posted below.

My conclusion is this. We live in a fallen world in which God gives us some degree of choice. Being a Christian does not exempt us from unexpected tragedy as if we are someone special. Our faith in Jesus does not mean that he will make everything in our lives turn out just right so that we reach the American Dream. That is a santa clause view of God. In the midst of all sorts of tragedy and suffering, our minds will never be able to figure out exactly why. Best of all God is with us.

How else can I live with unexpected, previously undiagnosed, and in no way preventable changes inside my body that placed me on disability before reaching 50. If it were not for modern medicine, I'm certain that I'd be dead by now. So, if God predestined various parts of my brain to stop working or not work right (as has taken place), then is modern medicine standing in the way? No, that is dime store theology as well as stupid. Satan works through the deadly tragedies of life to pull us away from God. On the other hand, God is at work in both the valley experiences of life and in the mountain top ones to draw us closer to himself. Life is a battle. We live in a battle zone because we live in a world and society wrecked by sin.

Sometimes our own sin or the sin of others or just the overall death inflicting of sin as a whole is why horrible things take place. Not everything that happens to us is for our good. ( I would not have chosen any of the medical problems that I have nor could I have prevented them by better care of my health.) However, God is at work even in the face of the most hell like tragedy to help us through which may mean rebuilding a life quite different than what we lived before which mine is.

I still like what a seminary room mate said once is wrong "Too much sin, too much stupidity, too much dime store theology, and too many living in a fantasy world."

In Christ,

John M. Crowe, D.Min., APC
Incapacity Leave
Chair Committee on Disability Concerns
nccumcmentalhealth.org

On September 9, 2001, a sermon was preached from Psalm 139:1-6, 13-18. Psalm 139 contains King David's joyous reflections upon the truth that God knows. Throughout King David's obstacle filled life, he learned the security of living in relationship with God. David's Psalms express his certainty that God knew and understood the depths of his words. So, he poured them all out before God in times of tragedy, crisis, and when godless foes attacked him.

Two days after the preaching of the sermon on Psalm 139, the tragic events of 9/11 took place. People gathered together to pray. How comforting it is to know in times like those that God knows and understands the depths of our words when we pour them all out before Jesus in times of tragedy, and crisis.

According to Psalm 139, God knows the very depths of your soul. God knows what you are saying to him in prayer even better than you do. Isn't this what we are told in Romans 8:26 about the Holy Spirit helping us.26 "In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness.We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express."

As we focus on prayer, remember last year's national tragedy, and focus on the tragedies of our own or of others, I

Human tragedy cuts deep. It is very painful. The Bible says in Ephesians 6 that your real struggle with tragedy, suffering, and evil in the world is not a fight against people on earth. You are fighting against spiritual powers of evil that attack outwardly through others who yield themselves to evil attitudes and actions. You also fight against spiritual power of evil that attack your soul in hope of leading you into evil attitudes and actions. The strongest attacks upon your soul always come in times of great tragedy and crisis. These attacks can be overcome through prayer. You can do this by asking God daily to grant you wisdom and courage for the living of these days. Then, God's grace will save you from weak resignation to the evils you deplore.

Fulfilling the Bible's call to be angry and yet not sin is very difficult when you are in the middle of a painful crisis. Barnacles on a wooden ship are as bad for the ship as for anyone who knocked up against them for their cuts are painful. Some find their lives shipwrecked after such experiences with the barnacle like tragedies of life by becoming a barnacle themselves.

If you forever nurse the pain, you will never be free to love again. Also, if you do not feel the pain of your experience with the barnacle like tragedies of life, then you become numb and remain naive. Feeling the pain and giving it to God for his healing work as well as his dealing with those responsible in prayer is the biblical way to a better day. This is much healthier than feeding the pain and holding onto it as if that is somehow going to accomplish something. Not to forgive digs a dark and dreary day. However, to forgive brings about a better day.

To forgive means taking others off of your hook and placing them on God's hook. Such a prayerful response by God's free grace through Jesus Christ can make you a better person. I am convinced that a lot of people's lives' are shipwrecked in a crisis by their living in self-pity. Bitter self-pity, unfocused anger, loveless fears, and wounded pride will shipwreck you unless you stop and change your mind as well as your heart from the bondage of unforgivenessto freedom through forgiveness. Such freedom comes only after pouring your heart out completely to God in prayer.

Also, you can prayerfully refocus the energy of your anger. You can focus your energy to work toward making the world, your country, your state, your county, your schools (shooting), your community (political assassination, racism), your families (spouse abuse & child abuse), and your hearts free from the sins that leads to inflicting terror into people's lives.

Very often in times of tragedy, you feel abandoned by God. You may find it difficult to believe that with God's help, your life can be rebuilt. Yet, the good news of rebuilding with God's help is the Bible's message for you today.

It is easy to sail along life in your own strength and wisdom, when life is smooth sailing. However, no one's life is without tragedy. Disaster and heart-ache will inevitably hit you. There's sorrow by death. A woman dies, leaving her husband with three small children to raise. A car accident claims the life of a couple's only son or daughter. A senseless boating accident caused by someone' drunken and reckless condition takes the life of someone's fiancée just a few days before the wedding.

While some are the soul survivors of a departed spouse, others experience multiple losses in their life over a short time. In one three year period, a lady lost her father to cancer, her mother to senile dementia, her husband after 31 years of marriage, her talented son in an accident. Many were the nights that she went to bed hoping that she would never wake up. Because of her faith, she knew that she could no more take her life than the life of someone else. Through it all she never doubted God's love and mercy for her, yet she did not always feel his presence. She did however reach a point where she could no longer bear the pain of her losses. She prayed to God for help. He brought I Thessalonians 5:18 to her mind. It speaks of giving thanks in all things. It does not say give thanks only when your life is going right. Nothing in her life changed outwardly, but she did gain a heart for gratitude that changed her. Truly, without her faith, she would either be a miserable person or dead. The hymn "I need the every hour" probably became very dear to her.

Neither the book of Isaiah nor the rest of the Bible make any claims that rebuilding is easy. No, rebuilding after any tragedy or crisis in our lives is tough and takes time. Isaiah and the Bible does say that with God's help through prayer whatever rebuilding needs doing will be done by God's grace and power.

God still controls the world, even your world with unexplainable suffering. Your mind can neither contain nor control all knowledge. The important truth is that God can be trusted in the worst of circumstances as well as in the best. Thus, living by faith means far more than simply accepting suffering as a part of life.Living by faith means growing in your relationship with God, knowing his care and love more deeply as you trust God more thoroughly in prayer.

The author of "It Is Well WithMy Soul" must have been a great person of prayer to have written this hymn after such a personal family tragedy.

As you intercede for those most directly impacted by 9/11 and other tragedies, pray that each one will experience the reality of God knowing and understanding the intensity of their souls.

As you intercede for those most directly impacted by 9/11 and other tragedies, pray that each one will see their fight is not against other human beings, but against the spiritual attacks upon their souls in hope of leading them into evil attitudes and actions.

* Pray for God to help them fulfill the Bible's call to be angry and yet not sin.

* Pray for people to not nurse the pain forever, but to feel the pain and give it to God in prayer for his healing work.

* Pray for the healing of those whose lives are already or almost shipwrecked by bitter self-pity, unfocused anger, loveless fears, and wounded pride.

* Pray for people to refocus the energy of their anger toward making their country, state, county, community, workplaces, schools, churches, marriages, families, and hearts free from the sins that leads to inflicting terror into people's lives.

* Pray for people to believe and keep believing that with God's help, their life can be rebuilt

* Pray for others to know that God still controls the world, even their world with unexplainable suffering. Pray that they may trust God in the worst of circumstances as well as in the best.

Prayer

God our hope and refuge, we confess that anger and hatred have held on to us. Healing has begun, but loss is still real. We are not in control. We don't like being vulnerable. We still want security or the illusion of it. We still want our enemies to be annihilated and for our lives to return to safety and Shalom. Forgive us and heal us. Raise us to new life. Strengthen us in the way of compassion and justice. Fix our faith on you so we know that nothing can separate us from you, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Reprinted from Candles in the Dark, Flames for the Future: Preaching and Poetry in Times for Crisis, ed. David Randolph (Albany, CA: New Way Media, 2003)

http://bachdevelopment.com/BACH7b.htm

Virginia Bain Allen

In terms of betrayal, I think we have far more legitimate grievances with god than he does with us. Of course, he may not have any legitimate grievances since he may not exist. And if that is the case, then we have no grievances either, so it's a wash.

If we are so rotten to the core, god should probably just destroy us. Perhaps he will. You would probably find that fulfilling. Or maybe you would like to set up a Christian government (we might already have such a government) so god won't destroy us. That way you and your Christian government could destroy us rotten ones, sparing the world and the chosen ones from god's wrath. That would be so considerate of you, though not so nice for me.

Here is my proposition; I dare god to destroy our rotten world. That is my choice. I guess I'm disobedient, though I don't see much difference in your definition of obedience and choice.

Ps. I think you misunderstand the Garden of Eden and Eve's misbehavior. Here is something I wrote earlier that might help you understand.

Although a serpent was reportedly responsible for Eve's (and the rest of man-kinds') downfall, it wasn't a snake at all, nor was an apple actually an apple. The serpent was a metaphor for wanger or Bludgin' Koala Basher in much the same way that the frog-prince and the princess’s golden balls are idiomatic for penis and testicles. Both tales are fertility stories. In addition, I don’t think Eve took a bite out of the apple, so much as nibbled that most tender of fruit. Did she gain knowledge of good and evil? Perhaps. But I do know what Adam gained; not so much knowledge as a raging woody. So it goes.

*** "Moreover, I think that distinctions between knowing something to be true
*** and merely believing it to be true are silly, since knowledge is a kind of belief
*** (a belief about what is true). There is nothing but false humility in the
*** neologism "merely belief." "Mere belief" is as epistemically binding as knowledge."
*** - MAVADDAT

The distinction is critical to someone like Dirty Harry when he points his gun at the downed bank robber contemplating a move for his own weapon and says, "I can't remember if I fired five or six shots. So you have to ask yourself, punk, do you feel lucky? When Harry drops the hammer on an empty chamber, he knew he would not be losing his pension over a senseless murder.

Knowledge is not a belief about what is true, it is evidence of what is true.

God, being in control of the universe, can prevent suffering whenever He sees fit, but wherever free will exists, consequences of choice must also exist. We refuse to remember that we are the ones who betrayed God, not vice versa. We are the ones who listened to the lies of the evil one in the Garden of Eden. We chose to mistrust the heart of God. In breaking the one command He gave us, we set in motion a life of breaking His commands.

Being able to discipline oneself for the benefit of others is the very essence of maturity. Shantideva said, “All the joy the world contains, Has come through wishing happiness for others. All the misery the world contains, Has come through wanting pleasure for oneself (at the expense of others).” How we spend our time shapes who we are, and how we assemble the persons we are is cause for social concern. What examples are adults, entrusted with the awesome responsibility for their care, to the rapidly maturing next generation who will impact our society positively or negatively depending on to what we expose them. We have experienced the natural progression of an unguarded nation towards neglect, corruption and the loss of idealism. When awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, the Dalai Lama said in his lecture, “…For if we each selfishly pursue only what we believe to be in our own interest, without caring about the needs of others, we end up harming not only others but also ourselves…” One does not have far to look to witness the chaos and devastation caused in our society due to our turning away as a nation from our Judeo-Christian roots. Our culture is rotting. Just listen to the lyrics of popular songs, pick up a book or magazine, view a movie or television show. Pay attention to the violence permeating our communities, the disrespect and lack of courtesy displayed by all, judicial tyranny, and the neglect of and abuse directed at women. (Could this be a direct result of pornography? Duh!) Then consider that perhaps we are allowing the wrong input in our lives and the lives of those who have been entrusted to our care. After all, we are raising our next generation of leaders!!! Words like diversity, pluralism and tolerance have anesthetized us to the reality of good and evil. Tolerance is the cultivation of an attitude of indifference to things we see happening around us. In the name of peace, we tolerate evil. In the name of tolerance, we accept sin and call it freedom of speech or freedom of sexual persuasion. Albert Einstein once said, “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” We dare not stand up for what we believe for fear of being labeled intolerant. Tolerance sees your sin and embraces it. Grace sees your sin and hands you over to Christ's healing embrace.

God cannot make us choose to abide with Him. For now, God, tormented, waits upon us through one holocaust after another. satan’s best deception is its general success in concealing its own reality from the human mind. Most people live in such naivete regarding evil. What will it take for us to take evil seriously? satan lashes out on the earth like a madman, setting people against each other all over the globe. it devastates many lives through starvation, alcoholism, substance abuse and pornography. satan is at work in the holocaust of violent, disrespecting aborting of babies; narcissism; materialism; elitism; and the self-absorption we wallow in when we do not ensure our next generation is brought up in a culture with enriching, wholesome values. Failing to label evil evil misleads us about the world in which we live and our necessity for God’s grace, the only real answer and hope for any of us. If you are not living in touch with God, it is easy to blame Him or pass judgment on Him. We experience suffering and temptation because mankind chose to follow satan. Lurking in the heart of man, evil will erupt when it is permitted to act unimpeded.

Entrusted with the awesome responsibility of my children’s care, I am concerned about how their generation is being raised, to what they are being exposed, and the examples they have in their lives. Are they being enriched in mind, spirit and character? They all need highly esteemed mentors to guide them along the path to liberty. If we don’t stand for something, we will fall for anything. “The humblest citizen of all the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of Error,” - William Jennings Bryan. Hopefully, seeking our own pleasure is not the measure of our lives. We are called to be intolerant in love. Why not live as Philippians 4:8 instructs us to: Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. God is reaching out to rescue us … God made nature to sing His praises, to declare His glory and to love Him. He made humans with the ability to choose. He could have ordered our obedience; instead, he calls for our heart.

But what about Bill? Bill O'Reilly has established himself as one of the nation's top media personalities. O'Reilly’s influence and power derive from being able to throw a double punch — the most-watched cable TV host and a widely syndicated radio host. His twist: He covers world events from a working-class populist perspective. Every week he finds occasions to agree with something a prominent Democratic politician has said, although O’Reilly has also remarked that “the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the far left.” NewsMax Top 25 Radio Hosts rates Bill O’Reilly as America’s second most influential in America.

I remember SPDs.

Andrea - The Bible is the source of all humour? Yikes.

It can be a very humorous source, especially the more gruesome parts. Kind of like Punch and Judy. Also, George Carlin has mined it quite effectively, as others have noted. I remember George Carlin without a beard too. In fact, I think I have an old vinyl LP lying around here somewhere.

Oh Deb,

I remember Ringo in that role as well.

Andrea,

I'll give away my age a bit, and tell you that I remember seeing him on TV before he had ever even grown a beard.

Andrea,

So you're young enough to have watched Carlin as Mr. Conductor rather than Ringo Starr in that role, huh? :)

Thank you Deb.

I find that it is always good to put humor into everything. People ask me:

"Have you ever been serious?"
And I reply:
"Yea, once. And it wasn't that funny."

I laugh until I cry watching Carlin...I'm going to give away my age here, but I grew up watching him on Shining Time Station. He'll always be Mr. Conductor to me, even with that potty mouth. I'm still mourning the loss of Mitch Hedburg.

Russell:

You're so funny! I've always loved Carlin, he's one of the classics. Robin Williams has always been able to make me laugh until I can't breathe. And I'm still mourning the loss of Richard Jeni, whose comedy I absolutely loved. Another tragedy that might have been avoided perhaps...

Heck yeah the Bible is funny. I laugh my butt off everytime I read it. Then I go back to watching George Carlin.

I REALLY have to start remembering to use my name, because there is NO way that I want to be confused with that last anonymous poster!

Anon,

The Bible is the source of all humour? Yikes.

Although I respect her immensely, I don't necessarily agree with Susan's interpretation of Ingersoll. I think Ingersoll may have been importantly confused here. Hope for the dead makes little or no sense, even by her interpretation that death brings peace and grief is an act of the living.

Moreover, I think that distinctions between knowing something to be true and merely believing it to be true are silly, since knowledge is a kind of belief (a belief about what is true). There is nothing but false humility in the neologism "merely belief." "Mere belief" is as epistemically binding as knowledge.

Jihadist,

you said, " "Help for the living--Hope for the dead" said Ingersoll. I really love that. Now, that was truly a statement of faith made in faith and hope. And open for both believers and non-believers on life and death, and the afterlife for believers. "

Susan explained earlier that Ingersoll had no intention of "hope" meaning anything about the afterlife. So his statement, while being poignant, is really void of meaning in a heaven sense.

Susan Jacoby,

Ditto the compliments on finding the right words for a tragic event.

Maurie,

Absolutely hilarious bestiality is God's alone to judge. We would do well to avoid such strict language without first consulting the words of Jesus as recorded in the most holy Bible, which is the source and the sink of all humour. Bestiality humour is no exception.

P.S. Please notice that the "source and the sink" language is supposed parallel the "alpha and the omega" idiom. James Clerk Maxwell clarified the notion of a sink in his laws, and for that he will burn in hell. For a sink is God's alone to describe.

owen tuneap - That is a fascinating post. I like the comparison between biological evolution and the evolution of religion.

Biological evolution and cultural evolution (e.g. religion, cultural beliefs, technology, etc.) are very similar, except that each uses different mechanisms. Biological evolution relies on genes (e.g. DNA or RNA), whereas cultural evolution relies on memes (i.e. ideas. See wikipedia for more info). The difference is that with sexually reproducing organisms, genetic information is passed on vertically from one generation to another and so is limited by generation time. In contrast, cultural evolution tends to be much faster because it can be passed on horizontally (i.e. among group members or between groups) as well as vertically.

owen tuneap - I have some of my own new beliefs that I think are still evolving. For example, the possibility of cross-species marriage.

You might want to check out the South Park episode involving PETA and marriage among humans and pets. However, it is not for the squeamish as it involves some absolutely hilarious bestiality.

Hey Susan,
I know everyone has their debate caps firmly on here, but I just wanted to say I found Ingersoll's words very poignant, and thank you for sharing them.

Ms. Susan Jacoby,

What you quoted from Robert Green Ingersoll is beautiful. It encapsulate better than anything I have read as to how atheists, agnostics and/or freethinkers think of life and death.

I just wish more atheists, agnostics and freethinkers can write as beautifully and with such feeling as Ingersoll did on what they believe in.

"Help for the living--Hope for the dead" said Ingersoll. I really love that. Now, that was truly a statement of faith made in faith and hope. And open for both believers and non-believers on life and death, and the afterlife for believers.

Dear Maurie,

That is a fascinating post. I like the comparison between biological evolution and the evolution of religion.

I have some of my own new beliefs that I think are still evolving. For example, the possibility of cross-species marriage. It is a odd thought, but one that some religions hold to.

I would not participate in it myself, but would support the rights of someone else to observe it.

This could also have some evolutionary implications.

Just a thought...thanks for posting.

Dear Andrea,

I’m glad you liked it. At least I think you liked it.

As to your dialogue with Henry James on The Denial of Death, my feelings are more in line with Dylan Thomas’s Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night

"Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

Don Juan, in A Yacquie Way of Knowledge, once said, “One should make death one’s friend.” I personally think that’s going a little too far. Who wants death for a friend? Instead, I’d consider death more like an acquaintance with impact.

As to my own feelings about death, I know what death is; it’s a very bad experience from which one does not recover. As such, I’m totally against it, and frankly, I think it’s a raw deal. I’ve thought of getting a petition together, I’m just not sure who to send it to.

On a more serious note, in regards to Becker’s characterization of religion as "death-denying machines", my last paragraph to Anonymous in my previous post addressed the powerful reassurance that religion might provide for us mortals. For myself, there is no reassurance, since I don’t believe in an afterlife or reincarnation or Jesus or any god, for that matter. For that reason, I think it is incumbent on us to make the most of our life. There are no do-over’s. Even for believers, there is no assurance of life after death. You may have faith that there is, but it would be a cruel joke if there really wasn’t an afterlife. Of course, you wouldn’t know that you had missed out in living life to the fullest, since you would be dead and unaware that you no longer existed.

In terms of how religion or spiritual beliefs came into existence, I am an evolutionary biologist and I approach it from an evolutionary perspective. Before I explain myself further, I want to make one thing clear. I will not get into a debate with fundamentalists over the truth of evolution or whether evolutionary theory is antithetical to Christianity or the existence of god. I’ve done that before in previous threads in On Faith, and I’ve found that it is an exercise in futility. So if you expect me to respond to religious diatribes against evolution, or even what you personally may consider a reasonable discussion, I will not do it. If you want to have an honest discussion of what I propose within an evolutionary framework, that is fine, but otherwise don’t waste your time.

On the origin of religion, I don’t think religion would evolve as a mechanism to cope with death. It may help individuals cope with death (as a byproduct), but I can’t think of any reason that natural selection would favor such a coping mechanism or how it might originate. Some people assume that individuals with religious beliefs may face death and hazards with more equanimity than nonbelievers, but whether that would translate into higher fitness (i.e. more offspring) is questionable.

There are six different hypotheses about why religion evolved. Some of them are adaptive and some are not.

i) Group-level adaptation (benefits groups, compared to other groups).
ii) Individual-level adaptation (benefits individuals, compared to other individuals within the same group)
iii) Group stability hypothesis (benefits group stability and cohesion and increases both group and individual fitness).
iv) Cultural parasite – religion benefits its own propagation without regard to the welfare of human hosts.
v) Adaptive in small groups of related individuals but not in modern social environments.
vi) A byproduct of traits that are adaptive in nonreligious contexts.

I’m only going to address one of the byproduct hypotheses (there are many).

Humans are social animals and interactions among humans in a social environment probably have a very large selective effect on individual fitness. Having strong social bonds between individuals, whether they are related or not, would enhance fitness, especially in response to predators, other antagonistic humans, competition for food, or any number of other things affecting survival and offspring. We all know the effect of social bonds among the individuals in our own lives whom we love and cherish. Such strong feelings (i.e. social bonds) often carry on after the death of someone we love. This may result in remembrance of those who have died (e.g. on their birthday) and a wish to see them again. Eventually, this might lead to ancestor worship and a belief in life after death. Religions and spirituality are the outgrowth (i.e. byproduct) of selection favoring social bonds among individuals. There is evidence in other animals (dogs, elephants, chimps) of strong social bonds and grief even after the death of a group member. Once religion has evolved, selection then may favor it because of one or more of the reasons listed above. However, it is unlikely that it originated because of those reasons above.

anonymous why don't you use a screen name so we can see if we are talking to the same person or several different anonymous' because I hear from one of them and it might not be you. But Kevin for sure is a morally superior christian that is passing judgment. But the truth is most christians think they are morally superior than all others. Just ask them they will be more then glad to tell you. My point was, you (that's a you in general) can't keep saying that christians screw up because they are human then say jesus is in your heart and you live a moral life. It gets very confusing. One thing this post has taught me is that everyone has their own individual thought on the subject. Be they christian or atheist. I am not an atheist because christians say atheism is a religion and I don't believe in religions. I am just a living being on this planet that wished we could all find common ground to get a long better. But my experience in life and I cover many years and have lived in other countries, tell me that it is impossible because of religions. So when I hear christians like Kevin talk the way they do, I will counter it. This planet is over 4 billion years old and there was no Adam and Eve now try to get over it.

Jwest,

Chill out. I have never said that Christians are morally superior to anyone. That's just ridiculous.

Maurie,

Thanks, a lot. I tend to get upset sometimes when it seems like Christianity in general is taking a beating in here, but I certainly do understand harsh feelings toward the extremists. Believe me, those of us strong in our faith but not extreme in our ideas or tactics, find them detrimental as well. First, because they don't always promote an "agenda" that the majority of us agree with, and second, because they don't always show the true face of Christianity to the world.

Anyway, I used to be really good at being very sarcastic, but that was before my studies in Zen Buddhism, when I kind of got rid of most of the negative energy in my life. So I guess I'm just sensitive to all of this negativity here. :-)

I'll try to toughen up, and maybe just meditate a little next time...

Anonymous and Kevin

So what's the point of being a morally superior christian if you are not going to behave as such. What you don't seem to understand or at least take into consideration is that good morals are not the sole domain of christians. I live a very happy moral life, more so than many of my christian friends, and know what's right and what's wrong. I don't need Your excuses that you are just human isn't washing well. If you or anyone claims of being a christian with jesus in their hearts than act like it.. I bet you realize that it's more fun being a human and acting like it too. Once we all realize that we are human animals and start acting like one, this will be a better world.

Dear Anonymous,

It's nice to know you are not an extremist. I applaud you. Nor do I consider all Christians to be extremists. However, I was replying to one of them and his name was Kevin. If I hurt your feelings, I apologize.

As you know, many extremists do consider themselves better than nonbelievers and use their belief in Jesus to differentiate themselves from non-adherents to the faith. They also use their belief to justify absolutely crazy ideas and buttress those ideas with frequent reference to scripture. I’m glad to know you are not one of them.

I also know that many believers (of all denominations and intensity of faith) find great comfort in Christianity and I would never deny them such comfort. I’ve known too many people who have lost loved ones and could not bear the idea that they would never see them again. Hence the belief in an afterlife in heaven with all those most important to them. Why would I ever deny such solace? I wouldn’t.

Anon,

:)

I knew you were going to ask me that...

Rubles:

I'm clairvoyant.

Dear Anonymous,

Are you clairvoyant? Or did God tell you what Maurie would do next?

Maurie:

While your writing implies one thing to one person, it might imply something different to another. The fact is, you were trying to make it sound as if Christians thought themselves better people, morally and/or otherwise, and that they feel they are the only ones with morals at all. Spouting this kind of nonsense is exactly what causes so many of the arguments that go on here.

At this point you might want to quote some idiotic statement from some fundamentalist extremist who you will insist speaks for all of Christian society; that's usually what comes next.

Maurie,

Oh...My....Word...

I have to say that is a very interesting take on that story.

Dear Anonymous,

You wrote, “I don't understand why you must continue to post things like this. Do the Christians here say that Christians are perfect? Do they say that Christians do no wrong? Do they say that non-Christians always act immorally? The answer to all of these questions is "no".”

I never implied that Christians did or didn’t do all those things you listed above. What I did imply was that Christians claim that without a belief in Jesus, there is no sense of morality, of good and evil. Obviously, this implies that those of us who either believe in another god or gods, or have no beliefs at all, are inherently immoral. As I pointed out, regarding my raping and pillaging behavior, you are correct.

One other thing Kevin, stop bad-mouthing snakes. Snakes are wonderful creatures that don't deserve such a lousy reputation. One thing you may not know is that when snakes digest a meal, they ramp up their metabolism to a point equal to a marathon runner’s metabolism, except they do it for 2 weeks.

Finally, although a serpent was reportedly responsible for Eve's (and the rest of man-kinds') downfall, it wasn't a snake at all, nor was an apple actually an apple. A serpent is a figure of speech for wanger or Bludgin' Koala Basher in much the same way that the frog-prince and the princess’s golden balls are idiomatic for penis and testicles. In addition, I don’t think Eve took a bite out of the apple, so much as nibbled that most tender of fruit. Did she gain knowledge of good and evil? Perhaps. But I do know what Adam gained; not so much knowledge as a raging woody. So it goes.

Maurie Beck:

Honestly, when I see rants like yours, I don't know whether to laugh, get mad, or just be thoroughly disgusted. I've decided to respond, so I must be at the "thoroughly disgusted" phase.

I don't understand why you must continue to post things like this. Do the Christians here say that Christians are perfect? Do they say that Christians do no wrong? Do they say that non-Christians always act immorally? The answer to all of these questions is "no". What the Christian does say is that they do know how they are supposed to lead their life, and yet because we are human just like everyone else and have the freedom to make our own choices, we make the wrong choices sometimes and do bad things.

Your post was ridiculously immature and mean-spirited.

Apparently, it’s beat-up-on-Kevin time. Here is my shot.

I'm especially happy that most true believers are "true believers", because hearing them tell it, without having Christ in their hearts, you can just imagine the additional mayhem they would be up to, besides tousing alter boys, burning people at the stake, and raping and pillaging, without their higher moral sense. I can attest that this is true; I rape and pillage every chance I get. Obviously I’m a secular humanist and a moral relativist. Not having Christ in my heart leaves me morally unencumbered, so no one expects anything from me other than raping and pillaging, which I will merrily continue until caught. What’s absolutely surprising is that I’ve never been arrested. God must be watching over me.

Of course, even with Christ in their hearts, throughout Christian history true believers had no problem doing absolutely frightfully delightful things to non-believers (thank god for the first commandment and Deuteronomy; truly inspired). It was just frowned upon to do those things to other Christians, unless they belonged to other denominations ……………, or they were witches.

So much for your higher moral sense.

Kevin
When one does not believe, then nothing you say or nothing you quote from the bible makes any difference. It just tells people that you have put all your eggs in that particular basket and are intolerant of any other ideas. Your christian superiority is showing and I find it offensive.

Mavadaat: "I see your point: agnostics do not believe there is no heaven, so they can have hope.
However, it seems to me that positively having "hope" for the dead makes very little sense unless one positively believes in a soul, or at least believes in the possibility of the soul, that persists even after the death of the person (whatever that means)."

But belief in a soul does not necessarily mandate belief in a heaven/hell type dichotomy. It does not even mandate belief that that soul has an after-life destination of any kind. Perhaps it simply disintegrates into the ether and becomes part of the universal identity.

Should be...

keeps/wishes to keep

Kevin,
"That is a warning. Not all information is available to us. Only the serpent will tell you otherwise. "

Is that how religion keeps wishes to keep us all ignorant? By saying knowledge is evil?

They do that a lot, you know. You can't question religion's lack of evidence because "blessed is he who believes without seeing." You can't seek knowlege because knowledge led to the fall of man. Religions thrive on blind faith. But being blind can lead you to stumble.

Norrie, You're second post is much clearer than the first. I now understand your position and Buddhist thoughts towards understanding this tragedy and death in general.

Thanks for the clarification...

The funniest thing about Kevin's response is that somehow he thinks that atheist are lazy, but if you are so lazy that your faith is based on a book written a very long time ago, it doesn't say much for your drive to find the truth or develop. I can assure you that I am much more ambitious in my search for the truth, but I guess you have to be snarky and make foolish assumptions to prove your point. It's ok, it's typical of someone who uses ignorance to answer questions. You still lose, though.

It is in the nature of love that it cannot be coerced. God, the creator of the world knows this. In order to be real, love must be given freely. That is the reason God gave each of us free will.

“So long as men and women are free, no one is safe.”
--- Jack McDevitt

Henry James,

Great site! Thanks for that. I have a friend who claims the purpose for religion is to make people feel better about death. Here I though she was making that up!

I read the exerpt from the Introduction to Becker's book. His theory of GDA is fascinating.

"The theory of Generative Death Anxiety (GDA) suggests that at the deepest level, human behavior is motivated by the unavoidable need to shield oneself from consciousness of human mortality."

Wow.

The Denial of Death

As Susan's quote of Ingersoll underlines, Death is of course the enormous existential problem, and the great leveler.

Ernst Becker wrote the Pulitzer Prize winning book The Denial of Death in 1974.

In the book he characterized many (most?( religions as "death-denying machines", ways for us to fool ourselves into thinking that Death is not REALLY Death.

He argues for a grown-up, mature, working through to the psychic and intellectual and spiritual recognition (a la Buddhism) that Death IS Death, that it is a normal part of life, and we need to find a mature way to accept that.

For those interested a greatt web site summarizing the book etc is at
http://faculty.washington.edu/nelgee/
especially the lecture by Glenn Hughes.

It is a "life-changing" book.

I second that Tonio. Keep it up bro.

Candide, if someone finds a belief in a god to be comforting, I have no issue with that. But I do have an issue when people use their faith in a god against others, such as telling others they're wrong for having a different faith. Or, much worse, claiming that their god orchestrated mass death as punishments for sin, such as the infamous Falwell/Robertson tirade that Norrie quoted above.

Kevin, Ditto what Mike K said.

Also, I question that "he forgives us our sins because of Christ's death." I know full well that it's established Christian belief, but when I really sat down and thought about it, outside of Sunday school and church, I realized for the first time how barbaric that notion was. A father has his own son cruelly executed, as a means of what? Forgiving the sins of people whose sins the father, being God, could have forgiven with a snap of his finger. Alternatively, the father, being God, could have made people incapable of sin in the first place. But no, He opted to have a magic snake come by to tempt the first humans into being sinful for the rest of time.

If there is a supreme being, it sure isn't this guy.

Surviving tragedy. Yes it is hard. Even harder when you put your faith in religion and then find it was misplaced. The God who isn't there is no comfort.

A lie is no comfort. The truth is all we have.

Kevin,

I took no personal offense and my sensibilities are far from delicate.

If you're truly new here, I suggest you read a number of responses to Susan's posts. You'll find that us atheists are far from "lazy" and are quite familiar with the tenets of Christianity.

You might also find that your other assumptions about about atheists are incorrect.

I am in Iraq, working in a hospital. What happened at VT was tragic...our thoughts and prayers go to the families and friends of the victems, the people of the local community who will feel this long after the students have graduated and gone on...to the faculty who must rise above the tragedy and return some kind of normalcy to the campus.

We see tragedy like this almost daily in Iraq. It makes the news one day, and is replaced by the tragedy of the next day. We are trying to be peacemakers here.

Lord help us all to be peacemakers...knowing that to be a peacemaker, one must go into those dark, evil places where there is a need for peace to be made. And that is not just in Iraq...sometimes, it may be just down the hall, or across the street.

I am in Iraq, working in a hospital. What happened at VT was tragic...our thoughts and prayers go to the families and friends of the victems, the people of the local community who will feel this long after the students have graduated and gone on...to the faculty who must rise above the tragedy and return some kind of normalcy to the campus.

We see tragedy like this almost daily in Iraq. It makes the news one day, and is replaced by the tragedy of the next day. We are trying to be peacemakers here.

Lord help us all to be peacemakers...knowing that to be a peacemaker, one must go into those dark, evil places where there is a need for peace to be made. And that is not just in Iraq...sometimes, it may be just down the hall, or across the street.

I am an atheist. The framework I use to understand human behavior comes from psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology/physiology, neurology, evolution of genes and memes, history, etc. Since I do not believe in free will, the role of the environment becomes very important in influencing what types of behaviors humans engage in. I do not believe evil exists, at least not in the way so many religious people use that term. Are there horrific behaviors and violent thoughts? Yes. But, they stem from very natural processes.

This does not let people off the hook. We still have to hold people responsible for their actions. If I break a dish in a China store accidentally through no conscious effort of my own, I still have to pay for the damage. Similarly, people who commit crimes whether they believe they intended to or not, whether they had horrible childhoods or not, have to take the punishment for their behaviors and repair the damage they have caused if they can.

So, how do I forgive others? Religious people often like to say, "But by the grace of God, there go I". Instead I say, "But for certain circumstances, there go I". We often try to protect ourselves psychologically by saying to ourselves that we could never do something like that. But, I believe that given the right situational variables, we could. Thinking this way, increases my compassion and makes it easier for me to forgive.

What forgiveness means is letting go of the expectation that justice will ever be served, that the offender will ever make things right. Some religious people are able to achieve that by thinking that God will make things right in the end, and He will administer justice. Others "remember" that God has released us from having to pay for our sins, so we should release others from their debt to us.

I let go of the expectation that things will be made right, by remembering that life is not fair. Offense-taking does have an adaptive purpose. It is for self-preservation, to ensure that someone does not hurt you again, or walk all over you, and rob you of your resources and relatives, and so on.

If someone has harmed you seriously or repeatedly, then you should protect yourself by ending the relationship and distancing yourself from them if possible. Forgiveness does not have to mean making yourself vulnerable to the predator. If they hurt you minimally and apologize, and if a continued relationship with them is beneficial then move on in the relationship. In either case, you have accomplished the purpose of offense-taking, so there is no need to continue to withhold forgiveness. Withholding forgiveness at that point only hurts you by eating at your insides.

Granted this process should not be rushed; there is a natural course. We should be understanding of the anger that comes. Eventually, after we are sure that we are safe, we let go of the need for things to be made right for the previous trespass.

Att: John C., Norrie H. et al: [recycled edition]

The Dead are only good as they are REAL me Dear Brudders and dee Sisters of our Space-Shop Momma/Poppa Earth.

Our Body Dehydrates, and your Photo Finite Essence or Mist here, is TRANSFINITY (RE-ALity) of the TEMPERATURE (a/k/a TIME that is YOU coming from the MAGMA and you going to and "through" the Miraculous PLASMATIC-triculation and be at the NON GRAVITY PLACE and in the frequency of your very but unique Visible light Spectromatomic interface eternal place as the 5th Dimension of IT (G-d Eclati).

Note: Where PHOTONS (light) have never seen, then there is or was never LIFE!

WHEREFORE: There is LIFE in PHOTONS and never fear! :=)/ ya Mons. Ya.

Ras:

"And unless you have already died, any guess at what happens when you die is simply that: a guess."

Um... I died.

My heart stopped, both lungs collapsed, my body temperature dropped to 95. Obviously, I wasn't CLEAR gone, because I'm still here, but it's only because some excellent trauma surgeons managed a restart, and to keep on restarting.

So, I don't know what it's worth, but here's what I saw on the other side:

Nothing.

The lights went out, the pictures went away, that's all she wrote, for about sixteen hours.

Of course, being an atheist, that's what I expected. But, as far as it goes, it's one piece of solid information.

Shawn B.,

In your 4:12 post to Mavaddat and me you wrote:

"I understand you do not believe in God and/or religion. But your analysis and response to death...especially a tragedy like this is...must surely need more than "procedural points" or "understanding the psychology of it" or making a "political statement".

"Isn't there some room for compassion for the families, understanding, tears, shared pain, shock, hope, offering comfort, justice, etc.?

"To say that the only appropriate response is that of procedure, psychology, and politics seems a overwhelmingly sterile."

**********
First, I'm an agnostic with Buddhist sympathies, not an atheist.

Of course there is a necessity for and room for "compassion for the families, understanding, tears, shared pain, shock, hope,[and] offering comfort,..." [I removed "justice" from the list because I'm a lawyer (retired) and don't believe in it.]

I should also have removed "hope".

"I said to my soul, be still, and wait without hope
For hope would be hope for the wrong thing;"
[T.S.Eliot, East Coker]

Hoping also prevents a person from being fully present in the present moment.

Come to think of it, "shock" should also be removed: shock is a negative emotion that blocks the perception of reality. And, at my age, even without Buddhism, why should I be shocked? I've seen everything before and have adjusted to it. There's nothing new under the sun.

Either you misunderstood me or I didn't write clearly or we're talking past each other.

As a student of Buddhism I think the most important thing about any death is to see it clearly, to see what happened, and which causes and conditions gave rise to it, without clouding one's vision of the truth with emotions or theology.

That has nothing to do with the compassion that one naturally feels for the dead person or animal, and for those who suffer because of the death of another being.

The best we can hope for is to be fully present and aware in the present moment. I won't try to explain why this is so, and will merely say that to attain that state is an unqualified good. Intertwining what actually happens in the present moment with emotions, theories, religion, philosophy, and theology only obscures one's clear sight of the truth and the nature of things.

I doubt I did a good job of expressing my thoughts. The heart of Buddhism is compassion for all beings, and this should be a constant state of mind. That compassion does not separate one from being fully present in the present moment.

Religion, philosophy, theories, emotions other than compassion, and so on, obscure reality and are harmful to people.

"I think the most important thing we can do is to understand our purpose here..."

Kevin, I have no business trying to determine other people's purpose for life, and other people have no business trying to determine my purpose for life. I see it as a personal matter.

Fool of Wisdom,

You have a valid point about the limits of human wisdom. Still, those limits do not prove or disprove the existence of deity. Whether there is any supernatural life is purely a matter of opinion, since such life can't be proven or disproven scientifically.

Life doesn't have to have an inherent meaning. I would suggest that each of us creates our own meaning and purpose for existence. Having that meaning imposed by an outside agency amounts to telling people how to live their lives, something I oppose on a deep personal level.

NORRIE tells us:

All that can be done in relation to any death is to say that it happened, and to try to give an accurate description of that happening.

ANN O. replies: There is a Buddist story that goes like this:

The son of a Buddhist priest died, and the priest wept and wept. His disciples, trying to console him, said, "Do not weep. As you have taught us, do not weep." The priest replied, "But he was my son".

Anonymous: "Why are you posting the same response under every panelist's answer? That really gets rather annoying..."

If things could be other than they are, they would be.

But every event, every happening, every thing is brought into being by a previous event, happening or thing. Or by previous events, happenings or things.

Nothing, not even a thought, comes into existence by itself.

Without THIS, THAT cannot come into being.

Viewed from this perspective, there is no mystery about yesterday's happening.

It was simply a collision of events.

Had the shooter not been brought to America as a child, yesterday's event would not have happened.

If he been taken to a country (or a state) where guns are not so easily available, yesterday's event would not have happened.

Had his parents never met and married, yesterday's event would not have happened.

Had he not met the female student he first shot, yesterday's event would not have happened.

And on and on and on.

In short, there is nothing about yesterday's sad event that needs a superstitious belief in a non-visible, omniscient "Creator God" to explain it.

It was simply the collision of events -- as everything (yes, everything) is.

As for death, it's the great unknown.

And unless you have already died, any guess at what happens when you die is simply that: a guess.

Or superstition.

Or wishful thinking.

I prefer the thought of the Sufi mystic and poet, Rumi:

"When you eventually see through the veils to how things really are, you will keep saying over and over again, 'This is certainly not like we thought it was'."

Bart, it's a fair point. I can just barely understand what I wrote myself, but I know it's right. I think that's why Christians and atheists don't understand one another--we speak different languages. Your message of hopelesness and despair brings out the polar opposite in me. In the same way, my message of faith and hope makes you think I'm nuts. I don't know the answer here as far as how we can communicate better, but I know it's late and I'm going home. I'll check in later to see what you poor souls are up to.

Peace be with you, Kevin

Dear Kevin,
so strong in your convictions, yet totally unwilling (unable?) to defend them other then by vague referrals to "the good book". Are you here to discuss or to just hammer home your anachronistic views by preaching to your choir?

Hey Mike K. Sorry to hurt your feelings, and sorry if I seem so abrupt. While I apologize for having offended your delicate sensibilities, I haven't written for your approval. I think the most important thing we can do is to understand our purpose here, and I think atheists abidcate their responsibility to do so by assuming away much of what is important about life. An atheist thinks that, if he or she can't explain something, then it's not explainable. Indeed, it doesn't exist. Now, take this to the extreme. If an atheist is too lazy to learn about God, it's easier to read a book by Darwin and decide that what Darwin says makes some amount of sense. But, that's false comfort.

I'd suggest it's much more likely that life is bigger than any of us can imagine. I think it's also very likely that we haven't any idea what's behind it all. Well, we do have some evidence, and that's His Word, but that's all the information he'll give us. The remaining information is simply not available.

Remember what the Good Book says: The serpent replied to the woman, "God knows that your eyes will be opened as soon as you eat it, and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil."

That is a warning. Not all information is available to us. Only the serpent will tell you otherwise.

There is only one God, and he's the one I worship (at least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it). That God has touched all persons so that they might know right from wrong is no mystery, and it doesn't depend on what a person believes--an atheist is as much a product of God as the greatest Christian.

As the Good Book says: "This is the new covenant I will make with my people on that day", says the Lord: "I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." Hebrews 10:16

The new covenant is the promise made by God to all of his people after the death of his Son, Jesus. In the next passage of this same book, he goes onto explain the "good news" associated with this new promise:

Then he says, “I will never again remember their sins and lawless deeds.” Hebrews 10:17

We know right from wrong, God has said as much, but he forgives us our sins because of Christ's death. That's what it means to say "Christ has died for our sins."

I hope this helps some people.

Kevin

Kevin, apparently insults, a sense of superiority and condescension also spring from your god. Thanks for reminding us.

Fool of wisdom writes:

"God does exist. I don't have enough faith to believe that we were made manifest from a slime-blob millions of years ago."

So god exists because you you are afraid to accept the not-so-cosy other option. God exists for you because you are scared. Is that the reason that religion is so universal, because we're all afraid? Not a very strong argument for His existence.

I hope the families of the victims find strength and comfort in love or even in hatred. Or in (an imaginary) god, if that helps them...

All deaths are unwanted. What should be looked at is preventing unnecessary death.

We join with others in being upset at the unnecessary nature of violent death, no matter where it is. Each death is someone's family member and is missed no matter what philosophy is professed, or not.

Atheists grieve for the death of people. How we console ourselves is that death comes to us all and must happen sometime.

Kevin writes:

"There is a fundamental sense of right and wrong that is hard-wired into our systems, and it doesn't come from "evolution" or from "good parenting", it comes from God."

If it indeed comes from god, then my question is: from which god? Allah, Jahwe, Jehova, Zeus, Odin, Amon, Vishnu, etc.? Thou shalt not kill or thou shalt be a good parent (f.e.) existed long before Judaism hit the scene. In fact, they are shared by virtually all civilization (and yes, by atheists, too).
Are you saying that the Assyrians and Chinese were touched by this Judeo-Christian god's moral inspiration before his religion even existed? Or do you believe that Adam and Eve were in fact the first two humans, living roughly 6000 years ago? (if so, it will shorten our discussion by quite a bit).
In fact, most animals don't kill members of their own species or at least not of their own group, come to think of it, and they make excellent parents. Touched by god even before he created man? Or are there simply rules that humans and animals need to abide by in order to live peacefully together in any kind of society?

B.

God does exist. I dont have enough faith to believe that we were made manifest from a slime-blob millions of years ago. If we are here by mere chance, then what are we here for? Are lives then exist without purpose. What happened is a great tragedy, and is proof that we are in a real world, and in the real world evil does exist. We are all capable of sin, and if we were honest, everyone has the capacity to commit murder, if placed in the wrong situation. Just because we mere humans with our FINITE wisdom do not have an answer to why this happened, does not mean that an answer or reason does not exist. The first step towards wisdom is to fully understand that we do not have answers for everything. May God be with the families of those 32 innocent victims, and with the family of the young man who held the gun.

I've never posted before on a website, but I felt inclined to do so for the first time.

Jacoby, you must spend an inordinate amount of time having to reassure yourself that there is no God but that peace exists in death. It is a contradiction, plain and simple, and while it's a terrible illustration of your point, it's an excellent example of the disorder inherent in your faithless life. You must run up against non-sense in your thinking all the time, and I know how you'll defend yourself now: you'll simply dismiss me as a fundamentalist quack. Again, that's not an argument.

Faith and reason are perfectly consistent, and it makes us who we are. I know it's wrong when someone steals my seat from me on the train, and in the same way I know it's wrong to kill someone for love or money, and in the same way I know it's wrong to gun down students at VA Tech. None of this depends on my intellect. There is a fundamental sense of right and wrong that is hard-wired into our systems, and it doesn't come from "evolution" or from "good parenting", it comes from God.

On the closer questions in life (i.e., is abortion right and good and something we should encourage or is it evil and life destroying), well, that's an example of God testing us, which He will do ALL OF THE TIME. That's the point of life on Earth. It is a test for who can be faithful and who cannot be, depsite all the bad that can happen in a system of free choice.

I read earlier where someone had confused predestination, God's will and free choice into an absolute mess. These things aren't easy to understand, but please don't take refuge in the pleas of the ignorant. They just have it wrong.

Good luck to you. I hope someone comes into your life and helps you change. You should read a book by C.S. Lewis called "Mere Christianity". It might help you.

Kevin

To Ms. Jacoby --

Thank you for logging on and explaining Ingersoll's comments. I must respectfully disagree, however, that the atheist's contention that death is equivalent to non-existence akin to the concept of peace.

As per the contemporary Christian theologian, Father Edward Schillebeeckx, (from his book, Church, the History of God,Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" . "Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."
And with this profound observation, Schillebeeckx rendered all prophets, i.e. Isaiah, Jesus, Mohammed, Smith et al, and their prophecies moot!!!!!

It also unfortunately explains the tragedies of incidents like the massacre at VT and the daily suicide bombings in Iraq i.e. WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ACTIONS.

Sans wrote:

"Robertson's goal was to get as many of these graduates as possible into our government so he can push his version of Christianity onto the rest of the USA."

You said it yourself, "Robertson's goal", "his version of Christianity", not Christian Americans' goals or version. You should not project his beliefs and agendas onto the rest of us because of the word Christian. We are here to tell you he does not speak for us. If he did, we all would have voted for him when we had the chance.

Susan (Jacoby),

You'll have to excuse all the religous types on the page, including myself, for misreading the "help for living - hope for dead" quote.

We are so accustomed to using "hope" for the "hereafter" that we sometimes forget to look at with literary eyes.

As I reread the statement, I see Ingersoll's original intent.

Thanks for pointing that out.

But scientists now know about the Big Bang and what prededed it. They have theories of bounce or bud and then there is the Hartle-Hawkings theory that the cosmos just is. As Dawkins states, why expect theologians to have an answer if scientists don't and I add, a sufficient natural one as here? Miracles are mere natural phenomena- remissions,etc.Science does indeed explain the why and the how while theology is just one silly mystery after another.Occam's razor removes God as an explanation and the ignotist argument shows that to invoke God as an explanation is no more thant the unimformative tautology, that God wills what He wills, the magic of let there be light and just"hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf... Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable way for unfathomable reason seems to be no sort of a good explanation,states Keith Parsons, atheologist. We naturalists are on the march,taking our rights to the public square to inform others of naturalism. Anaturalists are not the only ones there now.We are no more strident than errantists! But others see our openess as dictatorial! Silly!

Anonymous:

"And Jerry and Pat are Fundamentalists who I KNOW you know do not speak for the majority of Christians in this country, so why continually bring them up? It seems like people in these forums always bring up the extremists and throw them out as examples of the multitudes"

Jerry & Pat are apparantly speaking for the majority of Christians in the USA, considering that the Bush administration has hired ~150 graduates of Pat's Regent Univ. (including Monica Goodling). Robertson's goal was to get as many of these graduates as possible into our government so he can push his version of Christianity onto the rest of the USA. Regent boasts an extremely high rate of alumni that work in our current administration.

Mavaddat & Norrie,

I understand you do not believe in God and/or religion. But your analysis and response to death...especially a tragedy like this is...must surely need more than "procedural points" or "understanding the psychology of it" or making a "political statement".

Isn't there some room for compassion for the families, understanding, tears, shared pain, shock, hope, offering comfort, justice, etc.?

To say that the only appropriate response is that of procedure, psychology, and politics seems a overwhelmingly sterile.

For all of the literal-minded atheists out there who are outraged by Robert Ingersoll's, "Help for the living--hope for the dead," he was speaking in a broad sense about death as peace and was also alluding to the fact that grief is the province of the living.

This sort of narrow literalism gives atheism a bad name.

Ingersoll did allow for the possibility that he might be wrong. Unlike the devoutly religious, who claim to "know" that there is a God, Ingersoll merely said he "believed" that there was no God, on the basis of all available evidence. He said, quite accurately, that he could no more "know" what natural force set the universe in motion that Christians could "know" how their God came to be.

Norrie wrote:

"J & P may not speak for a majority of Christians, but they cerainly seem to speak for a lot of them, maybe even "multitudes" (your word)."

I disagree. They are dinosaurs who are kept in the public eye not because they represent so many, but because the media want you to think that they do, and because they have money to buy their time in the public's eye.

Mr Mark:

You've said it so well.
When will we wake up?

Anonymous,

I brought Jerry and Pat up because you'd written to Mavaddat:

'Drawing conclusions like, "These people were killed because we took prayer out of school," or, "These people were killed because God wants Virginia to change its legislation on stem cell research," are unhelpful, hateful, and dogmatic. I'm sorry, did I miss something? Were these being thrown out as reasons? Stop being so dramatic...'

J & P may not speak for a majority of Christians, but they cerainly seem to speak for a lot of them, maybe even "multitudes" (your word).

Best wishes to you.

Norrie,

And Jerry and Pat are Fundamentalists who I KNOW you know do not speak for the majority of Christians in this country, so why continually bring them up? It seems like people in these forums always bring up the extremists and throw them out as examples of the multitudes.

Why couldn't Jerry and Pat have been at VT that day? The world would be better off without them.

Anonymous,

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson knew why 3,000 died at the World Trade Center:

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur...

** Comments from the September 13th, 2001 broadcast of The 700 Club **

Shawn B.,

I appreciate your point of view.

Of course, when I write, I write from a point of view - everyone has to. I guess you can call a viewpoint a philosophy if you want to.

The difference in this discussion between me and others is that my point of view deals with what I think is the best way to deal with a death. This is "PROCEDURAL".

Others who want to describe a death from a religious or philosophical viewpoint are making a "SUBSTANTIVE" statement about the quality or meaning of the death - something I believe is not useful.

Regards.

I also question how an avowed atheist can have "hope for the dead". Perhaps Ms. Jacoby will join us and provide a gloss on her essay here.

Dang, Mavaddat, you're just itching to start an argument against religion today, aren't you?

If any of the families involved in this tragedy are members of a religion, then there is plenty of a religious nature that can be said, to those families, which might be helpful.

"Drawing conclusions like, "These people were killed because we took prayer out of school," or, "These people were killed because God wants Virginia to change its legislation on stem cell research," are unhelpful, hateful, and dogmatic." I'm sorry, did I miss something? Were these being thrown out as reasons? Stop being so dramatic while at the same time de-emphasizing your points about waiting on making psychological assessments and political decisions.

Some of us do try to keep things civil here; you do not have to attack others' beliefs to make your point.

Shawn B,

Thank you. I have no idea why she titled her post as "An Athiest's Creed," when she was quoting Ingersoll.

I have hope for the dead. I have hope there's a heaven. I just don't believe it.

I think the point is not that we should avoid philosophy, per se, but that our answers should be helpful rather than dogmatically asserted. I agree with Norrie that there is nothing of a religious nature that can be said which might be helpful.

There might be some interesting things to be said from a psychological perspective, but as Norrie suggests, that should wait until all the facts are in.

There also might be important things to be said about political decisions, for example, the rights of individuals to defend themselves and the extent to which the law should preserve the right to bear arms.

Drawing conclusions like, "These people were killed because we took prayer out of school," or, "These people were killed because God wants Virginia to change its legislation on stem cell research," are unhelpful, hateful, and dogmatic.

My previous post was a response to Norrie, sorry.

to quote you - "Putting a religious, emotional, or philosophical gloss on the event demeans it and obscures its reality"

This is true unless there really is a substantive religous, emotional, or philosophical point to make. You say there is none...others say there is. Whose to say which is right.

And...your posted response includes some philosophy. Wouldn't you say?

Mavaddat,

Factual and scientific explanations are fine. They describe what happened in the observable world:

"The bullet pierced the ascending aorta, etc., etc". "The killer had been diagnosed as having a borderline personality."

Unprovable metaphysical explanations ("He had offended God") are unhelpful and only distort clear thinking about what happened.

Of course we should learn from events to help us prevent future bad happenings.

Andrea,

You make a good point. However, Jacoby's title pretty much defines her position.

Andrea,

I see your point: agnostics do not believe there is no heaven, so they can have hope.

However, it seems to me that positively having "hope" for the dead makes very little sense unless one positively believes in a soul, or at least believes in the possibility of the soul, that persists even after the death of the person (whatever that means).

Norrie and Amy,

I think that a description AND an explanation are in order. It makes as little sense to presuppose that this event was completely inexplicable as to assume that it was explicable (e.g., by psychological presuppositions).

We should approach every event whether in nature or sociology with the intention of learning something. And this is surely an important event to learn something from... if we can. Until we decide what, if anything, can be learned, it is too early to rule out good explanations that might prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future.

Making sense of the senseless is a fool's errand. Things just happen, and in this case it was entirely human. Humans can help other humans better than an imaginary sky-daddy can. I'm sure the families would feel the beneficial effect of messages of condolence sent directly to them more than prayers sent via a fairy tale character.

All that can be done in relation to any death is to say that it happened, and to try to give an accurate description of that happening.

"This happened; it was like this..."

End of story - that's it - game over. Nothing more to be said.

The last line of Dylan Thomas's poem,

A REFUSAL TO MOURN THE DEATH, BY FIRE, OF A CHILD IN LONDON,

says it all:

AFTER THE FIRST DEATH, THERE IS NO OTHER

Putting a religious, emotional, or philosophical gloss on the event demeans it and obscures its reality.

"Help for the living--Hope for the dead"

Strange thing for an athiest to say, yes.

Strange for an agnostic to say, no.

There is a difference.

I also think "Help for the living--Hope for the dead" is a very strange credo for an agnostic or atheist. Why do we have hope for the dead?

Sure, we should have have sympathy for the victims' families, but it makes very little sense to me that we should be hopeful for the dead unless we suppose that some important part of them (e.g., a soul) continues to live despite the death of their physical being.

I think a far better credo is "help for the living, and hope for those yet to be born."

It's all a matter of persepctive, isn't it?

A mere 33 deaths on a given day in Iraq would be considered "not bad, all things considered." We rightfully mourn these deaths on our shores while willfully ignoring the slaughter taking place overseas, a slaughter for which we as a nation bear - in large part - responsible.

I'm not saying that the situations parallel each other, but we as Americans might do well to consider how we would feel as a nation were the death count at VT an everyday occurance for us, as is the daily death count in Baghdad.

Our reflection on this American tragedy needs to encompass much more than the events of yesterday.

"Help for the living--Hope for the dead"

Ingersoll only got it half right. For the atheist there is only help in this life. The second half of his statement cannot be true by his definition and Jacoby's, if they honestly believe what they say. But perhaps the reason he included it is that the ultimate end of his logic...death is the end...is too difficult to believe.

My prayers and thoughts are with those touched by this tragedy.

Russell:

Why are you posting the same response under every panelist's answer? That really gets rather annoying...

The question isn't what God wants for us. It is what we want for ourselves. There is no doubt that this a tremendous tragedy for not only the ones involved, but also for the ones who are not involved. This ordeal has implications that reach beyond this world.

It is as much spiritual as it is corpreal. The evil done on this day far outweighs some of the good, yet eventually the good will bounce back. But you must realize, that in this world, there will never be a total reign of Good over evil, nor will Evil reign over Good. It is a constant balnace. Right and wrong, yin and yang. There cannot be one without the other. When one act overshadows the other, than inevitably the latter will overshadow the other when it is time. Balance is always the key.

Belief in a higher power has nothing to do with it. Whether you are a Christian, Muslim, Jew, athiest, Buddhist, etc., the main picture is to know that the world will even itself out in the end.

While the country mourns for the people at VT, know within your heart, or within your God, that everything will eventually turn out to be better in the end.