In Praise of Foxhole Atheists

http://bestinfo.freeweb7.com >auto company geico insurance Egg on

http://bestinfo.freeweb7.com >auto company geico insurance Egg on

http://allinfo.iifree.net >cash advance resource Nasty, brutish and short

http://kreoline.247ihost.com >mortgage calculator refinance breakeven Fly in the ointment

http://bestinfo.freeweb7.com >traveler insurance phone number Beef and reef

avljnmxi syatpeiwq iqxym fcpyeq hriyx jxczkhmv gulqnvahb

avljnmxi syatpeiwq iqxym fcpyeq hriyx jxczkhmv gulqnvahb

avljnmxi syatpeiwq iqxym fcpyeq hriyx jxczkhmv gulqnvahb

Hi Rob,

I don't believe in god because as a hypothesis it is in discord with most of the ways I imagine the universe to be. I do have ideas that are completely unscientific - but they are often derived from scientific ideas and non-theistic philosophies that I have read about. I don't have any problem with the idea of a god. However, for me, to believe in a god would be like putting on a shirt that doesn't fit well, or a hat that is the wrong color.

Disbelief in god is very much a choice. It may be a "move" in a game controlled by believers - I am not so sure about that - but if so, then I consider it to be a forced move for those who have chosen to develop their minds with an emphasis on scientific, non-theistic philosophy, or Earth in relation to the entire universe.

I am not sure that there is no god. However I am as sure that there is no god as I am sure about many other positions I tentatively take in debates. I admit that the God idea has a certain allure. But I choose the model that is consistent with the balance of my world-view. I also think that my worldview is consistent with the tradition in wesern culture where scientific models are emphasized, positions are argued, and tentative opinions form based on how well the models fit the world.

I believe us westerners are prone to absolutes, but that it is not necessary to always fill in the gaps of knowledge with faith. You won't see me insisting on the non-existence of god, because it is true that I don't have indisputable evidence. Who am I to say that my world-view is superior to those of believers?

Regarding your statement that disbelief in god is also a leap of "faith": First we should determine the origins of that word, and compare the christian meaning of the word with the scientific method. I think the truth is something closer to my first paragraph. I would love to have faith in something, but I don't have faith in science.

Ghostbuster.

I was going to it doesn’t get civil until you get here, but then you threw in the Ebay shot :)

I know what you’re saying. There’s debate and discussion and then just out right slamming. I don’t find the later as productive or as fun.

But getting back to Ebay, what color do the boxes come in?

Ben.

Agreed one can reject God without indisputable evidence particularly since there is not indisputable scientific evidence either way. It is a leap of faith by both theists and atheists. We need that in order to fill in the gaps.

Ben let me ask you and the other atheists on the thread. Do you not believe in God because of science alone or is it that you haven’t heard a definition of God that makes sense to you. Obviously we can’t provide scientific proof at this time or anytime soon.

Other than indisputable proof is there anything that would move you to agnostic or a theism?

Priver, your welcome for the kind words, I am just not sure what they were? I will definitely take the compliment! It’s better than Ghostbuster slamming me for making him think

Hi Rob,

Yes I live in Minneapolis. I recently looked around Saint Paul, ate at Pizza Luce, and it is an attractive city. It is a bit too quiet here, but it really helps me to concentrate.

Regarding religion and science. They are related in that ultimately we tend to view both in terms of Greek philosophy. To me that is what distinguishes the west from places such as China. I think that there is less emphasis on objects/attributes, and more emphasis on relationships in China. Science and religion also both supposedly strive after the truth. Jihadist made an interesting point about about atheism as a "move", in a game where believers create the rules, above. I think I will read the book she suggested. I don't know if I will agree, but I will read the book to find out.

But regarding science not being able to prove whether god exists, I think there is another way to think of it. Some scientists think scientifically about nearly everything, so god is a form of discontinuity, and in some cases a contradiction to scientific models of the universe that we have evidence for, but that do not directly relate to the question of the existence of a creator. As Stephen Hawking said, "neither a beginning nor an end then what place for a creator?" So it is possible to reject the idea of god without indisputable evidence. I could explain it in probabilistic terms, but the truth is that it is a preference for conceptual closure, though not necessarily confinement. Or you could say that scientists can evaluate the plausibility of hypotheses very well, possibly too well.

To me it seems odd that most people switch between scientific reasoning and non-scientific reasoning without noting the difference, using each of the two areas piece-meal. When we are having a debate, isn't it generally assumed that we explain a hypothesis and support it? Isn't that scientific?

I'm not an angry or militant atheist, I am just curious how others think.

Just a casual observation here but, but why in so many cases does it take so long for a thread to develop into a rational or at least a civil conversation?

It seems that the first 3-4 days of any given discussion just include too many random, blow hard pot shots.

I can't get the "God in a Box" stuff out of my head. I bet I could sell a few "boxes" on Ebay for $20 a pop to random idiots.

I personally do not think that God exists. I don't believe that purpose is the only measurement for our existence. I think that there is a possibility of a consciousness that is not attributed to carbon-based life. I am not saying this is fact, but a theory - like most of science. It is true that science cannot explain everything yet - but remember that at one time the world was flat, and the Earth was the center of the universe. We WILL figure it out.

Thanks Rob, for your kind words. :)

I think science and religion don't have to be incompatible. They're just made out to be so in most organized religions. They serve different ends and seek to answer different questions. Will they converge at some point? Maybe. How exciting would that be!

I just have this image of a giant 'jack in the box' thing that pops up after hearing 'pop goes the weasel'. God in a box makes me laugh too. :)

I think all who seek will find an answer in some form. Even if it leads to atheism. It's never easy to change a view like that that is SO personal, especially since people are brought up to believe one thing, but often don't challenge it until adulthood if at all. It's also REALLY hard these days to just get the chatter out of our heads when everything around us is built to keep it going. it's about bringing all of one's available faculties to the job.

The more I find out, the less I know. It makes for real wonder and joy at the journey itself.

Blessed be :)

KR

I think science and religion really aren’t that different in they can’t prove or disprove God’s existence. They are very different in that I think the start from two different points as at some point in ultimate reality they likely converge. But that is an understanding that is eon’s away from us.

We haven’t even conquered the unifying theory of physics and we think we can completely understand that God doesn’t exist via science. Conversely look at all we do understand and yet we think we have the final answer on God from a few religious books.

God is too grand. Just to make Ghostbuster giggle again. You can’t put God in a box.

We can only go on what we know right now and continue to look at understanding more.

Luke.

Love the LSD comment, but yes, definitely not God LOL.

I have heard Green’s book are quite good and I will peruse! Thanks.

As for your comment “Then I am essentially doomed.” That would depend on ones belief. Personally I don’t think that is so.

I liked Priver’s quote early 'the universe speaks to us in whichever voice will compel us to take action'. If you keep searching sincerely then my friend you will find it. To me in the end there is only source.

I think part of finding the source, God whatever you want to call it means stripping away all the noise of the physical world. Until one finds what resonates with them that is very hard to do.

See my post with Krusso on morality near the end of the thread. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/pamela_k_taylor/2007/06/dont_ask_why_but_what_can_i_do.html#comments.

I talk about what is left when you strip everything away. Whether one believes that to be God or something else is up to the individual.

Rob,

Exactly, the empirical method has limitations and cannot account for the abstract world of natural laws, moral laws, etc. Therefore, the modern scientific community should stop acting like they are the measure of all truth. I like science but it cannot account for everything.

What was the lie Satan told Eve in the garden? Do you think Satan still tells the same lie? He is the father of lies.

Rob Adams, I have read several enlightening books. The Tao Te Ching, I Ching, Bhagavad Gita and now and then I read the Bible and Koran. Although they are beautiful and amazing reads, it doesn't bring me any closer to God, just as meditation and the like has not either. The closest experience may have been the first and only time I tried LSD, which was both powerful and thought-provoking, but no God. I will pick up the books you've suggested and give them a shot. I would recommend The Elegant Universe or The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. My point is that no book or deity has or possibly ever will speak to me.

I would say to that, Krusso, is who said that is what Jesus said? Can we verify it? No. The thing you are searching for is the answer to "why?". You are searching for purpose in the universe, and to that, I can't find fault. I just don't think that something needs purpose to exist. It doesn't explain why there are other planets and galaxies. Why are we the focal point, and why the distant fireworks? They don't explain anything. From your experience, it is rather easy to see God as the root of everything, but what if I don't have enough of a functioning brain to contemplate God? Then I am essentially doomed. I just don't think that your God is the answer, just as you don't think my lack of belief is the answer. There is no clear evidence that God exists. Pretty things aren't evidence, for why would they need to be pretty? I did believe in God at one time, but I do not any longer. Jesus never touched me, none of his followers ever touched me, and I could never sense or feel God or his power. I can't verify that Jesus said any of the things he did, nor God, nor any other deity I didn't hear myself. How do you know that nature doesn't think? Could the Earth not regulate what is on top of it? Does it have to be an invisible man?

Luke.

Giving scientific proof that we have a soul or that God exists is currently not possible.

Are you willing to explore things that at least indicate there is something else other than our body and mind?

If you do not want to delve into religious books then I would suggest the following.

Read Far Journeys by Robert Monroe.
Read conversation with God, book 1.
Meditate any kind – transcendental, Zen, etc

Perhaps one of those will peak your interest.

Regardless I wish you peace. I hope to continue to see you on the site.

Luke,

I have found the Truth His name is Jesus. I will be learning about His inexhaustible truth for all eternity. He said:
“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

Luke’s Fourth Post
I can't have eternal life in Jesus Christ because I've already committed the unforgivable sin, so I'm damned regardless. How do you know that God speaks all languages? Did he tell you that? The fact is that either A) God did not create a perfect planet and it is under constant revision, B) That God made it so changes occur for some perfect order in the end, or C) He didn't create the universe because he doesn't exist. Can you site proof that he does, or is just that stuff that you find pretty is so pretty that someone had to make it? The limits to the scientific method are only the physical limits to how we can explore them. The difference is that science develops because new evidence is discovered constantly, while religion develops so it can defend the lack of knowledge and understanding in it's original text(s). I have a conscience just like most do because it is generally innate in human beings. Just like nurturing for the young is generally innate in many mammals doesn't mean that one mother isn't going to rip her baby to shreds. Conscience is a means to order society, and obviously, based on your religion's history, it doesn't prevent people from hurting each other. Value to who? Value to what? I don't see any evidence that God is within me. My parents had sex, and that is what caused me to be born. So much for cause and effect. Jesus didn't will me into existence because he isn't alive. I think that is enough proof. It is true that nature displays order, but what else could it display?

I did not ask you what a conscience does I know what is does. The question is where did the human conscience come from?

I see that you dent the clear evidence that God exists. You are willfully rejecting the clear evidence of God's existence.

I would say that I could give you more evidence but you would still reject it because you have made a decision of the will to reject God's revelation and to assign creative power to inert nature.

Do you think that life could come from non-life? Do you really think that morality came from non-moral nature? Nature does not think nor does it know right and wrong.

Now Krusso, there is nothing within that post that I can disagree with. If God speaks to you, you should consider yourself lucky, because he left me and many I know in the dark. Good luck to you in your search for truth. If I had any reason to believe otherwise, I wouldn't think this way, but I haven't any proof of it.

Hey Luke,

Luke’s Third Post to Me
“I may sound like a jerk, but you have to realize that the same way that you are offended when people tell you that your religion is false is the same offense I take with the smug attitudes and comments about my system of beliefs (or lack thereof). I admit I don't know all the answers, but you can't do that, Krusso. This idea that you speak to God and know all the answers is nonsense. If everything is solid and you have the answers, then why are you still here? People like you have been pushing people to your idea of truth for far too long - and if you can explain evolution, then go ahead. If you can explain where the dinosaurs came from, go ahead. If not, then you really don't have the answers, do you?”

Luke I do not think you are a jerk I think that you are a valuable person who has questions. I know I still have questions and that I am still learning. I am not offended by the rejection by most in this world of what I believe to be true. I expect that response and I think that this message is worth being rejected for. My prayer is that people would turn to Jesus and be saved from their sin and given new life. I was once a very angry young man but Jesus changed my heart.

Why do you think it is nonsense that God speaks to me through His word the Bible?

Evolution is a theory that the majority of modern scientists assert is science. The problem is that the naturalistic theory of evolution has no empirical proof. Therefore, the theory of evolution is a philosophy or a belief system not science. I have no problem with believing things by faith but as I have stated before faith is only as good as your object of faith. If you believe in something that is false it cannot help you.

I do believe that there is change within organisms but that those organisms still retain their identity of what they are. In other words there may be many variations of cats but they are still cats. Can you name one organism that scientists have observed changing into another kind of organism? I am not talking about change within the kind like the cat kind, the dog kind, and the monkey kind. I am talking about cats changing into dogs or monkeys into men. Before you try it most will say, “Well of course not change like that takes millions or even billions of years.” In other words they have not observed it happening. This kind of thinking is not based in empirical proof but is based solely on faith.

Dinosaurs walked the earth with humans. In ancient Chinese art there are paintings that depict dragons which are dinosaurs. Where do you think they got the idea to paint these amazing creators? The dinosaurs are simply extinct just like other kinds of organisms that have now become extinct.

I can't have eternal life in Jesus Christ because I've already committed the unforgivable sin, so I'm damned regardless. How do you know that God speaks all languages? Did he tell you that? The fact is that either A) God did not create a perfect planet and it is under constant revision, B) That God made it so changes occur for some perfect order in the end, or C) He didn't create the universe because he doesn't exist. Can you site proof that he does, or is just that stuff that you find pretty is so pretty that someone had to make it? The limits to the scientific method are only the physical limits to how we can explore them. The difference is that science develops because new evidence is discovered constantly, while religion develops so it can defend the lack of knowledge and understanding in it's original text(s). I have a conscience just like most do because it is generally innate in human beings. Just like nurturing for the young is generally innate in many mammals doesn't mean that one mother isn't going to rip her baby to shreds. Conscience is a means to order society, and obviously, based on your religion's history, it doesn't prevent people from hurting each other. Value to who? Value to what? I don't see any evidence that God is within me. My parents had sex, and that is what caused me to be born. So much for cause and effect. Jesus didn't will me into existence because he isn't alive. I think that is enough proof. It is true that nature displays order, but what else could it display?

Hello Luke,

Luke’s First Post to Me
“My manmade theory of Naturalistic Evolution certainly has some facts involved, rather than the ancient superstitions in your manmade belief system. Remember, God didn't write the Bible. What language does he speak? English? Or some soul language? I have faith that I have no soul, and that when I die, my matter will still exist (which is PROVEN, mind you), but my consciousness will not.”

What are the facts of evolution as it pertains to the origin of the universe, the animal kingdom, and humankind?

God speaks all languages because He is all-knowing. He used the agency of man to communicate His word the Bible. Do you think that would be too hard for the all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present God?

“I have faith that I have no soul, and that when I die, my matter will still exist (which is PROVEN, mind you), but my consciousness will not.”

Can the scientific method (observation and measuring in repeatable experiments) account for everything that exists?

Luke’s Second Post to Me
“What about the unfortunate souls that happened to die before the Bible got to them? Do they just go to hell by default? What does God tell you happened to them?”

All people that have ever lived in the past, who live now, and who will ever live in the future could, can, and will see that God exists by all that He has made. His created order exhibits His creative genius. All people know that they have broken God’s law by the conscience that God has placed within them. In other words all people knowingly do wrong (sin) because their conscience is a witness to that truth. You conscience demonstrates that you are accountable for your actions. Where did your conscience come from? Can you prove to me that you have a conscience with the empirical method (science)? All people have evidence within them that God exists and in the external world. To say there is no God is like saying a painting does not have a painting. I would say that you are more complex than any painting even the most renowned. You have value because you are made in the image of God. I pray that you would understand this truth so that you may have eternal life in Jesus Christ.

Original sin as per many contemporary Catholic theology professors:

"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon])is therefore only symbolic of man's tendencies to sin.

Original Sin is therefore only symbolic of the sins of our origins -- in our
families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
profoundly. The "sins of our origins" approach helps to account for certain
patterns of sin in particular families and societies.

Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. The old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer accepted.

Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home.

Baptism is now celebrated at Sunday Eucharist, all the members of the parish family are encouraged to pledge their support and care for the faith life of the newly baptized. (A manifestation of this is persons volunteering to teach other people's kids the basics of
Catholicism.)"

I may sound like a jerk, but you have to realize that the same way that you are offended when people tell you that your religion is false is the same offense I take with the smug attitudes and comments about my system of beliefs (or lack thereof). I admit I don't know all the answers, but you can't do that, Krusso. This idea that you speak to God and know all the answers is nonsense. If everything is solid and you have the answers, then why are you still here? People like you have been pushing people to your idea of truth for far too long - and if you can explain evolution, then go ahead. If you can explain where the dinosaurs came from, go ahead. If not, then you really don't have the answers, do you?

Explain this, Krusso. What about the unfortunate souls that happened to die before the Bible got to them? Do they just go to hell by default? What does God tell you happened to them?

My manmade theory of Naturalistic Evolution certainly has some facts involved, rather than the ancient superstitions in your manmade belief system. Remember, God didn't write the Bible. What language does he speak? English? Or some soul language? I have faith that I have no soul, and that when I die, my matter will still exist (which is PROVEN, mind you), but my consciousness will not.

Krusso.

Original sin is one of the issues I have with Christianity. That concept just doesn’t sell with me. Do we want to have that long discussion?

As for created in God’s image, absolutely. That is actually something I take almost literally. We are not separate from God. A very simple analogy, God is the ocean and I am a drop of water. I am made of the same stuff as him but can not do things on the same scale, unless I do. But with out enough understanding I can not.

To me that is what made Christ different. He did not have the illusion of being separate from God because he was not separate from God and he knew this. That was how he was able to do what he did.

Luke,

I speak to God all the time in prayer and He has answered my prayers for 20 years now. He speaks to me and all who believe through His word the Holy Bible. I walk by faith in Him who gave me life. All people have faith in something. Is your faith in the manmade theory of Naturalistic Evolution?

Krusso, I would suffice to say that since God has never spoken to me or anyone I know, that God has a relationship of apathy and stagnation. We are the kings of our domain. Who has spoken to God? You? Did he say "Check this out...Gays are bad, atheists are dumb, evolution is dumb, the devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to fool you...anything like that?

Jihadist,

Nothing changes with respect to your "wishy-wash" comments and absense of correction of the critical issues of your Koran aka Book of Death.

Faith, war and realism revisited again:

Gators vs. Muslims??? Gators definitely will kill. Muslims, it depends but with the koran as their operating manual can we trust any of them?

Jihadist, can we trust you??

Hello Rob,

The Bible says that we humans are made in the image of God. When God says that He is not speaking of our physicality but that we have emotions, self reflecting intellect, and a will, but there is another way that we are made in His image and that is the way we can have a relationship with God. God has always had a relationship of love. God is three persons yet one God. He has had this relationship from all eternity. The most profound thing about being made in the image of God is the way we humans can have a relationship with Him once our sins have been washed away by faith in Jesus and His sacrifice and resurrection from the dead.

Ben... I am a Saint Paul boy myself. Minnesota is well represented then!

Ghostbuster... sorry to make you use your brain... my bad.

Priver, I agree on death. I think even more is revealed to us there, but for some reason the thrill of the hunt (understanding while we are here) just has this certain pizzaz to me. It's like don't spoil the surprise or don't read the last page of the book before you get to the end I guess.

I loved the quote 'the universe speaks to us in whichever voice will compel us to take action'.

good night all

...and the problem with you Mr. Adams is that you make me use my brain late at night after I've already shut it off for the evening!

I'll definately look into that website you posted.

God in a box eh? Sounds like one of those late night infomercials. Seriously though, that is a frequent topic of conversation among all the christians I've ever know. I think could write a book on that topic myself.

JIHADIST

Mistyping in haste or lapse of memory?

E.M. Cioran - The certitude that there is no salvation is a form of salvation, in fact it is salvation. Starting from here, one might organize our own life as well as construct a philosophy of history: the insoluble as solution, as the only way out.

Rob Adams:

You write of a phenomena that appears to have some roots across all cultures. People in abrahamic religions have claimed that their god spoke to them or that they have a living relationship with Jesus. Shamans in distinct cultures, over the centuries have used the information obtained through meditation/trance/etc to heal people. The experiences are remarkably similar, even across continents. I think you're really on to something here. This appears to be some sort of mystical experience that is common to all people. Whether it's a mass delusion or some sort of interaction from something larger is really up to the individual to decide. Since it's based on personal experiences, it isn't ever going to be codified and broken down in a scientific manner.

If someone has such an event and they think it's all in their mind, and doesn't act on the information given and someone is hurt by their nonaction, that is something they will have to live with. But if something is received this way and acted upon and someone is helped by it, is it a bad thing?

What you describe is what those who follow an earth based spirituality tend to seek out. I had a teacher once tell me 'the universe speaks to us in whichever voice will compel us to take action'.

As a pagan, I don't separate out creator and created either. There are more people who feel that way than you might think. We see the processes of our minds as just as natural as eating or sex. That's why for us, all are sacred, because all of it comes from Nature. From what I've heard the numbers of people who think this way are growing, too. It's not about rejecting science at all either. It's about using all of our capabilities in equal balance and measure. Something we don't really do much of in this day and age.

Where does that leave the bible in all this? I have no idea. It's my feeling that the bible might be an attempt to describe such events. But some people are so insistent on the inerrancy of the book and words themselves that they don't necessarily see that in there, and so they start insisting that their way is the 'only truth'. And then people start dying over it.

But when I look at the world, at nature and at everything on it, and see divinity everywhere, I can't help but marvel at the wonder and mystery of it all and the possibilities.. I want to learn as much as I can about what I may be able to do to promote education and understanding. Am I going to die? Of course. But when I see death, like birth, life, sexuality, healing as a sacred process, I'm not afraid to die anymore. I'm more afraid of dying before I've done everything I want to.

I think we're all searching for something that may be right inside us all along. Sort of like Dorothy in Oz.

Ben

You live in Minneapolis? Very cold in winter.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me and the two links you gave. It is most useful.

Frisco and its environs seem to have more restaurants in the world per square mile. Better food then even New York I think. Can't still sleep well in local time though.

You noted : "Daniel Dennett wrote, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, of evolution by natural selection being an "acid" that dissolved religious or creationist views of the world. The folk wisdom of most people is heavily influenced by science - often indirectly and destructively. So it seems to me that something needs to replace the areas of religion that are degraded by new knowledge. Or Christianity needs to adapt quite a bit. Isn't there a point at which a religion cannot adapt to new knowledge anymore?"

As you know, nature abhors a vacuum. It also always seem like once one's mind has a gap due to displaced beliefs, one find other beliefs to fill it up. Likewise, once one's soul has a hole due to lost faith in anything, one finds a filler that may be despair, cynicism or new hope and faith. Only one knows how many times in one's life one weave in and out of gaps in the mind and holes in the soul.

E.M. Cioran said - "The certitude that there is no salvation, in fact is salvation. Starting from here, one might our own life as well as construct a philosophy of history : the insoluble as solution, as the only way out."

Or something like that if I remember that offhand correctly which do apply to atheists if they agree to that characterization for unbelief or non-belief. As a believer, of course I have a different kind of certitude - that there is a God, and there is salvation of the human race if we do the right thing here on earth. Rather naive, presumptious and blindingly hopeful:)

You will love John Gray's "Straw Dogs -Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals". It's a short book, less than 250 pages, including appendices, but it really perk's one's mind up and make one think in new ways on human existence whether one agree with Gray or not.

I am partial to thinkers who are mavericks or controversial in their respective fields, be it Hannah Arendt in philosophy, or Joan Robinson in economics.

As he is a professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, John Gray's perspective is from the Judeo-Christian heritage and intellectual tradition. He contend, among other things, that unbelief is a move in a game whose rules are set by believers; that atheism is a late bloom of a Christian passion for truth; that nearly all philosophies, most religions and much of science testify to a desperate concern with salvation of mankind. I love the last paragraph of his book (if I recall it correctly) asking - can we not think of the aim in life as being simply to see?

Ben, it has been a delight talking with you here. I have to focus on work completely for the week.

Best regards

PS - I had the best filet steak ever in Minneapolis. Not in Chicago, Kansas City, Houston, or Dallas.

Krusso.

It seems you are my new best posting partner.

I am saying that God is BOTH personal and abstract, both the creator and the created. I know that doesn’t jive with contemporary belief.

Our senses are but one tool to help us determine our beliefs. For me my senses got me moving to explore that I am more than my body. They have helped me reaffirm a belief in God.

We can know there are things other than our 5 senses. I have heard and felt things while meditating that were not me.

There are things I just feel I know are right. Faith. It is just different than other people.

My spiritual journey continues daily.

Luke and Rob,

Are you positing that nature is God? Are you saying that the natural world is all that there is? Are you saying that the only things we can know are through our senses?

Faith is only as good as the object of faith. Remember that the universe is winding down and that you are going to die.

Luuuke…. Come… to the dark side.

Now you are thinking my friend! Kidding of course, it is all about interpretation and one’s definition of God. In Christianity he is an entity a personal God if you will. Buddhism is more aligned, though not exactly, with what you just said. Buddhists help me out here… Norrie where are you. Who else wants to help with the Pantheist view (all-encompassing immanent abstract God).

I actually believe God is both.

Either can serve the purpose of furthering one’s spirituality. Many say that their concept/definition is correct. You will need to determine for yourself which definition serves your purpose.

My purpose is a quest for ultimate truth… or at least more truth and understanding. That way I can hopefully accomplish two things. Evolve my spirituality which theoretically will serve me better when I leave the Earth. Secondly I believe that an evolved spiritual understanding can help us in the here and now. I guess there is a third reason which is hopefully I can be better than I was yesterday.

Luke if you still have questions, try the Dagoba system… look for a little green guy named Yoda. :)

What if God isn't an entity? What if he is a consciousness that exists in every speck of the universe? I personally think there is a better explanation that no man, dead or alive, has or will ever know of.

Luke.

The short answer to why God put us here; through us he can experience something that he is not, which is separate from anything. Through our illusion of being separate he can experience being separate, though we really aren’t separate, but on a conscious level we appear to be separate.

That’s the latest, greatest answer I know of… but I don’t think it is the end. I think that is about as far as we can go to understanding the ultimate truth at our current stage of evolution. My 2 cents anyway, to each his own.

Luke you are correct in that humans do share a common root system. Good will, compassion and love seem to be the common themes I see across religions. We don’t have to do it because God will be angry or because God says that is what to do. We do it because one should observe that it works.

As for religion and the varying definitions of God, truth, rules etc; Two things really. As I posted to Ghostbuster how do you put the all and the everything into a box? As you even said of course we make him like is otherwise how could we understand him. One definition is not sufficient. God is too grand for that in my opinion. Secondly the message comes to us in difference forms as we each have our ways of comprehending. Religion is a tool and each variation works differently for each person. Choose the tool that suits you best, or choose none at all.

Regardless of which religion a person has been raised on you can tell the people who understand they are more than their bodies, they understand spirit and understand that it transcends an individual religions.

We all have lots to learn.

What are you doing other than being smug with your ignorance? I am arguing with the idea that homosexuality is us spitting in God's face. If he didn't want people to be gay, he wouldn't have made them that way. I am arguing that everything that God does is good (do I even need to fight how ridiculous this argument is?) - good for who? Not for me. If God is out for me than I am out for him too. Luckily, I don't have to, because he doesn't affect me, because he doesn't exist. I don't believe that there is a God who affects things in this world at all. Krusso, why did he make other planets and galaxies? Why aren't you stoning people? Your faith is a mix of what the Bible says and what you can live with and nothing more. What I believe isn't diluted through time. The understanding only grows deeper. Of course I am passionate about it - I was lied to until I discovered the truth on my own.

Luke,

Again I see a lot of passonate anger on your part but no answers. You need to do more than just be outraged.

Again, On what basis are you attempting to argue with me? Are you asserting that nature is all that there is? That all we can know is through the empirical method?

Ghostbuster.

There are about 10-12 books in all. www.cwg.org.

If people approach it with and open mind they will find it an interesting read. If you are really set in your religion you may not find it of much use, it may actually irritate you.

The thing I liked best is it does say in there do not even take this as absolute. Walsch says well then aren't we just making it up as we go along. God's response is you are making it all up as you go along anyway. When we create our own reality, which is actually the illusion we call corporal life. How do you put something omnipotent, the all and the every thing into a box?

There are some shots at confinements of traditional religious practices/beliefs, but if you look past that and really consider some of what he says it will make you think. There are things that are contradictive to standard beliefs and things that overlap.

Even if you don’t believe he actually speaks with God you may find it an interesting read.

The problem with you Ghostbuster is your mere presence on this site now puts the stupid tune in my head!

Hey Rob,

I think I've heard the name Walsch. How many books are in the series? Where can I find a quick synopsis on his works (besides Wiki)?

I realize I can just look up these answers for myself but I haven't chatted with you in a while so I though I'd say "hey" while asking.

GB

Rob, I appreciate your approach as a response to my atheism. It is true that there are things we experience as humans that can't be written off as mere delusions - they do have value. However, I think that the argument of the existence of God is silly - ofcourse we have to make him like us, or how would we ever understand him? Look at it this way, however. What was God's purpose for making us? Would it matter if he never did? Not at all - and that is what brings purpose into question. Does the universe need to exist? Nope. Also, doesn't experience shape belief as well? Why does a book or school of thought have to dictate our actions? Where is the compassion in not wanting to harm someone just so God isn't angry with you? Why not avoid harming them because you care about their well-being or wish them well? Why is it that Pagan and Eastern religions and philosophies contain inate feelings of compassion and love while Western organized religions and philosophies need some damning hand to push them along? I certainly don't need misanthropia to run my life. I don't need solace in the pain of others - where is the love in that? Why not the realization that human beings share a common root system, and that we are stronger when our principals and ideals don't consume good will and compassion?

Luke.

I understand your position. I am an independent when it comes to spirituality; I take what I find useful from various religions, my own experience and research. I have seen or read too much to not explore further. I believe if you explore you will find there is something more. Now what you find is up to you. We all come to our own conclusions on spirituality and religion.

Luke there are a plethora of definitions of what God is, what he does and how he operates. Just because there seem to be a bunch of ‘bad definitions’ doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. It just means we don’t understand right now.

One of my biggest draws to the idea that there is at least something else beyond this body and beyond this life is documentation (proof?) of near death experiences, particularly in children, out of body experiences (read any of the books by Robert Monroe, see the Monroe institute as well) and things I have heard and felt during meditation experiences. There is more than just our bodies.

When I explore those I couldn’t help but be interested in what all the fuss about God is. Even myth came from some sort of truth at some time. My first interest was these people who have allegedly talked to God are the most interesting. I think a number of people who have. The one that caught my eye was Neal Donald Walsch from the Conversations with God series. That will likely drive a number of the Christians crazy, but that’s ok we can still be friends 

The reason that one caught my eye was one it is current, he’s alive we know what has been written down. It is written in our time in our understanding for our culture. The issues I have with ‘typical’ scripture is the authenticity and interpretation. I don’t want to start a thread on that because that is a monster discussion on its own. However by reading Walsch I have become interested in what other religions have said in the past.

First I find the common themes, which there are, and two I want an understanding of all religions since religion helps shape belief and thus people’s action and that shapes our world.

Again I don’t want to debate here Walsch versus typical scripture because that is a large discussion. The point is this long exploration of mine has shown me too much to not explore any of it. There are a multitude of opportunities and tools for us to use to explore spirituality or in your case the discover if there is indeed more.

Find your own path my friend and then find your own answers. There will be many people there that will help you along the way if you so desire.

Peace.

That is the problem Krusso, you don't KNOW anything. You just accept what you don't KNOW as fact. Where is your evidence? A single book. God doesn't allow anything. He doesn't do anything? How can you believe in something so inept and careless? So regimes that kill millions are right? You think you are innocent by ignorance? You think that irresponsibility is just fine because God only does what is right? You don't buy a dog, tell it not to take food from the table, and then leave the room and expect it not too. You just do what you must believe your God did - fill us with shame and hatred and anger to justify our actions. Bravo! Perpetuate sin by condemning it! Great job! I do have a better explanation. The universe did not need a reason to exist. It just did. You are confusing cause and effect with purpose (which is very common in your faith). It didn't take an Einstein to make a plant - it took a seed (with no brain or central nervous system). Also, who has the monopoly on consciousness? Isn't is just as valid to say that the universe wanted to create itself? Why do invisible men have to make everything?

Jihadist,

I thought I would add some more to my response. My last post was kind of long, so I just had to stop at a certain point.

Regarding the language of science - I think it is a mark of a good scientific thinker to feel the connections of all inferences being considered. There needs to be deep understanding, and there should not be an engineering mentality of "lets just do this." At the same time, there needs to be flexibility.

It seems like the most famous scientists are generally those who recognize and capitalize (in some ways) on shifts. Godel and Einstein are two good examples.

But there are many others with very valuable things to say. For example, Judea Pearl wrote what I think is the most interesting book on causality. He is a computer scientist. I don't think any lay people will read his book.

One thing you have explained well to me is that there is a reason science is not as popular as religion. That is because science does not relate well with most people. Because of that, I should not expect people to speak in scientific terms. And I should not expect science to ever replace religion. You are completely right about that I suspect. Hitchens is not going to convince any believers. I doubt Hitchens would convince me either, judging by my reaction to the few pages of "God Is Not Great" I read in the bookstore a few days ago.

Daniel Dennett wrote, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, of evolution by natural selection being an "acid" that dissolved religious or creationist views of the world. The folk wisdom of most people is heavily influenced by science - often indirectly and destructively. So it seems to me that something needs to replace the areas of religion that are degraded by new knowledge. Or Christianity needs to adapt quite a bit. Isn't there a point at which a religion cannot adapt to new knowledge anymore?

Here is where I don't have any ideas.

Thank you Mr Mark for the complete quote. The more I reflect on what Einstein said about religion in relation to science, the more it makes sense.

Jihadist,

I envy your culinary options. I moved to Minneapolis recently. Good food is hard to find. I found a decent, cheap sushi joint though.

By the way, I have several of these ("Map of Science"): http://www.didi.com/brad/mapOfScience/
Oh, Actually here it is: http://informationesthetics.org/node/20 but the above link looks interesting too.

I stare at it every once in a while when I am stuck on something. I thought you might be interested in where social science fits into the "Map." Surprisingly, I don't think there is a heading for economics, but if you look at the tiny words you might find some familiar terms.

I'll try to honestly explain my previous posts with more expansion on my views and where I am coming from.

It is claimed by many educated people in the United States that the basis of our legal system, society, what-have-you, is Christianity. As you know, the principles that the government of the United States was founded on come generally from Enlightenment philosophy. It is just part of our civil society that is heavily influenced by religion, not our constitution.

It is claimed by many creationists that evolution by natural selection is "false", and that it is a "religion" with "faith". Actually, evolution by natural selection is just as complex as Christianity itself. I don't think it would be correct to say that Christianity is "false". Nor would I really expect Christianity to be scientific. Likewise, scientists do not in general have "faith" in science. I don't think it is scientific to believe that science can solve all of the problems in the world. It is possible that science could determine certain possibilities within certain probabilities, but in general science is not about the welfare of society. Science is about determining verifiable truth.

What I am trying to say is that it is not an accurate representation to look at Christianity, Islam, science or philosophy and say that they are all religions, or that they all involve faith. I don't know the etymology of the word 'faith', but I am sure that scientific thinking does not generally include what Christians speak of as faith.

The reason I say it is a "no brainer" that god is a social construct is that I think scientifically, not religiously, and thus it is not a stretch for me to reject the idea of God in my mind. Of course science is a social construct, it is a social technology. But I think science is more realistic, and has a significantly better chance of living on prosperously for many thousands of years than Christianity. Another more contested difference is that Christianity can be criticized regarding its origins, while science is basically immune to such kinds of criticism.

That is my philosophical perspective and it is not "faith."

I actually envy religious people, since they have a framework in which to express certain very human feelings. I don't have that, and I really can't get it, since faith is a concept that I can't wrap my mind around. Certain philosophies, language, and arts are three areas that I feel "spiritual" about.

I do not consider that to be rebellious, because it is society that has given me the tools and knowledge to arrive at my current disposition. I apply the ideas I have been taught, and my conclusion seems to contradict the world view of the majority of Americans, and all of the American politicians. That is puzzling to me.

I don't enjoy it when people put me or others into "boxes". That is why I responded to Susan's response. When I am under a great deal of stress, I do not invoke a god. I could be an atheist in a foxhole. Scientists sometimes put people into boxes when they try to measure religions with a scientific ruler. But I think there is good reason for atheistic scientists to be vocal about their world views in relation to religious world views. That is another issue.

When I say that Christianity is traditionally hierarchical, I don't mean to condemn Christianity. Christianity and government were unified for most of the modern history of the West. Christianity was a political force with a great deal of power. Nearly everything in Western society was justified in the framework of Christianity during most of modern Western history. I don't know much about Islam, so I will not consider that here. Islam is different from Christianity, and both are different from science.

Of course there are hierarchies in science. But as you know, there is a multitude of research organizations. Lots of small hierarchies don't constitute a hierarchy. The fact that science depends on the government doesn't mean that science itself has much political power. And there are no forced conversions or persecutions of "non-believers." If we drew a picture of scientific organizations in the world throughout history, I think it would be much "flatter" than a picture of Christian organizations throughout history, though not flat like a pancake.

I am not interested in what Hitchens has to say about Christianity. I am very interested in religion, and I appreciate it because I think that people need purpose (to put it very simply). Science has not provided much of a purpose to most people. However I am interested in Dawkins because he clearly evaluates religion from a western scientific view point - that is interesting to me. I am somewhat less interested in what he has to say about the social consequences of religion.

I will look up John Gray' books, and I think I might find them interesting. Thank you for the recommendation.

Jihadist,

Nothing changes with respect to your "wishy-wash" comments and absense of correction of the critical issues of your Koran aka Book of Death.

Faith, war and realism revisited:

Gators vs. Muslims??? Gators definitely will kill. Muslims, it depends but with the koran as their operating manual can we trust any of them? Jihadist, can we trust you??

Ben

By the way, I just realized I wrongly quoted John Gray's book in my haste of writing the post before my two subsequent post here.

Briefly anyway, do look up John Gray' books. He's a professor at LSE (London School of Economics). He's books, including Straw Dogs, Two Faces of Liberalism and Heresies are most interesting apart from Al Qaeda and what it means to be modern I mentioned before. Of course the titles are longer than what I wrote here.

For me, John Gray is a more stimulating writer than either Hitchens or Dawkins in all his books. You may or may not agree with him.

Happpy reading.

First, some satirical verses about World War I:

Gott strafe England, and God save the King
God this, God that, and God the other thing.
"Good God", said God, "I've got my work cut out!"

(God punish England)

And someone has noted that people who are involved in individual endurance and extreme sports like ultra running, cycling, mountain climbing, etc. do not seem very involved with religion. They seldom go around bragging about how they expect to live happily ever after in Heaven if they die as a result of their sport. So there could be plenty of atheists on mountaintops.

Also, Communists are well-known for being godless -- yet Communists have fought numerous wars and had come to power in several places by force. So there have been plenty of Communists in foxholes.

Hello Ben,

Thought I'd read your post to get over time zone difference adjustment. And there is at least 365 ways to look at anything, just as there is 365 days in a year, barring the leap year. Some day, scientists should correct that anamoly by redefining and recalculating seconds, hours and days for no more leap years.

Comparing Christianity, Islam and Science as modern construct of man? Right then. Let's have fun here with indoor sport of short points thrown in randomly to tease you and for you to disagree. I want to go out and play and find a cioppino for lunch in Frisco.

The late Victorians thought that their society is the most modern and advance in the world - the pinnacle of civilization and the acme of development in science and technology. They had the steam engine and mechanized cotton factories for heaven's sake.

Science, as Ms. Jacoby pointed out in her post here, is not a religion. However, it do certainly do take a different kind of faith to believe science and technology can overcome energy needs, food needs, and making life easier and more fun with all the household appliances, communications tools and modes of transportation.

It also take a different kind of faith to believe in the Theory of Relativity. To loosely paraphrase Einstein himself, if you can accept and understand relativity as sitting on a hot stove for two minutes feels like eternity, and two hours with a beautiful girl feels like two minutes, then you got it. Even a believer can grasp relativity.

You contend that faith in Christianity is best defined in contrast to scientific truth, almost in opposition, and that Christianity and Islam are traditionally hierarchical, while science and atheism are flat in structure.

Firstly, the structure of Islam is not as rigid, nor as structured and hierarchical, nor as organized, not as centralized (with obvious headquarters) as Christianity. Even for Shiite Islam compared to the Catholic Church.

Secondly, the scientific community do have their own scientific establishments and pecking orders based on groundbreaking research and discovery, papers and books written and published, tenures in credible universtities and research institutes, membership in prestigious science organizations and associations, and number of scientists supporting their work and elaborating, testing, verifying on their theories and/or research.

Thirdly, the science and technology community, like artists and religious scholars, are dependent on their societies for support, be it rulers for their own ends, or the populations who hired them. Presently, the scientific community is dependent on the public and private sector for support of their work. Whatever they do, it is still subject to public acclaim and acceptance. Hard for anyone to remember who got the Nobel prizes for the sciences last year, except the scientific community themselves. Easier to remember the Nobel prize winners for Peace, Economics and Literature.

As for science, one would think that while Einstein is Man of the Century (of the last century as decided by Time magazine and which I never would have thought so, but was told so), one would appreciate more the Henry Fords and Wright Brothers of the world for applied sciences in one's life.

As for Susan Jacoby, I'm her fan. She has intellectual honesty and articulate her thoughts and beliefs in elegant and eloquent terms with humaneness and humanity lacking in some of her atheist readers and posters here.

Don't get too much into jargons, both in pure sciences and social sciences, including paradigm shifts. It just means change. You do remember how "joint ventures" becomes "smart partnerships", and then become "strategic alliances" in the jargon of businesses. It still means joint ventures or parterships for mutual advantages. Either scientists put forward clarity and accessibility of their ideas to the public or Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code will still outsell Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawkings combined. As Einstein said - Imagination is more important than knowledge.

As for your observation that science seem like a "black box" as many they haven't studied it enough, let's face it. Science is associated with geeks and nerds in high school, or demented jerks as adults. It seems to be a social perception based on characterizations by the mass media, including movies. Not a very sexy pursuit it would seem for the "cool" ones in school. Scientists do tend to write in jargon laden heavy sentences that only their fellow scientists in similar fields would understand. Not too many scientists as yet who write like Carl Sagan, Steve Jones, Spenser Wells, Bryan Sykes, Edward O Wilson, Stven Pinker et al.

First degree generalists can read scientific journals and decide on which scientist and technologist to invest in or promote in their work. They have an open mind and are not as proprietry, defensive or narrowly focusssed as post-graduate degree holders. And there are many, many Masters and PhDs holders now in any given field. Somehow, advance degrees imbued a certain cautioness among its holders. They may overthink everything to the point of no imagination, creativity and daring of the unknown and the untried. The best scientific discoveries are made by many scientists before they are forty years old.

So, it is a "no brainer" that God is a social construction. Science and technology is also a human construction - from ideas to applied science and technology.

Surely then, man is the master of, and not slave of his own scientific constructions in theories and applications. But then, scientists and technologists are hired heads (hired hands if you like) of governments and the private sectors that pay their salaries for thinking, research and development. Only at universities who gave them tenure and are well funded do they have freedom to pursue their fields of interest without being directed into doing something specific in their research for business or military applications for example.

Granted, most scientists and technologists are under appreciated in their contributions apart from its stars like Galileo to Einstein. But remember, Galileo has a punchline - the world is round; and Einstein has his e = MC2. Scientists must put forth their theories and discoveries in clearer language and more human terms to sell to the masses who are only too happy to take to the comforts afforded by applied discoveries and constructions in science iwithout following some of their premises, including God is a human construction.

All the best

Mr. Mark,

On what basis are you attempting to argue with me? Are you asserting that nature is all that there is? That all we can know is through the empirical method?

I'm glad you replied. I was looking for one shred of sanity in the responses.

Why is it that the writers of South Park are the only ones who have pointed out that the *other* side is also praying for victory? (In their case, team sports, but the point is valid)

On September 12, 2001 I was able to console myself with the thought that perhaps now Americans would see the folly of religious self-righteousness. Unfortunately, it turned out to be my team vs. their team. Is God on the side of Christians or muslims?

If there were a God I imagine he'd be fed up with both of his teams. He'd be shaking his head of the stupidity of mourners forgetting that they'd prayed for the safe return of their loved ones. How many people have to die before God's followers realize their prayers are futile? Either there is no God, or God wants his people to quit fighting. Either way, the religious zealots on both sides don't deserve the attention the Post gives them.

Dear Ben -

Here's a fuller version of your Einstein quote:

“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."

Ben.

I believe Einstein's quote is spot on. Thanks for posting.

Krusso writes:

"Who says God has to be created?"

Who says the universe has to have been created?

"Can you get something from nothing?"

Yes.

"If something exists then something had to exist for eternity."

You exist. Have you existed for eternity?

"The universe exhibits design."

The universe exhibits chaos. Design is a human concept that you are imposing on an undesigned universe. We tend to see history in a straight line: we tend to believe that one event leads to another and another, when in fact, the slightest change in any of those events could have negated all subsequent events that we - in hindsight - view as being an inevitable sum of causation.

Your beliefs about a designed universe exhibits the same linear thinking.

"Therefore, that which exists forever is a person with the intellect to design things."

So now, god is a person?

BTW - considering the chaos of the universe, I'd say that god's intellect wasn't up to the job when it came to designing the thing.

"Do you have a better explanation?"

The Big Bang is a much more elegant and believeable explanation. Too bad you can't see that.

"Every effect requires a cause or it would not be an effect. In short created things require a creator or they would not be called "created."

Religionists call things created. Scientists and especially cosmologists do not consider the universe to have been created. Your premise is wrong on its face.

"God is not an effect nor is He created. He just is, He does not have a beginning and He will never cease to be."

Read Nietzsche. God died.

BTW - didn't know that god was a He.

"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree."

Albert Einstein

Luke,

Why are you so angry and bitter about a God you say does not exist?

"If everything needed something to create it, then who created God?"

The above statement is a false premise. Who says God has to be created? Can you get something from nothing? If something exists then something had to exist for eternity. The universe exhibits design. Therefore, that which exists forever is a person with the intellect to design things. Do you have a better explanation?

Every effect requires a cause or it would not be an effect. In short created things require a creator or they would not be called "created." God is not an effect nor is He created. He just is, He does not have a beginning and He will never cease to be. He is the source and sustainer of all things. I do not know why He allows evil but He does for His good purposes. I just know that He always does what is right and that I trust Him.

Ben,

I read the reference. Lot of conjecture. No substantiation

Krusso, how do you know that you are correct? Also, my feelings of right and wrong came from my ability to empathize and sympathize with others, and guess what, not everyone has it. If your God is so great, then why does he create stillborn babies or children with mental retardation? It's a moot point. I didn't even know what sin was until some preacher, parent, or teacher told me it was. You say "It is true...", but you know you can't prove it. It isn't true, and it isn't fact. It is faith, which is so far from the truth it isn't worth discussing. If everything needed something to create it, then who created God? I didn't pollute myself with anything - God polluted the world with us. If he knew it was going to happen, then why was he so angry with us? Is he a child? I think not. I would never be as blasphemous to say that God is a child, but I will say he doesn't exist.

CONCERNED,

The United States does not subsidize gasoline within our borders like Iran. There was an opportunity to liberalize the oil business in Iraq a few years ago, but the big oil companies prevented it. That would have driven prices down, because the supply would have gone up. If oil prices went down, developing economies as a whole would reap a greater benefit than the developed economies.

If oil prices decreased too much, labor costs would become more important, and the developing economies would gain a price advantage. Think of the textile industry. If raw materials and energy costs decrease, labor becomes a higher proportion of the cost of doing business. Thus countries like China could gain a comparative advantage if the cost of oil decreased.

If oil was liberalized in Iraq, countries like China might start purchasing oil in RMB instead of US dollars.

Again, the US had the opportunity to liberalize oil in Iraq, but did not. Here is a link explaining it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

People like you take all of the sense out of what the neo-cons have done. If the purpose was to decrease oil prices, then we could have lifted sanctions on Iraq and liberalized it a long time ago. That would have worked. And Saddam would have kept Iraqis in line.

Anon,

If the US had control over oil supplies, gasolene would be 38 cents/gallon as it is Iran vs $3.00 as it is currently in the USA. The free world must have free flow of energy supplies like oil, natural gas and coal to ensure a global and free economy.

Dear Gaby,

How do you know that God is like your description of Him? It is true that He does not need anything from us but He loves us, made us in His image, and offers us forgiveness and a new life. I have had a relationship with God through His Son Messiah Jesus for 20 years now. How do you know that you are correct and that I am "delusional?"

That last anonymous post was to CONCERNED, from me.

"8. And the stock markets and economies around the globe continue to show good growth and opportunity for the common stock holders thanks to the free flow of energy supplies."

At first, though I never believed there were "Weapons of Mass Destruction", I thought the Iraq war was a viable way of keeping oil in control of the US. But it doesn't look like the US will be able to exert control over Iraq. The US is not like the British Empire. We invade countries, then leave. Colonialism is not something the US should strongly consider.

I find it amusing that you disagreed with my claim that the original purpose of the war in Iraq was to control the energy resources integral to the economy of the US. Now you believe that there is a "free flow of energy supplies."

Actually, there is not a free flow, and there was never going to be. The big oil companies and Bush were never going to allow the oil market to be liberalized in Iraq, despite claims otherwise. Liberalizing the oil market would not leave the US in control. It would mainly benefit the developing economies.

Jihadist,

Christianity, Islam and Science are all very modern. They could only have arisen in an already complex society, and they each capture different elements of society.

In places where Abrahamic religions flourish, I think we should distinguish science and atheism from religion in general. Faith in Christianity is best defined in contrast to scientific truth, almost in opposition. Christianity and Islam are traditionally hierarchical, while science and atheism are flat in structure.

"Reading her essays is like listening to a cybersermon addressed to her cybercongregation of fellow believers. Judging by their responses, she got what they think and feel accurately."

But I beg to differ. To me it is a "no brainer" that God is a social construction. I am not faithful. I was not taught much about faith as a child, but I am fairly knowledgeable in the social technology we call science. As Stephen Hawking once said, "neither a beginning nor an end then what place for a Creator?"

And I appreciate what Susan does. If she uses some of the skills that preachers have honed in the last two thousand years, more power to her.

"Advancement of science and technology does not necessarily bring parallel advancements in beliefs and thinking, even with the availibility of mass education and knowledge of what we know in science and history. The creationism vs evolution debate in the US is one such example."

But science is very social in nature. When Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity, he inspired people. I think that inspiration probably had an effect on the development of modern computer hardware. And Gödel inspired Turing, who still inspires modern computer scientists. Those two scientists did not inspire the majority of humans, but they inspired some, and they inspired the scientists, who also inspired some, and who affected the world in ways that we take for granted. That was a long sentence.

Religion sells. There is no doubt that that trend will continue. Science does not even satisfy the dreams that religion fulfills.

And science as a world view does not have to sell. Scientific paradigm shifts do not generally cause spiritual shifts, but they often control the space in which religion breathes. Science and technology are integral to the clearest forms of tentatively irreversible change the world has seen, and will see. That change does not include basic human behavior, but that is not what I am concerned with.

But, being social in nature, there has to be some common ideas, some proliferation, for science. Science is very strong, but it is not traditionally as loud as religion.

"As you know, the problem with tertiary education is that, the higher the degree, the more narrow and specialized the field of study. We now have PhDs in Jane Austen's personal love life or the dwarf sharks of the Pacific. The best and brigtest have become like five blind men and an elephant, even within the same fields. As we all know, scientists, archeologists and historians don't agree sometimes on specific issues. A generalist with a first degree is better than a micro-specialist with a PhD sometimes to get him or her to give a broader picture, in seeing the forest from the tree. A specialist is good to identify the tree that is poisoning and destroying the forest and to find ways to stem it."

I see this much differently. In order to see broadly, I think we need people who think deeply. Science is social, and it is difficult to understand broadly with just an undergraduate degree.

I am often surprised by amateur social scientists who speak of paradigm shifts, but can't explain the dynamics of real paradigm shifts that have actually occurred. I think that is a case where a person of one domain wishes to assert control over all domains. The reason science seems like a "black box" to many is that they haven't studied it enough. Like religion, it is social, ubiquitous, and powerful. But it is different from religion in the West.

"And yes, you are right. Blind faith has put us on the wrong track, but not only in religion, but in politics and economics. And science and technology too. I have no idea why we need chemical, nuclear and biological weapons. Man, with free will and brains, is unpredictable, malleable and focused on self and personal interest. Adaptable and resilient too."

You are right. We should not lump all "blind followers" with religion. I can see why a theist would take issue with such an idea, and it is noted.

Dear Luke,

We have gone our own way away from God and have polluted ourselves with sin. It is like coloring on a Rembrandt painting and ruining the beautiful picture.

Why do you think that you have a sense of right and wrong? Where did that come from?

"if God created us in his image, then isn't he just as filthy?"

When you look in a mirror -you see your image, but its a mere reflection of light and one dimensional.

Answer this, Krusso...if God created us in his image, then isn't he just as filthy?

Jihadist,

I see your Islamic "streams of thought" again took another turn away from the issues.

Again:

When can we assume that these "streams" of Muslim thoughts and beliefs will cleanse the koran of its militancy and hate? When will these "streams" stop the Sunni/Shiite bloodletting?? When will these "streams" relegate "angels" and the "demons of the demented" to the myth pile? When will these "streams" admit that Mohammed was an illiterate, profiteering, hallucinating Arab whose scribes plagiarizied the thoughts, sayings and ways of the ancients??

Susan:
Thank you for the follow up. My father, a christian, explained to me as a teen,"at least agnostics are honest, athiests have no proof for their belief that there is no god". I thought, well that puts athiests and christians on equal footing then doesn't it? This was before I learned of the difficulty of proving a negative, or the circular reasoning used to justify christian faith. I mark that memory as the beginning of the end of the dogma I absorbed as a child. I am now 40+ and have to smile when I hear christians describing athiesm as a "faith".

KRUSSO,

I didn't call you names. I find your thinking delusional, because I do not consider myself a lawbreaker, nor do I find the "original sin" in any way original. Because 2 people supposedly ate something from a tree that they should have all mankind gets condemned? Ridiculous!!!

What kind of "Father" kills his children for committing a misbehaving? I would say only a monster!

I wish people would see the light! Yes, there is a god, IT is called "Iam who I am", and IT is most certainly not the god of the bible, the koran, or any other so-called holy book!

IT is in us and all around us, IT doesn't need to worshipped because IT knows us inside and out. IT is the light and never darkness. Therfore, there is no sin, not original or otherwise.

There is moral misbehaviour by some, but their light doesn't shine very brightly and if they don't watch it, their light will die out.

Gaby,

Hope your day is going well. Calling me names really does not prove anything. What is so delusional about believing that lawbreakers deserve punishment? In light of the obvious answer is it not benevolent of God to offer forgiveness to all who would trust Him?

Dear Susan,

What is the source of knowing right and wrong instinctively?

LUKE:

"What could be so bad to burn for eternity? Nothing I can think of."

Actually, I could. That would be to live for eternity.

However, since there is not hell we don't have to worry about it.

Other than that, I agree with Susan and you about not having to be religious to lead a moral life.

I agree, Mrs.Jacoby, that people who lack a sense of ethical limits are found in every religion - in other words, religion doesn't "cure bad human beings". I also don't believe that people are born without an ability to determine what would cause others pain and suffering, but are conditioned to ignore that pain and suffering. Religion can be dangerous in that it can be interpreted to give an excuse as to why that pain and suffering should be ignored. Society dictates morality more so than religion, but that doesn't say that we are unable to compassion unless we are taught to do so. As an atheist, I believe that my compassion and morals came less from my religious background than from an innate understanding of what caused others pain. I didn't feel bad about hurting someone's feelings because God felt it was bad - I felt bad because I knew how that pain felt myself. This is the reason why the idea of Hell exists - to calm the fragile egos of people who are mired in hateful thinking and vengeance. What could be so bad to burn for eternity? Nothing I can think of.

I'm adding a comment because I've been very interested in some of the later comments on this thread--particularly those regarding atheists and war and atheists and science.

I, for one, certainly do not think that if religion disappeared, war would disappear. War seems to tap into some very basic human drive for domination that religions sometimes oppose and sometimes harness for their own purposes. Atheists, like people of faith, are quite capable of engaging in the entire spectrum of human activity--from the most evil to the most noble.

What we can discern is that religion has proved generally ineffective at restraining the impulses that lead to war, accompanied by massive violations of human rights. However limited the international tribunal in the Hague is in its power, it has brought some brutal criminals to trial, before the world, for their assaults on human rights. One certainly can't say the same, today or in the past, for powerful religious institutions.

Atheism is not a religion. Science, unlike orthodox religion, is not a closed system. What we conclude on the basis of available scientific evidence is just that--a conclusion based on available evidence, subject to modification by new scientific discoveries and thought. Religion, by contrast, is a conclusion based upon belief in events for which there is no evidence in the natural world. Indeed, these central religious events are directly contrary to the laws of nature.

Nor is atheism an ethical system. Atheists, like everyone else, must derive their ethics from a sense of what it means to live as a decent human being--in relation to oneself a well as others. Decent human beings, whether they are religious or not, know instinctively that it is wrong to torture and murder other human beings. Bad human beings, religious or not, lack a sense of the ethical limits we need to live with one another.

KRUSSO,

My friend, I think you are delusional.

PATTON LOVER:

"What truly innocent lives that are lost in any war are the responsibility and fault of those who initiated the violence (Iraq, Iran, the Taliban, etc...)"

Therein lies the irony, neither Iraq, Iran, the Taliban, etc... invaded us or initiated violence against us. The American politicians started the war in Iraq under false pretenses as has been reveiled in the last couple of years.

I initially supported the war, but have come to change my mind. That, however, does not mean that I do not fully support our men and women in uniform.

Frank War is perpetual. If you wage war, it never ends. There are no victors. The military exists for monetary gain, not to resolve anything. Also, Krusso, I don't need YOUR basis for morality, especially since Christians do not have a monopoly on morality. Don't forget, your religion is still young - all of the concepts within are nothing new, they are juxtaposed from religions and philosophies that existed long before it. I don't rely in dead men to tell me I am filthy in my righteousness. If God created me in his image, than he is just as filthy as I.

Ben

Thanks for your two posts. I was peeking in to see if Maurie Beck or Ba'al would ever come in here. Love their posts. These two atheists are certainly not naive. I never regard atheism as naive, but some atheists certainly are.

Let me give a response before I leave.

I love reading essays by Susan Jacoby because she is a freethinker who wrote about what freethinkers and atheists believe in and why. Belief that there is no God and religion is a sham is also a belief. Reading her essays is like listening to a cybersermon addressed to her cybercongregation of fellow believers. Judging by their responses, she got what they think and feel accurately.

The perception that atheists place science above all is obvious due to the primacy placed by atheists on tangible evidence and research, be it biological or archeological and use of the brains for deductions and analyses of course. Atheists also quote scientists such as Richard Dawkins and his "The God Delusion" copiously. And Einstein too. Both happened to be scientists.

Science and technology is an enabler to help us unravel the mysteries of nature. Science and technology is also a facilitator for daily life (as in household items, machinery, vehicles, communication tools etc) and disseminating knowledge, ideas and objectives. Content is another matter. Even Muslim extremists never shirk from availing themselves of developments made possible by science and technology to make their point. John Gray's "Al Qaeda and Being Modern" has an interesting premise on this.

Advancement of science and technology does not necessarily bring parallel advancements in beliefs and thinking, even with the availibility of mass education and knowledge of what we know in science and history. The creationism vs evolution debate in the US is one such example.

I would not write off belief in God or the demise of religion too soon. China, after over 50 years of religious suppression and Maoism, now has some 300 million Chinese who stated they have religious beliefs. In Indonesia and Malaysia, the easy-going Islam of the sixties are now tightened ironically, by political and national identification. Just as some Americans insist that being American is being Christian or the US is a Christian state, Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia insist likewise for their own countries.

As for what you said - .. "it is is better to have a more significant number of scientists, engineers, and philosophers to come up with solutions to the new, technology and science based problems we are presented with."
I could not agree with you more. But I certainly would add sociologists, political scientists and economists to that group for a more comprehensive or omnibus approach. Frankly we can leave out philosophers.

As you know, the problem with tertiary education is that, the higher the degree, the more narrow and specialized the field of study. We now have PhDs in Jane Austen's personal love life or the dwarf sharks of the Pacific. The best and brigtest have become like five blind men and an elephant, even within the same fields. As we all know, scientists, archeologists and historians don't agree sometimes on specific issues. A generalist with a first degree is better than a micro-specialist with a PhD sometimes to get him or her to give a broader picture, in seeing the forest from the tree. A specialist is good to identify the tree that is poisoning and destroying the forest and to find ways to stem it.

This much is certain, just as consumer products are varied and we are spoilt for choices, just as the Internet has millions of sites and blogs for every area of interest under the sun, just as there are countless denominations of Christianity, there will be further fragmentations of peoples by interests, beliefs and concerns that transcend borders, that shift with interests and urgency - from the environment, to NPT, to conflicts and wars, to belief in God or otherwise.

And yes, you are right. Blind faith has put us on the wrong track, but not only in religion, but in politics and economics. And science and technology too. I have no idea why we need chemical, nuclear and biological weapons. Man, with free will and brains, is unpredictable, malleable and focused on self and personal interest. Adaptable and resilient too.

And finally (they are calling my flight), I'm treating atheism as another product in the marketplace of beliefs. Let atheism, like other beliefs, be sold by its advocates and decided by the consumers to accept or reject in toto in in part. As of now, to my amusement, its marketers seem intent in insulting possible customers rather then selling the merits of their product. And when the customer is not buying, they called stupid not to do so. And those customers, who bought atheism, also insulted those that have as being moronic and possessor of lesser, flawed and outdated products.

I hope some atheists, to misuse Greenspan's phrase, in their "irrational exuberance" of their belief that their product is the best panacea for the state of the world, don't get dissappointed when some consumers not only reject their marketing methods, but their product too. After all, there is still free choice.

All the best Ben. You do keep me from being bored waiting. I am always too, too early for flights.

Jihadist,

You noted: "Read the pieces by the Muslim panelists in On Faith more thoroughly. They accurately reflect the streams of Muslim thoughts and beliefs now coursing in the wider Muslim world among forward looking or progressive Muslims. Just don't get in the crossfire of the discourses among Muslims in their internal debate. Screaming on the sidelines, as you do, is fine and duly noted."

When can we assume that these "streams" of Muslim thoughts and beliefs will cleanse the koran of its militancy and hate? When will these "streams" stop the Sunni/Shiite bloodletting?? When will these "streams" relegate "angels" and the "demons of the demented" to the myth pile? When will these "streams" admit that Mohammed was an illiterate, profiteering, hallucinating Arab whose scribes plagiarizied the thoughts, sayings and ways of the ancients??

I am sure if you are flying to the USA that Homeland Security already is watching. Enjoy the strip search and X-rays.

E Favorite,

Unrighteousness is sin so you contradict your self

Jihadist,

"Some scientists do contend that man is an evolved animal too, and while the biological evolution of man is accepted, mental and social evolution of man is regarded or considered less by the same scientist advocating "creationism" of ideas such as atheism, i.e. instantaneous non-belief. Can't accept man to be created almost instantenously by God (creationism), but evolution of man as a being. Can't resist this circular argument to drive atheists up the wall. I'm on the side of believers of God or course, but hey, the other believers of God/Divine entity can thrash Islam and Muslims all they want here or elsewhere."

It seems you are trying too hard. Atheism only exists because of theism, of course. The intellectual support for atheism is in philosophy and science, which clearly evolved. There is evidence for the pre-historic worship of anthropomorphisms, and there is also evidence for number systems, tool-making, etc. Humans have the propensity to form hierarchies, and create tools and symbols.

Faith is a relatively (relative to pre-history) recent idea, which could only exist in the face of the growing influence of science and non-theistic philosophies. Without science, it was easy for our pre-historic ancestors to believe anything. Faith was unnecessary, aside from the "problem of evil". Though I am not sure pre-historic peoples would have grasped Christianity or Islam.

"No one is disputing that agression is inherent in man's genes, regardless as being evolved to its current state. We are still no better when it comes to marking out territories, dominating/protecting the weaker ones and defending our group as do gorrillas, tigers and elephants. We are no better from flying flocks of seagulls to swimming herrings in packs by instict. God help the man who blundered in the path of a herd of elephants making its seasonal treks in the jungle. One makes way."

No one is disputing your above paragraph. Now let me say that you are looking at society from a religious perspective. A friend once told me that China is growing economically and will continue to grow, but that it is nothing China hasn't seen before. I told him that in some respects he is correct, but that the future really will be new to China, because it's machines will be 10000 times more powerful than when China was previously the world superpower.

History is only 10-15 thousand years old, and we are approaching some of the limits of the earth.

True, groups of people will still behave the same - human nature won't change without direct technological intervention in the brain.

But, to paraphrase Napoleon Bonaparte "give a savage a watch and he'll think it has a soul". Compare, without religion or even morality, what is common knowledge, common practice, today, with the way people lived 15,000 years ago. Looking at it as an "extra-terrestrial scientist" might, we are changing, "progressing", you might say. Humans have the power to shape our environment, regardless of morality or ethics.

Now, how does this relate to what Susan was saying? It doesn't pay to have an entire nation of blind followers. It is better to have a more significant number of scientists, engineers, and philosophers to come up with solutions to the new, technology and science based problems we are presented with. It is possible for us to create the future, rather than waste money and people ("intellectual capital", for the cynics) in a struggle that has unfortunately become a failure. Blind faith has put us on the wrong track.

PATTON LOVER,

You are correct in asserting that some atheists have ethical ideas strangely similar to Christianity. But I think you should note that science, which has provided reason to not believe in a creator, has not yet fully explained human behavior. There is still much to learn in the social sciences. We could even learn eastern ethics, which is more developed than western ethics and could help us to formulate interesting questions.

There is nothing non-atheistic to "clinging" to some Christian values, or being an "English" scientist, as spoken by Nietzsche.

Can't you see that atheists are not asking anyone to throw away 2000 years of history? Change. Incremental change. Ideas and symbols only create change when people can stomach them.

When a journalist promotes atheism, it has an immediate effect on everyone who notices. While some readers may think atheism is naive, I know that Susan's voice affects the minds of many.

Susan plants ideas in our brains, whether you know it or not, and all of the nitpicking in the world will only serve to proliferate them.

And her ideas are reasonable. Contrast what she is saying with most of what George W. Bush says. Or with Gingrich's speech on "Radical Secularism". Who is assaulting the truth?

Nonbelievers are often extremely patriotic.

But science is often seen as the "religion" of athiests, in competition with religion. Actually, science existed prior to Christianity, and has always served as a basis for evaluating the basic question "Is that glass really on that table?", and all of the much more difficult problems that arise in a complex society. Science is not a "religion" in the West. It is not a clearly defined entity or organization to believe in - it is a corpus of knowledge that drives our society, loosely held together by strands of philosophy, technology, education, research. It is not a benefit to have scientific "faith" in order to practice science. Paradigm shifts do not cause emotional turmoil, and the old paradigms still maintain their usefulness. That said, it is not completely incorrect to place science and religion in one very broad common category.

Science is linked to education, communications, transportation, law, philosophy. In order to have an educated populace, the basic principles of science, and the philosophy of science, should be common knowledge - regardless of religion.

Because science is beginning to explain what religion once held a monopoly on, the people are listening to what Susan is saying, religious and non-religious. There is not going to be a sudden spiritual shift in our society, but there are always changes, all around us. And right now, although temporary religious fervor is the flavor du jour, there is a growing voice of reason and... atheism.

Krusso - I don't think I'm a sinner. I'm no longer Christian, so sin doesn't apply to me. I said I'm not righteous. I was complimenting myself.

As to you knowing the mind of Christ - maybe you should apply for a job at the White House. Or maybe you should seek psychiatric help.

Henry James

Just because I'm right now at an airline lounge munching on salmon doesn't mean I don't peek in On Faith.

Very sweet post there for me. Thank you. But artfully avoiding a small question too. Don't wimp out of me now:

Do you really believe, think that if everyone stop believing in God, if there is no religion anymore, conflicts and wars will cease?

I know Hitchens and many atheists are totally against astrology, fortune telling and/or prophesy, but surely atheists are allowed to speculate, hypothesize, theorize, forecast on this question based on scientifically collated, studied, tested and verified data?

By the way, Shakespeare and Mozart, I agree, do represent the standards for depth, range, complexity, structure and order in literature and music respectively. All the same, I don't get into an argument on Shakespeare, say, with the Japanese. They have "The Tale of Genji" by Lady Murasaki Shikibu. Every country and culture has its standards, classics and pride in the arts.

As for Confucius, his teachings is a bit authoritarian in preserving order above all. Respect for elders and authority is a major element. Understandable how Chinese emperors found Confucianism attractive due to China's history of debilitating civil wars. Confucianism was required study for the exams of mandarins who administered China, rigidly, on behalf of the emperors.

As for Buddha, no one is disputing his greatness as a teacher and spiritual leader. Buddhism is a perfect compromise for atheists who want to live by some form of faith without God - spiritualism without God.

It would be very interesting for you to read how Buddhism is shaped and practiced in Sri Lanka and Indochina where it is still widely adhered and practiced. Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism have the most adherents now, but what is widely read and known about in the west is Tibetan and Zen Buddhism. It is like reading on Sufism in Islam.

Buddhism, thought without belief in a divine entity, do get tainted with specific practices that are definitely unBuddhist in Buddhist majority countries such as Sri Lanka and Indochinese states (Burma, Cambodia, Laos).

Buddhists in these countries can be militants howling for war and nationalism. They can be prone to violence too, as manifested in Sri Lanka and Burma. I will not go into details as to how politics, economics and social issues affects the thinking of Buddhist monks and laymen in their reactions.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

Good to see you in your usual form. Don't your teachers back in school and colleges make teaching and learning fun and exciting at all?

Please alert Homeland Security Department that a "Jihadist" is travelling to the US, and visiting San Francisco too, where in her free time, she'll be partying with the gorgeous gays.
Meet me there so we can get tattoos and leather jackets together and dance to "YMCA" and "I Will Survive". It won't kill you.

Would love to respond to your assertions on Islam and Muslims, but you apparently always confused the Catholic church and aspects of Christian beliefs and practices with Islam.

Read the pieces by the Muslim panelists in On Faith more thoroughly. They accurately reflect the streams of Muslim thoughts and beliefs now coursing in the wider Muslim world among forward looking or progressive Muslims. Just don't get in the crossfire of the discourses among Muslims in their internal debate. Screaming on the sidelines, as you do, is fine and duly noted.

All the best.

Gaby,

The Holy Scriptures teach us that we deserved to be in hell right now. But God is merciful and kind He offers pardon to whoever will call upon His name.

E Favorite,

I am glad to see that you know that you are a sinner. Because people in denial are not open to help from the Almighty. I do have the mind of Christ because His Spirit lives in me. His word says that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." His word tells me that I deserve His judgment but that He has given me forgiveness because I trust in Him. I have His word on the matter and I believe Him. So you see I am just telling you what His word says. If you have a problem with what God says then you have a problem with Him. I suggest you humble yourself and ask for His forgiveness like I did years ago.

"For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16)

Patton Love.

I need to disagree, particularly if you are coming from a religious perspective versus an atheist perspective. For reference I am spiritual independent.

The religious perspective is that the afterlife is far more important and last than this blip of time we call life on earth. From a Christian perspective I don’t recall man being given the right to choose form illegal and legal killing.

Patton Lover the reason we end up in war is because we don’t treat each others as equals in the first place.

Violence begets violence. War really only treats the symptom, generating people like Hilter, Islamic extremists, etc. Without addressing the cause another will spring up in there place. Thus we have a never ending list of enemies.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Non of the religious icons (Christ, Buddha, etc) would condone war. An truly evolved spiritual being would rather perish on earth than harm another since death is merely a transition to another realm.

Now dealing with an atheist who doesn’t believe in afterlife… this could be a hard sell!

KRUSSO wrote:

"If He gave us what we deserved we would not be breathing His air right now."

What exactly does THAT mean?

Killing someone is not wrong. Patton was a hero precisely because he was very effective in organizing and commanding a tremendous killing machine. His tenacity and competence is a worthy aspiration for all reasoned Americans. Where many who embrace Judeo-Christian ideology (especially atheists who hold onto Judeo-Christian ideology) get confused is equivocating the immoral practice of murder (illegal killing) with the right of self preservation. The two are not the same yet the article condemns Patton as though he were a murderer, that his life should somehow not be celebrated. He and those like him are the only reason we can freely exist today. Your life would not be your own today, but rather a cog in some fascist wheel. Tell me, how is that moral?

As for all the atheists who cling to Judeo-Christian philosophy, namely altruism and pacifism (i.e. non survivalism a.k.a. death), why haven't you come up with your own understanding of morality. You berate Christianity on one hand yet hijack its most repugnant ideas on the other, such as turning the other cheek. To treat those who are trying to kill you as equals is embracing death. We who embrace freedom and are repulsed by murder and who celebrate life through our efforts are superior to those who kill for Allah, control lives and destroy in the name of their beliefs, whether their beliefs came from Marx or Muhammad.

What truly innocent lives that are lost in any war are the responsibility and fault of those who initiated the violence (Iraq, Iran, the Taliban, etc...) We have not lost the right to our life, liberty, or property because someone has taken hostages. We can use care and humane efforts (something our enemies do not do) to mitigate the losses, but we can not embrace their culture of death because they have the innocent under their command.

I have no qualms with many religious people and a host of reservations with others. My criteria isn't whether I agree with their beliefs but rather do their beliefs agree with my individual rights (see John Locke). If Patton was motivated by his love of God and killed several million Nazi's because of that fervent belief, good for all of us! Respect or belief in God is up to you, respecting the individual rights of American citizens is the moral obligation of the government.

Krusso. No - I don't think I'm righteous and I don't think I know the mind of God, which you seem to when you say, "If He gave us what we deserved we would not be breathing His air right now."

When 9/11 happened, people across America and around the world prayed for the victims and for understanding and guidance.

When the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech happened, people in America and other countries did the same thing.

If we turn to God in those times of trial, why would we not look to God in times of war. It is part of our national story. To remove that reality from war movies would make them historically innaccurate.

Was Abraham Lincoln delusional when he invoked Christ's words and other quotes from the Bible in his second, and most famous innaugural address?

Was FDR delustional when he led the nation in a nine-minute prayer on D-Day in 1944?

Suffering and strife are man's lot for turning its back on God, not the other way around. The real question is why did God, in the person of Jesus, endure suffering in this world for us?

His willingness to submit to the brutal military machine of the ancient Romans should humble us all and lead us to the knowledge that even in the midst of this man-made suffering, God is with us, and he has provided a way for us to restore our peaceful relationship with him for the remainder of eternity.

Those who have eyes to see, see the truth. Those who have ears to hear, hear the truth.

"But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, 'LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."'

1 Corinthians 1:30-31

E favorite,

I never made a claim to be more righteous than God. I know that all my righteousness is like a filthy rag. I depend on Jesus alone for my salvation and righteousness. I was just pointing out that Jacoby has set herself up as a judge and a standard of righteousness by her arrogant judgmental attitude towards a sovereign, loving, just God. If He gave us what we deserved we would not be breathing His air right now.

How about you? Do you think you are righteous? If so on what basis do you think you are good? I am waiting for your answer.

“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” (Isaiah 64:6).

1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Why? Because they were born Muslims and don't know any better. Lose their faith because of war? Of course not, war is part of their "koranic" faith. "Death to unbelievers" being their battle cry!!!!!!

I never repeat myself, but here I have to, please forgive me. I paste my slightly edited post from the thread on Hitchens ("God is not great").

Every German soldier (all were drafted) in WWII had "Gott mit uns" (god is with us) written on his belt buckle, and most everyone of the millions who perished believed it. And most every German soldier, with few important and very late exceptions (Stauffenberg, 20th of July 1944, who failed, alas) wanted to help win the war, stay alive, come back to his family, cuddle with their puppy etc., and every soldier had the same fervent patriotic feeling to defend his country as any imaginable US soldier may have in Iraq, believer or atheist.

The real Evil sits in the center: Hitler's bunker, the White House, Stalin's Kremlin, the Islamist fanatics, you name them. The perversion is, that each one of these leaders believed and believes in his "just cause": Even Hitler (who did some talented drawing, loved music and German shepherds and talked of divine providence all the time) and Stalin and Mao were convinced they acted in the best interest of their countries when comitting the most awful atrocities. Hitler even simply followed Martin Luther's recommendations literally when ordering the holocaust. The suicide bombers are fervently convinced of the highest moral motivation when blowing up people. They do not subjectively INTEND to do evil. For them, it is their highest possible religious good, the sacrifice of their lives they have to offer plus the wonderful rewards in their afterlife, exactly like Christians.

I am not defending any of these awful human actions, whose main source is hubris and perverted power. I only would like people to think a little more about the "plasticity" of the human mind, its glory and abysses. But I completely fail to detect any plausible "will of god" in any of these man-made tragedies and idiocies. The only fully plausible and intellectually satisfactory explanation: He does not exist.

The stupid "good vs. evil" dichotomy (General Boykin, "intelligence" undersecretary, hahaha, and his ilk of fellow imbeciles) we hear all the time shows nothing but a complete lack of intelligence, judgment and a sad lack of psychological, philosophical and historic knowledge.

May 30, 2007 2:59 PM

Hello !
Ms. Susan Jacoby
No notice of personal belief should be given any consideration.
Actual experience should count for a lot.
Please try to put yourself in my position during the Korean War.
We were in foxholes.
We were being shot at by small arms.
We were being fire upon by Chinese Communist artillery.
And you ask your God to make it stop.
And it does not stop, but continues for hours and hours.
What are you going to believe, Ms. Jacoby, that the God of your childhood cares nothing for you or that the Communist Chinese are not listening to your God ?
You must come down on the side that there is no God and the only way for you get out of the situation is to take things into your own hands.
D.A. Green
nichevoo@hotmail.com

Bruce, I'm hoping you just didn't realize how slowly this thing sometimes posts....By my count you've made the same comment 34 times.

bruuuuuuuuccccceeeeeeee

dry up and blow away.

BRRRUCE,

HOW MAY TIMES, do you have to make your point?

The problem with WAR TODAY, is that in order to deceive one's enemy, one must often also deceive one's own people.

Take Iraq for example. Most Americans believe that we are in Iraq to preserve our future access to oil and many Americans do NOT REMEMBER the gas lines going all around the block, the possibility of even after waiting sometimes for over a hour, the station might run out anyway.

EVEN IF WE ARE THEREFORE IN IRAQ TO PRESERVE AMERICA'S FUTURE ACCESS TO OIL ---- SO WHAT !!!

LETS WAKE UP FOLKS AND BEFORE WE DECIDE TO GIVE UP OVER THERE, TRY WALKING EVERYWHERE FOR A MONTH, OR RIDDING A BIKE EVERYWHERE.

AND EVEN IF YOU DON'T MIND PERSONALLY DOING THIS AND ++++IF+++++ YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO PERSONALLY DO THIS, OUR AIRLINES, BUSES, SUBWAYS, MILITARY AND HEATING SUPPLIES CURRENTLY REQUIRE OIL.

WHEN WE THREATENED TO BLOCKADE JAPAN MONTHS BEFORE THEIR ATTACK ON PEARL IN 1941, THEY ATTACKED TO PRESERVE THEIR ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES ELSEWHERE.

IN WORLD DEMOCRACIES, OIL AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES CAN BE BOUGHT AND SOLD -- IT IS THE DEMOCRATIC WAY -- BUT WHEN ZEALOTS AND ESPECIALLY ALLEGEDLY RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS CONTROL TERRITORY RICH IN NATURAL RESOURCES +++++WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT +++DON'T WE !!!

So we pray, study, work AND MAKE SURE THAT NEVER HAPPENS AND IF THAT REQUIRES WAR, THEN SO BE IT.

The problem with WAR TODAY, is that in order to deceive one's enemy, one must often also deceive one's own people.

Take Iraq for example. Most Americans believe that we are in Iraq to preserve our future access to oil and many Americans do NOT REMEMBER the gas lines going all around the block, the possibility of even after waiting sometimes for over a hour, the station might run out anyway.

EVEN IF WE ARE THEREFORE IN IRAQ TO PRESERVE AMERICA'S FUTURE ACCESS TO OIL ---- SO WHAT !!!

LETS WAKE UP FOLKS AND BEFORE WE DECIDE TO GIVE UP OVER THERE, TRY WALKING EVERYWHERE FOR A MONTH, OR RIDDING A BIKE EVERYWHERE.

AND EVEN IF YOU DON'T MIND PERSONALLY DOING THIS AND ++++IF+++++ YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO PERSONALLY DO THIS, OUR AIRLINES, BUSES, SUBWAYS, MILITARY AND HEATING SUPPLIES CURRENTLY REQUIRE OIL.

WHEN WE THREATENED TO BLOCKADE JAPAN MONTHS BEFORE THEIR ATTACK ON PEARL IN 1941, THEY ATTACKED TO PRESERVE THEIR ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES ELSEWHERE.

IN WORLD DEMOCRACIES, OIL AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES CAN BE BOUGHT AND SOLD -- IT IS THE DEMOCRATIC WAY -- BUT WHEN ZEALOTS AND ESPECIALLY ALLEGEDLY RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS CONTROL TERRITORY RICH IN NATURAL RESOURCES +++++WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT +++DON'T WE !!!

So we pray, study, work AND MAKE SURE THAT NEVER HAPPENS AND IF THAT REQUIRES WAR, THEN SO BE IT.

The problem with WAR TODAY, is that in order to deceive one's enemy, one must often also deceive one's own people.

Take Iraq for example. Most Americans believe that we are in Iraq to preserve our future access to oil and many Americans do NOT REMEMBER the gas lines going all around the block, the possibility of even after waiting sometimes for over a hour, the station might run out anyway.

EVEN IF WE ARE THEREFORE IN IRAQ TO PRESERVE AMERICA'S FUTURE ACCESS TO OIL ---- SO WHAT !!!

LETS WAKE UP FOLKS AND BEFORE WE DECIDE TO GIVE UP OVER THERE, TRY WALKING EVERYWHERE FOR A MONTH, OR RIDDING A BIKE EVERYWHERE.

AND EVEN IF YOU DON'T MIND PERSONALLY DOING THIS AND ++++IF+++++ YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO PERSONALLY DO THIS, OUR AIRLINES, BUSES, SUBWAYS, MILITARY AND HEATING SUPPLIES CURRENTLY REQUIRE OIL.

WHEN WE THREATENED TO BLOCKADE JAPAN MONTHS BEFORE THEIR ATTACK ON PEARL IN 1941, THEY ATTACKED TO PRESERVE THEIR ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES ELSEWHERE.

IN WORLD DEMOCRACIES, OIL AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES CAN BE BOUGHT AND SOLD -- IT IS THE DEMOCRATIC WAY -- BUT WHEN ZEALOTS AND ESPECIALLY ALLEGEDLY RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS CONTROL TERRITORY RICH IN NATURAL RESOURCES +++++WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT +++DON'T WE !!!

So we pray, study, work AND MAKE SURE THAT NEVER HAPPENS AND IF THAT REQUIRES WAR, THEN SO BE IT.

The problem with WAR TODAY, is that in order to deceive one's enemy, one must often also deceive one's own people.

Take Iraq for example. Most Americans believe that we are in Iraq to preserve our future access to oil and many Americans do NOT REMEMBER the gas lines going all around the block, the possibility of even after waiting sometimes for over a hour, the station might run out anyway.

EVEN IF WE ARE THEREFORE IN IRAQ TO PRESERVE AMERICA'S FUTURE ACCESS TO OIL ---- SO WHAT !!!

LETS WAKE UP FOLKS AND BEFORE WE DECIDE TO GIVE UP OVER THERE, TRY WALKING EVERYWHERE FOR A MONTH, OR RIDDING A BIKE EVERYWHERE.

AND EVEN IF YOU DON'T MIND PERSONALLY DOING THIS AND ++++IF+++++ YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO PERSONALLY DO THIS, OUR AIRLINES, BUSES, SUBWAYS, MILITARY AND HEATING SUPPLIES CURRENTLY REQUIRE OIL.

WHEN WE THREATENED TO BLOCKADE JAPAN MONTHS BEFORE THEIR ATTACK ON PEARL IN 1941, THEY ATTACKED TO PRESERVE THEIR ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES ELSEWHERE.

IN WORLD DEMOCRACIES, OIL AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES CAN BE BOUGHT AND SOLD -- IT IS THE DEMOCRATIC WAY -- BUT WHEN ZEALOTS AND ESPECIALLY ALLEGEDLY RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS CONTROL TERRITORY RICH IN NATURAL RESOURCES +++++WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT +++DON'T WE !!!

So we pray, study, work AND MAKE SURE THAT NEVER HAPPENS AND IF THAT REQUIRES WAR, THEN SO BE IT.

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! The best article I have ever read regarding war. I have always believed that the three main causes of war are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. How many Wiccans or Satanists have ever started a war? In addition, patriotism is a religion. Using the United States as an example consider this: America is the god, its symbols are the flag and the Statue of Liberty, its tithes are taxes, its pope is the president, its priesthood is congress, its laity is the American people, its hymns include "God Bless America", "My Country Tis of Thee", and its rituals include saluting the flag and pledging allegiance to the flag. Combine patriotism with the prevailing religion of a society and you have a powerful new tool for waging war. Citizens will do all kinds of stupid things in the name of their country and of their god. No soldier sacrifices his life; his life is stolen from him. The reason so many young people are willing to fight and possibly die for the collective term "country" is because they believe God sits up there in Heaven in front of a red-white-and-blue-paved street handing out medals to slain Americans. Pure nonsense, absolute nonsense.

The problem with WAR TODAY, is that in order to deceive one's enemy, one must often also deceive one's own people.

Take Iraq for example. Most Americans believe that we are in Iraq to preserve our future access to oil and many Americans do NOT REMEMBER the gas lines going all around the block, the possibility of even after waiting sometimes for over a hour, the station might run out anyway.

EVEN IF WE ARE THEREFORE IN IRAQ TO PRESERVE AMERICA'S FUTURE ACCESS TO OIL ---- SO WHAT !!!

LETS WAKE UP FOLKS AND BEFORE WE DECIDE TO GIVE UP OVER THERE, TRY WALKING EVERYWHERE FOR A MONTH, OR RIDDING A BIKE EVERYWHERE.

AND EVEN IF YOU DON'T MIND PERSONALLY DOING THIS AND ++++IF+++++ YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO PERSONALLY DO THIS, OUR AIRLINES, BUSES, SUBWAYS, MILITARY AND HEATING SUPPLIES CURRENTLY REQUIRE OIL.

WHEN WE THREATENED TO BLOCKADE JAPAN MONTHS BEFORE THEIR ATTACK ON PEARL IN 1941, THEY ATTACKED TO PRESERVE THEIR ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES ELSEWHERE.

IN WORLD DEMOCRACIES, OIL AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES CAN BE BOUGHT AND SOLD -- IT IS THE DEMOCRATIC WAY -- BUT WHEN ZEALOTS AND ESPECIALLY ALLEGEDLY RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS CONTROL TERRITORY RICH IN NATURAL RESOURCES +++++WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT +++DON'T WE !!!

So we pray, study, work AND MAKE SURE THAT NEVER HAPPENS AND IF THAT REQUIRES WAR, THEN SO BE IT.

The problem with WAR TODAY, is that in order to deceive one's enemy, one must often also deceive one's own people.

Take Iraq for example. Most Americans believe that we are in Iraq to preserve our future access to oil and many Americans do NOT REMEMBER the gas lines going all around the block, the possibility of even after waiting sometimes for over a hour, the station might run out anyway.

EVEN IF WE ARE THEREFORE IN IRAQ TO PRESERVE AMERICA'S FUTURE ACCESS TO OIL ---- SO WHAT !!!

LETS WAKE UP FOLKS AND BEFORE WE DECIDE TO GIVE UP OVER THERE, TRY WALKING EVERYWHERE FOR A MONTH, OR RIDDING A BIKE EVERYWHERE.

AND EVEN IF YOU DON'T MIND PERSONALLY DOING THIS AND ++++IF+++++ YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO PERSONALLY DO THIS, OUR AIRLINES, BUSES, SUBWAYS, MILITARY AND HEATING SUPPLIES CURRENTLY REQUIRE OIL.

WHEN WE THREATENED TO BLOCKADE JAPAN MONTHS BEFORE THEIR ATTACK ON PEARL IN 1941, THEY ATTACKED TO PRESERVE THEIR ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES ELSEWHERE.

IN WORLD DEMOCRACIES, OIL AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES CAN BE BOUGHT AND SOLD -- IT IS THE DEMOCRATIC WAY -- BUT WHEN ZEALOTS AND ESPECIALLY ALLEGEDLY RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS CONTROL TERRITORY RICH IN NATURAL RESOURCES +++++WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT +++DON'T WE !!!

So we pray, study, work AND MAKE SURE THAT NEVER HAPPENS AND IF THAT REQUIRES WAR, THEN SO BE IT.

The problem with WAR TODAY, is that in order to deceive one's enemy, one must often also deceive one's own people.

Take Iraq for example. Most Americans believe that we are in Iraq to preserve our future access to oil and many Americans do NOT REMEMBER the gas lines going all around the block, the possibility of even after waiting sometimes for over a hour, the station might run out anyway.

EVEN IF WE ARE THEREFORE IN IRAQ TO PRESERVE AMERICA'S FUTURE ACCESS TO OIL ---- SO WHAT !!!

LETS WAKE UP FOLKS AND BEFORE WE DECIDE TO GIVE UP OVER THERE, TRY WALKING EVERYWHERE FOR A MONTH, OR RIDDING A BIKE EVERYWHERE.

AND EVEN IF YOU DON'T MIND PERSONALLY DOING THIS AND ++++IF+++++ YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO PERSONALLY DO THIS, OUR AIRLINES, BUSES, SUBWAYS, MILITARY AND HEATING SUPPLIES CURRENTLY REQUIRE OIL.

WHEN WE THREATENED TO BLOCKADE JAPAN MONTHS BEFORE THEIR ATTACK ON PEARL IN 1941, THEY ATTACKED TO PRESERVE THEIR ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES ELSEWHERE.

IN WORLD DEMOCRACIES, OIL AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES CAN BE BOUGHT AND SOLD -- IT IS THE DEMOCRATIC WAY -- BUT WHEN ZEALOTS AND ESPECIALLY ALLEGEDLY RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS CONTROL TERRITORY RICH IN NATURAL RESOURCES +++++WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT +++DON'T WE !!!

So we pray, study, work AND MAKE SURE THAT NEVER HAPPENS AND IF THAT REQUIRES WAR, THEN SO BE IT.

The problem with WAR TODAY, is that in order to deceive one's enemy, one must often also deceive one's own people.

Take Iraq for example. Most Americans believe that we are in Iraq to preserve our future access to oil and many Americans do NOT REMEMBER the gas lines going all around the block, the possibility of even after waiting sometimes for over a hour, the station might run out anyway.

EVEN IF WE ARE THEREFORE IN IRAQ TO PRESERVE AMERICA'S FUTURE ACCESS TO OIL ---- SO WHAT !!!

LETS WAKE UP FOLKS AND BEFORE WE DECIDE TO GIVE UP OVER THERE, TRY WALKING EVERYWHERE FOR A MONTH, OR RIDDING A BIKE EVERYWHERE.

AND EVEN IF YOU DON'T MIND PERSONALLY DOING THIS AND ++++IF+++++ YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO PERSONALLY DO THIS, OUR AIRLINES, BUSES, SUBWAYS, MILITARY AND HEATING SUPPLIES CURRENTLY REQUIRE OIL.

WHEN WE THREATENED TO BLOCKADE JAPAN MONTHS BEFORE THEIR ATTACK ON PEARL IN 1941, THEY ATTACKED TO PRESERVE THEIR ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES ELSEWHERE.

IN WORLD DEMOCRACIES, OIL AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES CAN BE BOUGHT AND SOLD -- IT IS THE DEMOCRATIC WAY -- BUT WHEN ZEALOTS AND ESPECIALLY ALLEGEDLY RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS CONTROL TERRITORY RICH IN NATURAL RESOURCES +++++WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT +++DON'T WE !!!

So we pray, study, work AND MAKE SURE THAT NEVER HAPPENS AND IF THAT REQUIRES WAR, THEN SO BE IT.

Wow, the "wishy-washing" is overwhelming. We are fighting a war against the one of the greatest evils ever to face the followers of freedom and all I see are poems and platitudes.

Address the problem i.e. Islam is out of control. There is no central leadership. The SOP aka Koran/Book of Death continues to provide the 24/7 guidelines for the bloodbaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and the daily jailings of innocents in Iran, Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia with perodic suicide bombings to keep the citizens of these countries in constant fear of Islamic fundamentalists.

What can the liberal On Faith Islamic panelists do
about the situation??? As noted many times, clean up the Koran: Again, here are some recommended starting points. (Considering that none of the panelists have taken on the challenge gives credence that they fear for their lives or are not as liberal as their poems and "niceties" lead us to believe. Islamic propaganda money paying their salaries?? Probably so in many cases).

Part 1 of the "cleansing".

"The 77 Branches of Faith is a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true faith (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"30 qualities are connected to the heart"
(five at a time)

"1. Belief in Allah"

No problem but "aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

No problem but evolution and the Big Bang cannot be ignored and the "akas" for Allah should be included.

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item to delete. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in Heaven just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.

Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

To whoever it was who said atheists don't believe in free will: ISTM atheists ONLY believe in free will. What they don't seem to accept is any kind of divinity or dualism that includes purposeful forces like good or evil.

Whoever sees all beings in the soul

and the soul in all beings

does not shrink away from this.

In whom all beings have become one with the knowing soul

what delusion or sorrow is there for the one who sees unity?

It has filled all.

It is radiant, incorporeal, invulnerable,

without tendons, pure, untouched by evil.

Wise, intelligent, encompassing, self-existent,

it organizes objects throughout eternity.

Jihadist
for when you return from your sojourns.

I am ALL for the optimal balance BETWEEnn Order and Chaos.

And, we wil never have much of one without much of the other.

Who are the greatest representers of Order in human history?

Shakespeare
Mozart
Confucious
Buddha

Not Jesus, or Moses, certainly not Jahweh.

Read literature.. read poetry...read the upanishads...listen to buddha...have buddha nature

you will find the natural order...you will not find it by killing fellow humans in the name of Christ or Allah or Jehovah.

Love to you, dear Jihadist. You inculcate wisdom and loving kindness . come back soon.

luv and kisses

Henry

Susan

Thanks for that Bob Dylan song. Much better than John Lennon's Imagine.

Henry James!

Good to see you here. You have been very busy in Otterson's threads and has become a bit intense lately. At least you now know that thing about blogs:

Firstly, people don't really agree on anything;

and

Secondly, if other people don't agree with them, they go nuts.

Too, too bad about this "there are no atheists in foxholes."

Veterans that survived war do tell some stories
of how their comrades, when wounded, screamed for their mother or, "Oh God!". And the dying perhaps think of God when they are conscious enough to hear the last rites. Who really knows what the wounded and dying think about as when alone in a foxhole, in their dying moments.

Have you ever considered the possibility that some atheists do seek order and structure too in their lives? I've read what is written by hyperventilating Hitchens and dismayed Dick Dawkins on religions, but apart from asserting that religion and belief in God is the root of all stupidity and evil basically, they don't say much about the depth, complexity, range and differences of what atheists believe in on other matters.

Would love to infuriate and exasperate you further on religion and God, but am leaving town. I noticed that atheists/freethinkers are so easy to drive up the wall. All I got to do is quote scriptures for this and that:)

Now, tell all posters here that you really believe without belief in God, if there is no religion, man will have no more wars, no more human rights abuses.

Anonymous

Re your post to Norrie Hoyt re Harvard grads going off to Canada after the US becomes a sovereign and independent state, if I remember US history correctly (do correct me on this), at least a third of American colonialists then are pro-British or Royalists. The Harvard grads that left for Canada happens to be so, as other Americans who moved to Canada, to remain loyal to the British crown and fear of repercussions from the jubilant American republicans who view them as traitors or unpatriotic.

As for me, an Oxford man walks as if he owns the world. A Cambridge mans walks as if he didn't care who did. Or woman. Cambridge was set up by rebel/dissenting scholars of Oxford, and a more beautiful college town. Not too bad a place to study economics too. Rebels and conformists all have their places. What will we be without the other? No Canada, no Canadian jokes.

And Norrie Hoyt, as he stated several times in On Faith threads, is partial to Buddhism, which among its general tenets, is against killing of all life and for personal and communal peace and harmony. Nothing wrong with anyone prefering order over chaos.

Andrea

I have mangosteen and mango-flavoured popcorns, but Russell D beat me to it.

Have fun here. I am leaving town again for work.

Best regards

Hermit,

Good to see you again here! I've missed you!

Yes, yes,
I KNOW "salutarious" is not a word.

but it SHOULD be.

and writers like me are in the business of inventing new words.

Rob's Problem of Evil

Rob: so happy you have solved the problem that has bedeviled (to coin a phrase) moral thinkers from time immemorial.

google "the problem of evil" and if you are still capable of thought, it may complicate your philosophy a bit, in a most salutarious way.

Jihadist
You enrich the world with your presence and sensibility.

may you live forever.

I don't agree with lots you say, but you inspire me to better heights, not that I am capable of getting there.

E fav

nice comment to John.
you be a good person too.

John, you say, "Yet I trust Him. If not, who else can I trust?"

Youe own inner voice, John. It's your conscience. Sounds like you have a good one. Trust it.

I wish Mrs. Jacoby could speak like this in every church in North America. I am a convinced believer, and yet agree with practically all that she said, apart from her disbelief in God. She says "If that answer is good enough for you, you can keep your faith in the face of anything. If it isn't, you may reach the conclusion I have reached--that there is no divine being watching over the affairs of his creatures." Well, that answer is not good enough for me. I don't have the answer, and am not satisfied with the answers I get. But I just have to live without having a satisfactory answer. However I have not come to the same conclusion as Mrs. Jacoby, that there is no God. I know Him, and have a real live relationship with Him (no, I am not writing form an asylum!) I know He is there, and sometimes tell Him that I don't understand what He is doing or permitting. Yet I trust Him. If not, who else can I trust?
I certainly don't trust the religious believers who try to use their faith to justify what is totally unjustifiable.

The Christian view of the world is that the purpose of life is to attain "the knowledge of God"...through the revelation of Jesus Christ. We must not assume, though, that that equates with happiness in this life. A world without evil would necessarily lead people to being spoiled and immature and they would not seek after God.

Theologians and most of the noted atheists who deal with these issues concur that there is no logical problem of a good, all powerful and loving God and the existence of evil in world. In fact, one rarely hears atheists bringing up the argument in formal debates because the position is so weak.

Andrea

If it is not too, too soon, congratulations on your impeding wedding.

I got the butterflies before my wedding, namely, not to trip over in my dress. Fend off, or mentally block out, the confident and contradictory advices of relatives and friends, especially female ones, on anything from guests to venue to food to wedding dress. They will make you more anxious if you don't. And it's your wedding.

As for free will, I am still reading various non-Muslim panelists on their beliefs and perspectives on it which is sligthly different from the Muslim - which is freedom to think and act, and be held responsible and accountable for them as an individual.

As for heaven and hell, let me tell you a joke, or story that went round Muslim blogs some months back which do reflect the Muslim mindset:

An imam, after Friday prayers, in his sermon chided the Muslim congregation for what he determine to be their irresolute life. And after they die, God will judge accordingly and sent them to heaven or hell.

The congregation was relieved when a man turned around and said to them: "Thank God for that, as God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, has no personal scores to settle. And besides, all will go to heaven eventually."

As for the parent who gave his/her son the bat, get that bat from the brat to stop him tormenting his sister. Who's to know the brat is a sadist until it happened? And keep all bats away from the brat. If he's not too young, send the brat for anger management courses, or for therapy. He is one sick puppy.

Krusso - Please take your own advice: "Acting as if you are more righteous than God just will not do."

Mr Mark - thanks for the good laugh. You got a future in screenwriting... at least in schmaltzy Christian films.

A Hermit aka "Goreite",

The reality of it all: If your "peacenickers" were in charge, we would all be yelling God/Mohammed the Hallucinator are Great in a "freedomless" world.

My Faith in Reality remains strong. God bless the USA for keeping it that way.

Could someone put forth their argument that war is inherently bad? Should we put forth our energies as a society to abolish war as an option?

God is sovereign and He works all things according to His purpose. It is good to take up the cause of the oppressed, the weak, and to protect the down trodden. Sometimes this requires war.

God is a just God and He will make war on all those who reject His love to embrace their own wicked way. I trust God in peace or in war because I know He always does what is right. He does allow God rejecting people to find out what a world is like when people go their own way. He does this so that maybe they might see their folly and turn to God and be saved. Our nation has done a lot of good in the past and I believe many still want to do good. That said we have done evil and our nation has openly shaken its collective fist in God's face by embracing homosexuality, materialism, and many false gods. Many have magnified themselves in arrogant pride by thinking that they are the measure of what is good and right. Much like you are doing with your God condemning little article. You will stand in the court of God's justice and then we will find out who is a righteous judge. I assure you it will not be you. We need to repent while there is still time for God is merciful and will forgive our nation if we approach Him in humility. Acting as if you are more righteous than God just will not do.

sok7 says; "It would seem that only the jihadists who are looking for a fight want to make this War about religion – jihadists and liberal atheists who want to blame bad religion for the choices made by bad government."

What about General Boykin, who claimed "the enemy is a guy named Satan"?

You're naive if you think only the jihadists want to make this about religion.

Susan,

You may disagree with George Bush being the President of the United States. But the electorate made that decision, not the church. And dare I say it, yes, even some atheists and agnostics voted for Bush.

You may disagree with the reasons for the This War. But the church didn’t send our soldiers to Iraq, your government did. And while many churches support the troops, not many have raised their voices in support of this or any War in recent memory. The Pope himself has publicly decried the conflict in Iraq on several occasions.

You may disagree with your government’s statement that This War is not about religion. But the jihadist bombers in Baghdad are killing hundreds of their fellow countrymen, fellow Muslims, for every American or British invader they attack.

It would seem that only the jihadists who are looking for a fight want to make this War about religion – jihadists and liberal atheists who want to blame bad religion for the choices made by bad government.

So why do we speak of God in times of War. It is because we ask our soldiers to do a selfless thing, to sacrifice for what we, the People, hope will be a worthy cause. If we send our soldiers out for something that is not a just cause, is it the soldier’s fault? No, it is the fault of the government that sent them.

Sometimes our soldiers pay with a few months spent away from the people they love. Sometimes our soldiers pay with their lives. Religion addresses this very issue.

Greater love has no one that this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
--- John 15:13

That is what our soldiers do. They sacrifice knowing that they may have to lay down their lives. There is no personal gain to be had for these men and women we have sent to Iraq. They have gone to do what they promised they would do.

There are more that a few parallels to the Biblical story of Jesus. And so I am not surprised that many people find some kind of comfort in being like Jesus. Isn’t that the truest definition of a Christian, someone who wants to be like Jesus? …someone who works for the benefit of the whole flock without regard for themselves?

Which brings us back to you. Is your beef with This War or with all wars?

If you are against this war, then complain to your government and honor your soldiers.

If you are against all wars:

“Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay – and also claims a halo for his dishonesty.”
--- Robert Heinlein

An uncle of mine was at the liberation of Belsen concentration camp in WWII. He had wrestled with his Mennonite faith and it's message of pacifism before joining up to fight what he saw as a great evil, and continued to struggle with his decision afterward. He felt he had done evil by fighting, but told my mother he felt if he had spared her from seeing the things he had seen it was the right thing to do. I don't think his faith was much comfort to him either way.

War kills everything that is good.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated Posted May 30, 2007 1:46 PM

"Getting back to reality!!

How goes the War on Terror?

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes."

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

The Baathists are still around and behind much of the violence, but on the whole Saddam has been replaced by radical fundamentalists of both sects, torture and murder are ten times more common in Iraq than before, 4 million Iraqis are refugees many working as sex slaves in Syria and Jordan. And this is an improvement in your view?

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

"2. Iran (a member of the Axis of Evil) has been contained. (besides fighting the civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes oil continues to flow from the region.)"

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

Far from being "contained" Iran is stronger than ever. Before the Iraq invasion Iranian moderates were on the rise, and even the Mullahs were offering to help hunt Al Qaeda, closing their borders with Afghanistan and offering to give up their nuclear program. Today the moderates are on the run, Iran has gained influence throughout the Middle East, especially in Iraq, and have become intransigent on uranium enrichment.

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

"3. Libya has become civil."

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

Negotiations with Libya on nuclear and other unconventional weapons started in 1996; no credit to Bush there I'm afraid. Given their continuing human rights violations (including recent conviction of health care workers on trumped up charges of deliberately spreading AIDS) I'd hardly call Libya "civil"..

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

"4. North Korea ( another member of the Axis of Evil) is still uncivil but is contained."

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

Only because the Bushies were forced to return to the Clinton era program. Ten years and one nuke test too late...

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

"5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace. (Thanks to the Patriot Act that stopped the foreign funding of the IRA)."

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

No, thanks to the efforts of the Irish people, the UN, Canadian General McKenzie and Tony Blair's negotiating.

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

"6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls (analogous to the two Czech republics). Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords."

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

???? There's only one Czech Republic and it's separation from Slovenia was mutual, peaceful and needed no walls. The wall in Palestine is nowhere near the 1967 boundaries, never mind 1948.

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

"7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11."

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

Al Qaeda is reconstituting itself, learning new tactics in Iraq. Bush gave Bin Laden everything he dreamed of when America invaded Iraq.

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

"8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace."

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

Having American troops occupying Iraq creates more Islamic fanatics. And of course America has it's own homegrown religious fanatics, as recent arrests of rightwing militiamen in Alabama and a Christian would be firebomber at Falwell's funeral make evident.

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

"8. And the stock markets and economies around the globe continue to show good growth and opportunity for the common stock holders thanks to the free flow of energy supplies."

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

What's good for the corporate elite ain't necessarily good for the rest of us. The costs of "free trade" are far outweighing the benefits, as wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and hunger, disease and wars over resources kill millions in Africa.

Conclusion: Your faith, like George Bush's, is badly misplaced, and your "reality" is suspect. A list like that is proof that faith has no place in politics...

Dave writes:
"It just so happens I watched a war movie this weekend that was faith based and definitely did not glorify war. It glorified God. One really interesting point was when a athiestic medic asked a soldier if he had faith. The other soldier said yes. the medic said "how convienent". The medic then said he lost all faith when a soldier died in his arms. I felt nothing he said. The other solder said that was interesting cause when a friend of his died in his arms he felt how at peace his friend was. He felt God's presence. He then noted to the medic that it was convienent for him to disbelieve, as the medic was constantly scavaging the dead for valuables. At the end of the movie the soldier with faith sacrifices himself to save the atheists life."

Wow. There's truth for ya!

As an atheist, I know how we scavange dead people for valuables. In fact, I just got back from the county morgue where I picked up some gold necklace crosses that I'm going to melt down and make into Satanic pentagons. It's easy for me to get into the morgue 'cause the guy who runs it is a Jew who's always looking for the blood of freshly dead Xian kids to use in their ceremonies.

I felt a little bad because the kindly Xian at the door of the morgue looked so sad when I took the necklaces. He even bought my daughter an ice cream cone. "How convenient," I said to the kindly Xian. "If it wasn't for me, there wouldn't be a girl here to buy an ice cream for. I hope you're happy, gloming onto my family to get your feel-good on!" But all the kindly Xian could say was, "I'm sorry. I should have bought ice creams for you and the Jew as well."

Thereupon, the kindly Xian fell dead! We called for an ambulance, and a half-hour later, he was gone. I later learned that there was terrible accident near my home, and that had I left 30 minutes earlier, my daughter and I would have been killed.

Now, I know why the kindly Xian fell dead. Like the guy in your movie, he sacrificed his life for me - an atheist. (Boo-hoo!)

Like your war movie, it glorified god. And I'll bet my story is just as true as the story told in your movie.

But that's Xians and atheists fer ya!

(sarcasm off)

Russell,

Ooh, goody! No Sour Patch Kids?

Anonymous,

"Those who wage murderous war will find a place in hell. That helps sustain my faith in times of war."

That statement cracked me up. If I believed in hell, I'd feel the same way.

Anonymous.

Looking at the Christian faith(which I am not) - actually those who wage who wage murderous war will ONLY find a place in hell if they fail to repent and do not believe in Jesus as the Savoir. Otherwise they are forgiven and can get into heaven. That is one interpretation of the scriptures anyway.

So those waging war is that just the politicians or those who sign up to serve. Both are killing people. Obviously then a soldier has not repented since he is still killing. So does that mean all soldiers then go to hell? If people use the ‘just war’ retort then I would ask about the pilot who drops the bomb and kills innocent women and children, would God consider that ok since it was part of a ‘just war’.

I just don’t see where war and faith mix?

I got popcorn for ya Andrea!

And Snocaps for good measure!

Bob Dylan said the following after converting

“Years ago they... said I was a prophet. I used to say, "No I'm not a prophet" they say "Yes you are, you're a prophet." I said, "No it's not me." They used to say "You sure are a prophet." They used to convince me I was a prophet. Now I come out and say Jesus Christ is the answer. They say, "Bob Dylan's no prophet." They just can't handle it.

Wow, anonymous! That childish story about the German generals sure has me thinkin' - - - NOT!

Apparently - at least according to your story - Jesus isn't the only one who gets to come back from the dead. And why was the first general in "great anguish" if he was already dead?

I'll bet that story gets the first-grade Sunday School kids real good-n-scared. You should try it out on the Barney blog over at PBS...

Susan Jacoby,

Thank you for articulating my feelings. Wasn't it Marx who said "religion is the opium of the people"? Some need religion as a crutch to help them thru life's crises, and I don't begrudge them that. But please, don't try to convert those of us who feel fine without it. Am I being elitist? Maybe- and that's OK. But I don't evangelize my beliefs.

Anonymous,

Wow, that was a "wonderful" story. Well, maybe only wonderful for those who find great glee in anticipation of nonbelievers getting theirs when they die. Where's Jihadist with the popcorn?

I love this topic because it leads into a wonderful story about WWI - two german generals who were both atheists - were drinking the night before a big battle with the French - and the one general said to the other - if I die and there is a hell - I will try to come back and let you know - and the other general promised to do the same - both men were confident that there was no heaven or hell. The next day the first general was killed in battle - that night the second general was awakened to see his old friend disfigured and apparently in great anguish - the second general not knowing tha his friend had died exclaimed - what happened to you - the first general said only one thing - 'there is a hell, what are we to do now'. Then he vanished.

Bob Dylan...

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.

Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

Her deciding to comment invokes the old adage of "Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

The alternative to heaven is actually hell. Our choice is not between heaven or dust. Hell is an internal place of anguish. Dust is not an option at death just because some atheist chooses to have faith in dust. Those who wage murderous war will find a place in hell. That helps sustain my faith in times of war.

It just so happens I watched a war movie this weekend that was faith based and definitely did not glorify war. It glorified God. One really interesting point was when a athiestic medic asked a soldier if he had faith. The other soldier said yes. the medic said "how convienent". The medic then said he lost all faith when a soldier died in his arms. I felt nothing he said. The other solder said that was interesting cause when a friend of his died in his arms he felt how at peace his friend was. He felt God's presence. He then noted to the medic that it was convienent for him to disbelieve, as the medic was constantly scavaging the dead for valuables. At the end of the movie the soldier with faith sacrifices himself to save the atheists life.

The comment in the piece about how Americans think God is on our side in conflicts made me think of Mark Twain's "War Prayer." I think it would benefit anyone to read it.

I would like to ask original author if it is reasonable to give to charities? Is it reasonable to care about people we have no connection to? Is it reasonable to get wrapped up in a movie about pirates or super-heros. Which is more reasonable: to spend all my money on myself, or to save some for my kid's future. Who define's what is reasonable and what is not? If there is anything that is certain in this world is that there will always be disagreements. I doubt that anytime soon that they will be always be setteled reasonably (whatever that is supposed to mean). It seems to me we have a long way to go evolution wise before that happens. I just don't see how faith is so unreasonable? You can disbelieve, but I really don't see how you make the leap that faith glorifies war.

I FIGHT WARS DAILY AGAINST FASCISTS, REPUBLICANS, CHRISTOFASCISTS AND ALL THE REST, NOT TO MENTION DUMB REDNECKS. DO i KNOW WAR?

Finally....a great article on faith! Great job, Susan.

RE: Atheists in Foxholes
With regard to the ones, i.e., neocons, who
perpetrated this disaster called the Iraq
invasion/colonization; how can anyone call
it a "just cause"? How could a bunch of
devout draft dodgers hoodwink a nation of
believers and a congress full rabid politicos
into rationalizing the opening of the Middle
East Pandora's box? I feel nothing but shame
for my country before the eyes of the civilized
world. I've been around since the time of
Herbert Hoover and I thought the Nixon days
were the bottom for the U.S.A. But as Hunter S.
Thompson stated,"they're nothing compared to the
present bunch".

Anonymous.

War simply put is man’s inability to get along. Would you agree with that as a very simple explanation?

Evil is all a matter of perspective. We are perceived as evil by others. Regardless of who is right the perception will cause conflict. In this scenario there is always another enemy.

Are you an atheist or religious? I don’t particularly care since I believe there is no ‘right’ answer. I am wondering because it gives me an understanding of where you are coming from. If you are an atheist then while I do not agree with your opinion of fighting to defend, but I understand it. If you are a ‘believer’ in a religion then I am more confused as to why one would fight as that would be opposite of what a religion teaches, fanaticals excluded.

I am just looking to understand.

While religion may not have inspired the wars you list, some people certainly use religion to paint a picture that there is a need to fight. I think that is what many on this site oppose.

Just because we of biblical faith believe that God is a person doesn't mean that God thinks like us. Hopefully the Devine presence isn't that limited. The question of why God allows suffering and war should trouble us all. But allowing is not the same as wanting. For myself, I've never been a big fan of free will. But we know free will exists so what can be done about it? If I have to choose between a mindless universe, or a loving God who allows things I don't approve of. I think I'll go with the loving God. Hopefully someday Christians will read the New Testament themselves and discover that Jesus, not Moses, was God's son.

Just because we of biblical faith believe that God is a person doesn't mean that God thinks like us. Hopefully the Devine presence isn't that limited. The question of why God allows suffering and war should trouble us all. But allowing is not the same as wanting. For myself, I've never been a big fan of free will. But we know free will exists so what can be done about it? If I have to choose between a mindless universe, or a loving God who allows things I don't approve of. I think I'll go with the loving God. Hopefully someday Christians will read the New Testament themselves and discover that Jesus, not Moses, was God's son.

Candide you say, To experience war is to know there is no loving God.

How would you know, have you ever fought in a war? Weak!

War is the cause of man's evil corrupt nature in pursuit for power, wealth, greed and domination; not Christdom! I can’t believe you would disrespect Memorial’s Day and the fallen. The problem with you people is you have never faced evil so you don’t have the slightest clue what evil is. My family has served valiantly for this country for all Americans regardless of religion, race and social class. I honor there memory and thankful for there sacrifice.

Good American soldiers who were also atheists have died for our Flag and this is how you repay there courage, sacrifice and bravery. Sickening… Our Army defends our liberty; since when is liberty religion? People like you disgust me… Our country is not a theocracy it’s a democracy!

Here is a list of American Wars: Religion was not inspired by any of them!!!

American Revolution, War of 1812, War of Texas Independence, Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War and Invasion of Iraq.

Fool!

Getting back to reality!!

How goes the War on Terror?

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran (a member of the Axis of Evil) has been contained. (besides fighting the civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become civil.

4. North Korea ( another member of the Axis of Evil) is still uncivil but is contained.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace. (Thanks to the Patriot Act that stopped the foreign funding of the IRA).

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls (analogous to the two Czech republics). Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace.

8. And the stock markets and economies around the globe continue to show good growth and opportunity for the common stock holders thanks to the free flow of energy supplies.

So George and his guys and gals have not been perfect but there are some major accomplishments.

Bill Clinton and his crew definitely had their accomplishments but were not "pretty wingie talking thingies" either.

Conclusion: My Faith in Realism and the USA continues strong.

To experience war is to know there is no loving God.

Anonymous posted on the 30th in response to Norrie’s post

“I rather think that those esteemed Harvard grads were fleeing their responsibility to fight for freedom”

So when is it a responsibility to kill for anything?

I am just reading a book by the Dali Lama. He recalled a story of a monk held by the Chinese for 18 years. The monk said he faced many dangers on a daily basis. The Dali Lama thought he meant his physical well being or life.

The monk said “no the danger was that I would lose compassion for my captors”

Forget about Karam or sin or hell just think of this. If he would have fought he may have killed a couple/few Chinese and likely lost his life. The net gain would be? A couple of dead people and some pissed of Chinese who would likely be more trigger happy on the next Buddhist.

The actual result; possibly some Chinese questioning their actions or at least wondering about this odd little man that held no hostilities against his captors. I am guessing they don’t see that much. That’s a possible benefit we can not confirm. The benefit we can confirm is the example that monk leaves on 100,000 + people who read these words.

I surmise that he accomplished much more via the non violent path he choose.

I've always thought the comment about no atheists
in foxholes was saying that one might be an atheist
but when fear and horror strike one quickly abandons
philosophy and prays to god.
This suggests that the religious believe in a god
simply because they are terrified of death.
And perhaps religion was invented for this very reason.
Death bothers me too.And it must be nice to believe
in a god. I wish I could do that.But I can't.
Being told that I would live for ever if
I could believe in the tooth fairy,would be
strong motivation to believe.And I would want to believe.I might even try to believe.
But,like god,the tooth fairy is nonsense to me.
I'll just have to accept that death is death,
and one day I'll be dust.

Why should war temp me to lose my faith anymore than rape, murder, sexual abuse, or any other sin? You either have faith or you don't. War is not any more reason to lose faith than other perceived injustices. All evil in this world temps us to question our faith. We see the evil and we complain, "Where is God and why does he let this happen?" I don't see that war is anything that much more significant than say the pain that a mother has to endure when her 14 year old daughter is rapped. Or how do you deal with your wife and kids being killed by a drunk driver with five prior convictions? These things happen and are bound to happen but faith is something that transcends them all.

I posted the following on Bishop Chane’s response.

Sorry for the repost but it echo’s the sentiments of Jihadist. His post also made me add something which I put at the end.

Peace to all.

To frame my perspective, I am an independent when it comes to religion. I take what I find useful from each teaching and try to apply it and live it. Personally the religious dogma doesn’t work for me but it does for many. If it weren’t for religion I wonder what would have become of King, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Desmond Tutu?

Just because a few abuse religion doesn’t mean religion is inherently bad.

In America where I hold the “religious” accountable is in times of war. Broad brush here but the ‘true’ teaching of religions is peace and love. I don’t want to discuss violent text in each religion because there is plenty in most (every?) religion. But the core teaching is love and peace.

If you truly believe in the teaching of you religion/faith how can you support any decision to go to war? On an individual level why does any soldier go to war if they truly understand their religion? If there is anyone in the military on these posts I would love to hear from them in order to better understand.

Each individual makes their own choices, including a soldier, but we don’t make it easy for them.

To sacrifice your life for someone else as a soldier does is noble. The bravery, commitment and sacrifice of the soldier and their families is phenomenal. The fact that we as a society push them into war is sad. If we could direct that dedication, sacrifice and commitment to peaceful means we could change the world.

I first heard of this in Wayne Dyer’s Power of Intension, it was the idea of no more soldiers. What if people refused to fight? What if the religious organizations (and the public) protested more? What if we do not back those who take us into war?

We are extremely fortunate in America to have the freedom of speech, religion and assembly. We can make these kinds of statements. Inaction is in and of itself an action, or at least a choice. In other countries they can not. It seems it is up to us to lead the way.

War is our reminder that we as a society have failed to live up to the grandest version of who we think we are. I don’t think it so much about keeping faith as a call to demonstrate your faith in a time of war.

To quote Gandhi “There is no way to peace, peace is the way”.

I think what I would add to my original post is perhaps for now a soldier goes to war to show us that we are not were we think we are in terms of being an evolved/enlightened species. Perhaps that is not why they decide to fight, but perhaps that is the lesson they teach us. That is their sacrifice so that the rest of the human race can move forward. I hope we stop demanding these sacrifices of all people. I guess that would be up to us.

And yes Susan that was a wonderful post.

"In religion and politics people's beliefs
and convictions are in almost every case
gotten seconhand and without examination
from authorities who have not themselves
examined the questions at issue,but have
taken them secondhand from other non-examiners
whose opinions about them are not worth
a brass farthing."
Mark Twain

Re: "There are no atheists in foxholes."

What about all of those "godless communists" sitting in their foxholes?

If even godless communists in foxholes turn to faith while in said foxholes, then doesn't it stand to reason that the United States' battle against the so-called godless was actually just another war of religionists against religionists?

1950s-think is so confusing!

Susan, as an actual atheist in a "foxhole", I thank you.

In reading some Betty's comments, a quote sprang to mind:
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. -- Seneca

And for the troll: Someone who says "capatilist" like it's a bad thing obviously has no idea what they are talking about.

God Told us to kill YOU.

NO, God told US to kill YOU.

NO NO, God told US to kill both of the two of you.

Et cetera.

Et Cetera

Et cetera

(see the poem by e e cummings of the same name)

Anon,

Re: Norrie and Canada

Where's the fun in fitting in?

PS-gotta love that "Don't like it? Then leave!" or the "You love Canada so much, why don't you marry it" response.

Amen, sister!

; )

By committing its members to doctrines from conflicting infallible authorities, religion is uniquely culpable for the atrocities of war. Belief in some authority's infallibility beliefs that cannot be justified on their own merit but are taken on faith. The authority in effect makes the belief justified by uttering the very words, 'Believe!' This gives way to irresolvable differences between groups (since they have no common ground or independent justification for their beliefs), which ensures that whenever a conflict of interest arises between religious people, they will go to war.

If God is so wise, why doesn't it give us 'understanding' instead of religious authorities in whom we are supposed to have complete confidence? Why not show us what right by its merit rather than by faith in another person's infallibility?

God is NOT on our Side

The War/God/Religion Connection is Obscene

We are so careful about restricting our kids from seeing adults making love in the movies

but, as Susan eloquently points out, in the 23 hours of TV the average American watched over Memorial Day weekend,
they saw God used to justify OUR BOYS killing other boys (along with innocent women and children) 2,316 times.

Using God to justify killing others is not just an obvious and execrable ploy that those in Power have used for millenia, it is THE MOST OBSCENE use of Religion and man's propensity to buy into myth and superstition.

There is no God. No God would tell It's people to go to the wars that Religion after Religion has assured its believers that HE has.

Norrie Hoyt says on May 29th:

"Did you know that after the American Revolution, half of the living graduates of Harvard College moved to Canada to escape the new, exuberant United States? My kind of folks!"

I rather think that those esteemd Harvard grads were fleeing their responsibility to fight for freedom rather than escaping the new, exuberant US. They started a lovely tradition. Sounds like the folks who turned tail and fled to Canada from their responsibility during every war since. And, Norrie, if you would like living in Canada and it's filled with your kind of folks, why do you remain in the US?

TROLL, you don't have all your cups in the cupboard, do you?

There is No God, War Tells Us

The phenomenon of SOME people turning to God in times of helplessness and chaos

is further evidence that God is Man Made,
a Wish Fulfilment that weak humans (and we are all weak) fall back on in their child-like regression during these times of stress.

Far better to develop a mature, healthy approach to, and understanding of, Death, such as the Buddhists often achieve (without supernatural mumbo jumbo)

or that Pulitzer winner E Becker outlined in The Denial of Death.

What kind of a God inspires his people to senselessly kill each other? What kind of God tells the Israelites to commit genocide right after the admonition "thou shalt not kill?"

The answer: a Man Made fantasy.

If your an athiest you're and IDIOT to go to war for some nationalist capalistic empire such as Israel or the US.

IF you believe in God you are a maroon to believe your fighting for the just cause.

Either way,

War is STUPID and the dumb and innocent perish, but the evil vipers are safe while they dictate policy and send the poor&stupid to do their bidding.

Jihadist,

Thanks as always for your response, and thank you for asking about the wedding. It's growing ever closer, the end of September! I'm trying my best not to get manic over it, but it's difficult. I always get a little joke in whenever I say goodbye to a friend or relative I won't see until then I say "See you in September," they call or email a day or two later to curse me for getting the song stuck in their head.

Re:Freewill

"BGone contend somewhere along the line that it is all in the mind." - so did George in YELLOW SUBMARINE...thanks for the flashback and chuckle this morning!

I don't really believe in freewill (as coming from a god, God, or gods). How could a god say "Here, in my wisdom and in my love for you, I give you this thing called freewill. But, if you use it in a way that I don't see fit, you'll be damned." It's like giving your son a baseball bat for his birthday, and the first thing he does with it is take a swing at his little sister. You knew he enjoyed tormenting her, and knew that something like this might happen. So, who is at fault?

Norrie Hoyt

Will definitely miss you here when you go off to your college class 50th reunion.

You will definitely have fun meeting with all the jocks, jerks, nerds, geeks, meeks, loners, losers, wallflowers, wallbangers, social butterflies, social activists, social outcasts, and your girlfriend/s back then.

Do tell about it when you get back. If you did something really regrettable at the reunion, either resort to ten Hail Marys to repent, or ten Bloody Marys to forget. Your choice.

All the best

Jihadist,

I just read your explication of Malaysian government, law, constitutional law, religious law, and custom and practice, posted on Eboo Patel's thread in relation to the Lina Joy case. It was fascinating and informative. Thank you.

Your temperament matches your exuberant country's. I see now why you fit so well together and why you love Malaysia.

Me, I'm a New England descendant of New England Puritans, constrained and trying to be "proper" all the time. I'd be burned up and consumed by all that bright Malaysian energy if I were exposed to it.

I'd be happy to live in Canada: "Peace, Order and Good Government", living in "Toronto the Good" (though it's moved well beyond that in recent years), or in restrained, somewhat dour, very Scottish Nova Scotia.

Did you know that after the American Revolution, half of the living graduates of Harvard College moved to Canada to escape the new, exuberant United States? My kind of folks!

Best to you.

Jihadist,

Great posts as usual! You're so full of life and spirit! Watch out for the jellyfish in the ocean - we have them at Cape Cod sometimes and they can sting like hell! Bet you have nastier critters in your oceans though.

As for your putting a black jihab: the Times or the Post had a story a day or two ago about the ladies of Saudi Arabia trading in their black hijabs for multicolored, interesting, gaudy hijabs, perhaps designed to attract men rather than to deflect them. So far the religious police seem to be looking the other way.

"I do tend to get too close and touch some creatures to their displeasure and the chagrin of my family who want me to leave them alone and respect their space."

Just like here?!

I'll be away for a few days at my college class's 50th reunion - a two hour drive away. Can you believe that? I can't. It will either be a lot of fun or a terrible bore - can't wait to see which it is.

Concerned and Frank do burn up the column inches, don't they. Your idea of going to their Halloween parties is the best. Maybe you could scare them into being more parsimonious with words. Or you could invite them to your Halloween party (or is that against Malaysian law?).

[U.S. Evangelicals inveigh against Halloween as they do Harry Potter.]

Norrie Hoyt

I've just read the link you gave re the phrase, "There are no atheists in the foxholes."
Thank you. I had taken it literally. Thanks again for that clarification.

Ms. Susan Jacoby

My apologies on it.

Norrie Hoyt

Ma foi. I just scrolled back Eboo Patel's thread where I responded on Lina Joy.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated and Frank Collins is busy there, and my post re Lina Joy is buried there somewhere.

I'm thinking I should put on a black hijab and niqab, have a sword in one hand (to signify the sword of Islam), and hold the Al Qu'ran in another hand (with all the so-called 'sword verses' intact), and go to Frank's and Concerned's Haloween parties this year.

I will win best prize for the scariest costume at their Haloween parties. Move over Freddie Krueger and Jason.

Concerned and Frank Collins, come on over here where the Ultimate Evil One is - moi, the believer of a sham religion, the delusional one, the irrational one.

Entre nous, the Muslims are revolting!:)

Norrie Hoyt

First the weekend. Excellent as always.

On the natural world, as a shortcut and for my own convenience, I always want to take my kids to zoos to see animals, aquariums to see fishes, and botanical/orchid gardens to see plants. All merely because these are confined in a specific space, have labels to identify them, their habitats and habits. Just in case the kids ask me something I don't know, can't answer and responded, "Ask God", "Only God knows".

My husband will have none of that safe and shove over the questions approach and insisted we trek in the jungle, swim in the sea, go up hills and valleys and see plants, fishes and land animals in their habitat. Regardless of my unstated concerns for my exuberant kids' safety in the jungle, the rivers, the sea, I always have a tremendous time with them and my husband rediscovering the natural world. I do tend to get too close and touch some creatures to their displeasure and the chagrin of my family who want me to leave them alone and respect their space.

On Lina Joy, I have stop reading the Muslim panelists' essays in On Faith as there is nothing new there for me as a Muslim. But I did glance over in Eboo Patel's and responded on Lina Joy in his thread.

I am more interested to read what the non-Muslim panelists have to say about their respective faiths and beliefs.

And apparently, I am notching it up a wee, wee bit with atheists, freethinkers, agnostics, secular humanists here. If they can take on everyone's beliefs, they have that admirable gumption to give and take with good humour and a sense of humour. I like that.

Surely you don't expect me to get anywhere in any "brights vs. morons" discussion? After all, we believers are delusional:)

Must be confusing as I do combine, as a lark, the Socratic method of law school with the analogical method of Shariah school, and in rememberance of Joan Robinson, my economist hero, who allegedly said "I don't understand mathematics. I want to think".

I do use econometrics, refer to game theory, zero sum game etc casually, but it is not enough to understand the human condition and mind. I hired sociologists and even one anthropologist to be on my Islamic banking and financial services team. It is easy for me to understand another person believing in God, but I do need more facts on the social, economic and political factors that drives humans' motivations that are faith-based in their public and personal life.

Andrea

You are under-estimating your own free will here. In "1984", George Orwell wrote, "Nothing is your own except the few square centimetres inside your head". And you are using your head. BGone contend somewhere along the line that it is all in the mind.

Free will is a privilege of the rich and powerful fundamentally. As is choices of consumer goods in the marketplace.

For the poor, free will is a luxury, a piece of generic soap is a luxury.

Poor kids are sent to war. Rich kids go to college.

And when are you getting married to your loved one?

I rather liked this post by Susan...even if it was dark and gloomy. It doesn't have to be all sunshine and rainbows to be well-written and on the money. It is a serious topic and Susan handled it well.

Regarding "free will": what a crock. If we use it to not believe in him, we go to hell. If "they" use it to go to war, they go to heaven. I am failing to see how option #1 is worse than option #2.

Norrie,

Thanks for that link.

Jihadist,

On the origin and meaning of "there are no atheists in the foxholes", see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheists_in_foxholes

Jihadist,

You've told us a lot about Malaysia but you didn't mention the Lina Joy case [I posted the WP story about this yesterday on the Pamela Taylor thread].

What's up with this? Prosecution for apostasy?!

Hope you enjoyed your weekend excursion.

Best wishes.

Bravo, Susan J.!

It couldn't have been said better.

...and oh yes Ms. Jacoby, here's to your irrespressible and indefatigable va va boom in all your essays on faiths and beliefs. One can love them, one can hate them, but to ignore them is no fun. Keep the delicious essays coming as feasts for the mind.

Regards

Ms. Susan Jacoby

Good that you respond to the question anyway. Atheists, freethinkers do raise important questions re how religion or God is coopted to justify human actions and failures, reasonings if you will. But this current essay of yours is rather dark.

Some scientists do contend that man is an evolved animal too, and while the biological evolution of man is accepted, mental and social evolution of man is regarded or considered less by the same scientist advocating "creationism" of ideas such as atheism, i.e. instantaneous non-belief. Can't accept man to be created almost instantenously by God (creationism), but evolution of man as a being. Can't resist this circular argument to drive atheists up the wall. I'm on the side of believers of God or course, but hey, the other believers of God/Divine entity can thrash Islam and Muslims all they want here or elsewhere.

No one is disputing that agression is inherent in man's genes, regardless as being evolved to its current state. We are still no better when it comes to marking out territories, dominating/protecting the weaker ones and defending our group as do gorrillas, tigers and elephants. We are no better from flying flocks of seagulls to swimming herrings in packs by instict. God help the man who blundered in the path of a herd of elephants making its seasonal treks in the jungle. One makes way.

"Free will" is valid, no? for one to chose to believe, not to believe, to recognize abuses of humans against other humans, or to act against these atrocities and other bad behaviours. Faith is important, no? to try against all odds to fight against the perpetrators of these abuses. Even atheists have faith in human nature and value the human touch. Even atheists have beliefs that there can be a better world, devoid of pain and abuses and freedom to chose and live one's life.

And surely one is not falling for the excuses of some believers to co-op God as a Democrat, or God is on their side in war. If there is a divine plan (which Muslims don't really think there is), it is more of pre-destination of what will happen to man, with all his faults and foibles, given rein without consideration for fellow men or are uncheck by men on their excessive bad behaviours.

Even atheists knows of and seperate the temporal acts of believers from what they believe in the after-life. Even believers knows that the answer lies within each and everyone one in their personal acts. And yes, you are right in a way, the divine is not really watching over the affairs of his creatures, especially man but after after creating them in six days or letting it happen by evolution, left man largely to his own devises to govern himself at personal level and collective well-being with the Holy Texts as basic guidelines.

"Theodicy" is a lovely new word. May be amusing to theologians speculating on the nature of God etc. I have never met a credible and certified contemporary theologian who brayed for war. But they have no choice even if they opposed war on any theological grounds as it is now the decisions of governments. The best they can do is to pray for the best for the young men and women sent to war.

It is easy to blame the glorification of war on the masses of believers or non-believers. It is Hollywood and the media shading war stories from their own perspectives of just or unjust, wasteful or right war, to highlight or subsume/censor the true human cost and material cost of wars. And some war movies do make people averse to war - e.g. Platoon, Apocalypse Now, Three Kings, Full Metal Jacket.

And surely one is also not saying fighting against Nazi Germany and its final solution is unjust? Surely one is not saying war in Vietnam was just? War is not really black and white anymore. It is muddied by misguided reasonings, including the need and the why for war in the short and long term. War is a failure of human reasoning and communication. Barbara Tuchman's "Guns of August" is educational reading on that among other books.

There is no reason for anyone to qestion whether athiests were in the foxholes too. In war, everybody can get sent to war and die if s/he can't get out of war. The only problem is, I have absolutely certainty that even if there is no God, no religion, man, the human animal, will still find reasons to go to war, to commit abuses against fellow men.

Even John Lennon (whose song "Imagine" is quoted by some atheists as their song, their mantra of universal love and peace that will prevail if there is no religion) is personally not averse to pick a bitter quarrel with Paul McCartney re the management and financial affairs of the Beatles, leading to demise of the Beatles as a group. As everyone knows, for the Beatles, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Perhaps one need to look at the Nobel Peace Prize winners too, of the last twenty years, to see that they are many people of death faiths and personal religious convictions who were awarded the peace prizes, including On Faith panelist Desmond Tutu.

I look forward to listening what freethinkers, atheists and secular humanists re their proposals as to how we can avoid wars between states in this century. In the last century, WWI, WWII and the Vietnam war was not really about religion is it? and has absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural, the divine, but what humans did to other humans.

Needless to say, in times of war, millions of humans seek solace for their own survival and sanity. Yes, "delusions" of God do help people get on.

I don't think I'll join John Lennon in smoking pot and doing drugs for a different kind of delusion. That makes for fuzzy thinking on war and peace, and not see the true reasons for war - subsuming of other peoples and dominations of their lands for economic, political and security interest. Young men and young women are cannon fodder for that - from the times of the Egyptian Pharoahs to now.

Those all those who fell in war, who gave their lives for king and country regardless of their personal faiths and beliefs including the wars they went to and lost their lives, my minute of silence in their honour. They should not die in vain in fighting for peace.