Enough of Heaven and Hell

what did the church teach us about limbo, heaven and hell in the 1800's?

http://theinfo.free-site-host.com >adjuster insurance resume Tits up

http://kreoline.247ihost.com >st pauls traveler insurance Happy slapping

http://besting.itrello.com >cash faxing loan no payday Mind your p's and q's

http://kreoline.247ihost.com >car elephant insurance quote geico car insurance See red

uawtxm xqwm nljhcxre xuergb wcfj qkjw anlkmzcuf

uawtxm xqwm nljhcxre xuergb wcfj qkjw anlkmzcuf

CS Lewis addresses much of what you write about in his classic apologetic "Mere Christianity." One of the most striking points he makes is that we cannot use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God because we cannot scientifically evaluate a power greater than ourselves. i.e. we cannot put God (or the higher power, creator, whatever you want to call it) into a box and evaluate scientifically because God is bigger than ourselves, and all of His creation.

The one scientific observation we can make is of human beings - ourselves - because we have inside information into how we think, and act, and behave. and if you evaluate human nature, all of the suffering in this world, etc our human experience actually aligns with God's description of this broken world that we live in as set forth in the Bible.

the message of Christianity (not conservative political thinking, or racist, homophobic holier than thou religious dogma) is that this world is broken, we human beings are born into sin, and we must turn to God (as manifested through Jesus Christ) to overcome this sin that we are born into and obtain peace and to experience real love in this world. not politically correct everything is equal love, or holier than thou i am better than you love, but the real love of God that only comes from knowing God.

a lot of your arguments about why God does not exist can be refuted, but to be quite honest all the words that i would use to try and refute them will not be accepted by an athiest until he or she has a change of heart that can only come from God.

it is all extremely complicated and confusing, and that is why one can only understand the nature of God and His role and plan for creation by reading the scriptures and asking for God's wisdom as manifested through the Holy Spirit. Scripture says to "lean not on our own understanding" and that is really at the heart of these debates. as long as one is leaning on his or her human understanding the real message of Christianity will never be understood.

i would highly recommend not only Lewis' "mere christianity" for an athiest who is interested in exploring more about "true" christian beliefs (not religious dogma), but also a new book by a dutch minister named brother andrew. the book is called "secret believers" and is about muslim converts to christianity who believe that God has spoken to them through dreams and other visions, and are willing to put their lives on the line to build churches in majority muslim nations. the book also gives great insight into the real differences between islam and christianity.

again, the human being (i.e. personal testimony) is the best scientific evidence for the existence of God and how he manifests Himself in creation.

the biggest problem that not only athiests but all human beings demonstrate is a perception of God that is incredibly smaller than God really is. God is the creator of all things, from beginning to end, above all time and space and human invention and the limits of our minds. which is why questions of eternity are so hard to comprehend by us as human beings.

God exists and will never go away. why would He? to truly understand God you have to think in terms much greater than this finite world that we live in. and you can only think in those terms when God is imparting wisdom to your mind far beyond the limits of our own human understanding.

Gerry,
When you say, "Go ahead and worship your label," You fail to make the distinction between the label and that which was labeled. I am not worshipping the word, "Trinity"... I am worshipping the Godhead which was labelled "Trinity" by the Church, long ago. The fact that Jesus' apostles did not use the label "Trinity" in their communication has no bearing on the validity of what they worshipped, which was later given that label by others.
Your label is "Gerry" but you could have been named "Lester." Someone could call you, "sir." You are the man you are, regardless of what people call you. It is the man that is the primary reality, not his name.

Keep worshiping your "label", that's all it is. Beautiful proof of my point.

Gerry,
"Trinity" is a label (not found in the bible) given to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three are all spoken of as divine persons in the Bible.

Gerry,

As I told you, I only included that quote about children's open-mindedness (and also the bible verses) in order to show Dan why some Christians say that atheists are conning themselves. I know that it is a weak argument and I do not use it myself to argue for God's existence.

And I must disagree with your claim that the link between Deity and moral absolutes has been "debunked." It would be more accurate for you to say that you prefer the prosecution's argument.

Eric,
about your cryptic quotation about atheism being not natural: Children (not only them, btw.!) will embrace anything you brainwash them with, like communism, nazism (I remember!), Santa Claus, angels, demons, tooth fairies - Islamism, Christianity, Mormonism, witch burning (Luther favored it!) Zeusism, Wotanism, Ra-ism - you name it, it works without exception.

Weird, how a halfway intelligent person (in your quotation) can try to misuse the trivial fact of children's susceptibility to impressions as a proof of the validity of an impression (brainwashing)! But it reminds us of the habit of the pious flock to use bible quotations in a futile attempt to prove the truth of the bible: Worthless. No valid statement can ever be made about a system from within that system. It has to come from outside. (A mathematical axiom introduced by the genius mathematician and logician Kurt Gödel).

And the story about a god or worship gene? There certainly is the proclivity in all humans for awe and wonder (in you and me! I don't think I miss anything that you have in terms of genes!). It is only the OBJECTS of such a gene, real or imagined, that can be exchanged arbitrarily, and that is where all the trouble starts. The god gene, thus, would only be a proof of an (innate?) human state of mind, but not of the existence of god!

And please don't talk about god and moral any more: The connection has been debunked ad nauseam!

Eric, there is no such thing as a "biblical trinity", even if it "resonates" with you (you made it up with or without others influencing you so it can "resonate"). Trinity was introduced into Christianity for political reasons in the 4th century, and even then largely contested by Christian scholars. It is a strictly human artifact. The trinity idea was prevalent already way before Christ in Egypt and other pagan religions. It is actually a pagan concept.

So I would advise that you start defining what you so fervently believe in, before suggesting that we "run away from it". As we atheists think, once you start believing in the "supernatural", it could be just anything a human mind can make up, from the spaghetti monster on upward.

I was quoting scripture not because you would appreciate it, but because I was using it to give Dan some insight on why Christians believe athiests are conning themselves. He had expressed puzzlement about that phenomenon.

Out of all the pantheon, the Biblical Trinity Godhead resonates with me on several levels. What can I say. If I am wrong then I hope for the best. But I'd be very, very surprised.

Eric, I was taught growing up that the "worship gene" as you call it was a "god-sized hole in everyone's heart" that cannot be filled with anything except the religious conception of whoever was propounding that view. That's pretty darn poetic, but not accurate. If you are talking of the seemingly innate ability for humans to feel wonder and awe, then I agree it's there. If, as you intimate, the wonder and awe can only have a deity as its object, I strenuously object.

Thanks for quoting scripture at us, but please realize "scripture" holds no sacred place and is powerless in the mind and life of someone who is pretty sure the whole thing is bogus. So quote ineffectually away, if you like.

I would be quite interested in seeing the studies on which your other quotee based the assumptions presented as truths. Again, when the baseline is theistic, everything is measured from that baseline -- even if the baseline is imaginary. Sentences three and four contradict each other unintentionally, though. Is theism innate or merely easily embraced by the innocents being indoctrinated?

By the way, theistic means believing in a god or gods. So your assurance to Anonymous (me) that you would still be a theist even if you were to find out you were following the wrong god is accurate, if not enlightening. But aren't you taking an awful risk worshiping just one conception of one god?

Dan,

Looking at the human race, there seems to be a "worship gene" in humanity, generally, and atheists appear not to have it. (I used to think I didn't have it. Wow, was I wrong.) Since atheists are a seemingly small minority, it is easy for theists to surmise that atheists are (or at least they were in the beginning of their atheism) successfully resisting the same "God gene" that is in them.
Also, let me add something else to hopefully clear this up for you. Christians don't believe in atheists, because in the NT book of Romans, the Apostle Paul writes that many people suppress the "knowledge of God" that God Himself has placed deep in their hearts. It is a very bold statement, one that atheists will surely deny:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth in wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."
"...Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done."

Here I'm quoting from an article on this that contradicts your claim...

'Atheism is not natural. One must "become" an atheist. All have an innate knowledge of God. Children readily embrace a belief in God, because a belief in God is rational and natural, especially to the innocent. Even atheists have an innate knowledge of God, but they have suppressed it, for "they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God." (Rom. 1:28). They suppress their knowledge of God because they want to ignore God's moral absolute: they do not want to be accountable to God for their actions.'

You will disagree with these statements, but they explain why it is sometimes claimed by Christians that atheists are actually running from God.

To Anonymous: I will still be a theist (in great pain) if I die and find that I have been worshipping the wrong god and am infinitely stung by killer bees.

Eric, you say, "... I would have to say that I can never stop being a theist as long as I live. If I am wrong, I will never know I am wrong, because I will simply be extinguished at my death."

Unless you're worshiping the wrong god. Then you won't merely be extinguished, you will be punished forever with infinite numbers of killer bees.

(Sorry, just couldn't resist.)

Also sorry about the triple post earlier. Thought I had caught the post before it went anonymously, but the system was too efficient.

Incidently - Gerry, thanks!

Eric - good reply to the old dilemma - it's the classic response, going back to Thomas Aquinas. What's not clear is if it actually helps.

- I take it you don't think evolution and nature is a sufficient explanation for consciousness? ; )

Eric, I don't want to be rude (if it might come across as such), especially after your generous compliment above, but - are you secretly afraid of Zeus? (Or Odin, or Ra, or etc.?)

No, of course. You don't believe in them. It would surely be quite misleading, though, to say that you were "actively denying" them - instead, they're simply not real to you, but rather clearly mythical and only of historical, cultural, or literary interest (if any), for what they say about people's lives and thoughts, for what circumstances, lessons, and questions of existence were embodied in them and their associated pantheons.

For (at least) many/most atheists, that's what it's like re: God. Certainly I can say I don't fear God, because I don't think he's *real*; likewise neither I nor you fear that the world will end if the Aztec gods haven't been sufficiently empowered by human sacrifice - because they're not real, not because we're hiding such a fear from others or even ourselves.

(Indeed, insofar as the idea of the harsh and strident atheist has any validity, it's arguably rooted in the fact that for many folks, the only obvious and outspoken atheists they tend to encounter as such are the ones who care enough to go on about it online or in bestsellers or etc. - who have very strong feelings on the subject. In reality, quite a few of us - my wife, for example - spend about as much time thinking or arguing about God as one does over Zeus - it's just not an important part of life. Which is, of course, not to say that morality, tradition, community and such aren't deemed important (indeed, we had a very nice Ethical Culture Society wedding), any more than one is turning their back on state and society by not appropriately honoring the deified Augustus and the various gods, or whatever.)

(Some folks might find all of these comparisons offensive, but of course that's because such deities are clearly not real to them. But remember, all these gods were as real and important and significant to their believers as the Christian God is to Christians (who were sometimes called atheists by the Romans, as they denied the Roman gods and the divinity of the emperor. (Were they secretly afraid of Jupiter?)

To paraphrase - Dawkins, I think? - everybody's an atheist in regard to 99% of deities - we just have one god less. (Well, compared to monotheists, anyway.) Sorry to go on about this, but it is really bizarre how some people think that atheists all 'really' believe in God, but are somehow just pretending. Weird.

Since everything I know points to the existence of a Creator Deity (even the miraculous conscious intelligence you use to continue denying Him) I would have to say that I can never stop being a theist as long as I live. If I am wrong, I will never know I am wrong, because I will simply be extinguished at my death.

Thanks, Stan, you answered Eric's post beautifully! I don't actively DENY god, as Eric assumes erroneously, I simply don't posit the existence of a god or gods. The topic of god is not my interest, personally. There isn't anything to "deny".

Nice try, Eric, to psychologically turn my "negation" around into a secret affirmation (I know the trick, I was married to a psychologist). You are on a wrong track. Can't you simply accept the idea as a fact that there are people who lead a free, decent, happy, successful life, free of fear of god or anything else, even of death, since death is a condition of life, people who think freely, who don't succumb to indoctrinations any more (you did not "invent" god, somebody told you about the story of god and its implications!)? It is you who transfers his horrors to atheists, talking about the "dark cloud hovering above me", only because I am pretty old. What a joke!

You are so scared that you don't even dare imagine such a possibility. It would destroy your house of cards. Therefore you compulsively must DENY such a possibility. Give it a try! You can always return to the warm and cozy religious security, if free thinking is to chilly for you.

No, Eric, I accuse believers of being fear based because I was one. I understand from the inside out the fear motivation, from the petty to the cosmic, that believers use and endure. From fear of bucking peer pressure to fear of eternal torment, I understand that the system falls into disarray without fear motivation.

The fear you smell may be emanating from your own general vicinity and environs.

Is it so hard for you to imagine people living unafraid of invisible, imaginary bogeymen? Or bogeygods? I suspect it is too hard for most theists, since an admission that another paradigm could possibly exist rather devastates their own most basic assumptions -- which would be too frightening to contemplate.

You still haven't answered my earlier questions. Most importantly, what would it take for you to cease being a theist?

No, Eric, I accuse believers of being fear based because I was one. I understand from the inside out the fear motivation, from the petty to the cosmic, that believers use and endure. From fear of bucking peer pressure to fear of eternal torment, I understand that the system falls into disarray without fear motivation.

The fear you smell may be emanating from your own general vicinity and environs.

Is it so hard for you to imagine people living unafraid of invisible, imaginary bogeymen? Or bogeygods? I suspect it is too hard for most theists, since an admission that another paradigm could possibly exist rather devastates their own most basic assumptions -- which would be too frightening to contemplate.

You still haven't answered my earlier questions. Most importantly, what would it take for you to cease being a theist?

No, Eric, I accuse believers of being fear based because I was one. I understand from the inside out the fear motivation, from the petty to the cosmic, that believers use and endure. From fear of bucking peer pressure to fear of eternal torment, I understand that the system falls into disarray without fear motivation.

The fear you smell may be emanating from your own general vicinity and environs.

Is it so hard for you to imagine people living unafraid of invisible, imaginary bogeymen? Or bogeygods? I suspect it is too hard for most theists, since an admission that another paradigm could possibly exist rather devastates their own most basic assumptions -- which would be too frightening to contemplate.

You still haven't answered my earlier questions. Most importantly, what would it take for you to cease being a theist?

I know you will deny this totally, but I bet that behind your decided position of atheism is fear of God. An agnostic can be indifferent to the question of God, but an atheist is actively denying him. I smell fear. I know you will say it's just my projection, but I bet there's at very least a kernel of truth to it. I think at the core of atheism is an effort to dismantle a fear-producing belief in God. That's why you immediately accuse believers of being fear-based.

Any thinking is a positive action.

...Maybe a better word for it would be that atheism is a "choice" to not believe. In that sense athiesm is a positive action, like theism is a positive action.

Eric,

Pascal's wager has been discussed extensively. His position is: Since I don't know if god exists, I have two choices: 1. I believe, just in case he exists, 2. I don't believe in something for which is not the slightest proof. In case he exists, I am then on the "safe" side with No. 1. Therefore I choose No.1.

What a sad, unworthy philosophy of fear!

And, as has been pointed out hundreds of times, atheism is the ABSENCE of a belief in any god (a-theism, as the greek word describes), not a belief! Put your logic together: Logically, Nothing can be the negation of itself. Belief and non-belief cannot be the same. So, atheism cannot be a belief.

Stan, I agree that Webster's definition is stupidly biased, without the authors obviously even noticing it!

Dear Moderate and Eric,

You both have apparently gotten your definitions from biased or outdated sources. When the prevailing viewpoint is theism, including the prevailing viewpoint of dictionary editors, it's not surprising to get slanted definitions.

The definition you quote, Moderate, tips its hand by coming from a default position of belief in a god. Clues: uppercase "God," statements that an atheist "rejects" and "denies" and is "unwilling to accept." This viewpoint assumes a theistic baseline to reject or deny or be unwilling to accept.

I approach life from a totally different paradigm.

If I were rewriting the definition from the point of view of those of us who acknowledge our atheism and find theism a fantastic and far-fetched notion in need of objective validation, I should think it would read more like this:

Atheist: a person who has no reason to believe in supernatural claims made by theists.

Wikipedia begins its article on atheism this way:

"Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism.

"When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism. Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic.

"Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere."

After years of searching for a god or deity or some supernatural force that answers prayer and objectively affects lives, I've come to the point of understanding gods are a man-made construct. I'm not, however, arrogant enough to think I know everything. So I suppose I'm an agnostic atheist. I am, to quote someone else, agnostic about the existence of god in the same way I'm agnostic about the existence of fairies. If there were good reason to believe in either, I'd believe. Don't see it happening.

Dear Stan,

Eric is right.

Webster's puts it this way:

Atheist: "A person who believes that there is no God."

"SYN. -- an atheist rejects all religious belief and denies the existence of God.;
an agnostic questions the existence of God, heaven, etc. in the absence of material proof and in unwillingness to accept supernatural revelation; deist, a historical term applied to 18th-century rationalists who believed in God as a creative, moving force, but who otherwise rejected formal religion and its doctrines of revelation, divine authority, etc.;

freethinker, the current parallel term, similarly implies rejection of the tenants and traditions of formal religion as incompatible with reason; unbeliever is a more negative term simply designating , without further qualification, one who does not accept any religious belief; infidel is applied to a person not believing in a certain religion or the prevailing religion.”

So, at least accorging to the dictionary, you are reaching for Agnosticism if you have no position. If you imply by “no position” that God is unnecessary and hence should not be considered, then you are taking an Atheist position.

Eric,

You say, "Atheism is not an acceptance of a fact." This confuses me. Are you attempting to posit the existence of a deity as fact? I asked for a description of what atheism is a belief in, not what it is not. Because my Atheist Creedbook must have gotten lost in the mail or something. I don't know what I'm supposed to profess as an atheist. So I thought maybe you could help me out.

The default human position regarding a deity is atheism. Babies don't pop out saying the rosary or magnifying Jesus or praising Allah or speaking Hebrew. They must be taught those things. Humans brought up without religion do not default to belief in a deity -- because there is no clear evidence to persuade them to believe that. Why would they? Humans must be indoctrinated or threatened into belief in something less than obvious, less than tangible -- such as that there is a deity; what that then means in terms of creed and conduct is up to the local culture inculcating the religious belief.

As an atheist who has seen no evidence there is a deity of any kind (despite my fundamentalist christian upbringing,) I do my best to address reality with honesty and integrity. If there were credible evidence that there is a god and that I must do something about that, I would seriously examine the evidence and choose my direction. If the evidence were clear enough I would cease to be an atheist. What would it take for you to cease being a theist?

Atheism is not a belief, Eric. It is the default human position of skepticism regarding truth claims made by those with no way of demonstrating the veracity of those claims.

Atheism is not an acceptance of a fact. Therefore it qualifies as a belief. It makes a truth claim but cannot prove it as truth, so it qualifies as a belief. Any statement asserting the existence or nonexistence of deity, is, rather than being factual, a statement of belief.
Gotta go but I'll be back later.

Eric, what is atheism a belief in? Don't tell me what atheism is a non-belief in (which is really what it is, from lack of evidence) but rather tell me and the other atheists what it is we believe. We'll be very interested in your ideas, I'm sure.

Gerry,
I just want to point out that atheism is also a belief. But you assert your beliefs (no Divine judgment, no God, no afterlife, etc.) as if they are certainties. Fact is, you really don't know for sure. You are speculating with your life, just as you say I am speculating regarding my beliefs. But if I am wrong, I lose a dream I had. If you are wrong, you lose in a real way. Why that appears to give you no pause, I do not understand.

There is no "healthy fear", and there certainly is no black cloud hovering over me (don't conclude from your "Fear"-life to others' feelings, you seem to be scared like hell!). I enjoy every single day and I am grateful to nature for granting me the opportunity to even give a lot of my full life's experience to young people, helping them in their lives.

And there is nothing to "repent" (a religious concept), which doesn't mean I haven't made quite a few mistakes in my life. And nobody will "judge" me, and about Jesus and the apostles - that is a long, controversial and rather nebulous story, written by pre-enlightenment miracle believers over several centuries, not binding for anybody. And if god IS love etc., why not leave it there? Love is love, etc., for you and for me. It boils down to a semantic question. Its "value" is the same for you and for me!

Dan,
thank you for your convincing, honest and down-to- earth approach! It is refreshing to read a fellow freethinker, without any neurotic pouting or proselytizing ambition! Moral is a sort of oil in the gear of ANY group or society, as you clearly describe. No need for a joker or a "super-" deus ex machina!

Eric,
Mortality hovers over all of us like, well, like the wide, blue sky. It's not a black cloud; it's just part of life. The final part. The point is to live one's life in the best possible way BEFORE one dies.

It doesn't take fortitude to let go of fear. Just reason and a healthy curiosity. Deathbed conversion? Why? To what? Repent? Of what and to whom? My mistakes of a lifetime were and are, I hope, learning experiences for me and others. Why would I repent of learning and growing?

Disregarding for the moment whether or not Jesus and his disciples were actual historical figures, I take any warnings emanating from their ilk with the same seriousness I take Nostradamus's prophesies. You do believe in Nostradamus, yes? No? I've heard a few of his prophesies can be construed to have come true. Ergo, they are all valid. Sure, just as valid as the pronouncements in a very old compilation of writings many people view as sacred. I'm speaking, of course, of the Q'uran. No, the Bible. No, the Tibetan Book of the Dead. No, the Sayings of the Tao. Well, maybe something or another in one or another of those books proves the validity of something or other.

But it's not anything I lose sleep over. Sorry to hear you live in fear.

Dan S,
Wow, from your post I can say that you are by far the most tolerant and courteous atheist I have come accross.
On your assertion that moral absolutes are still relative because they are God's opinion.... That's very clever, and seems to make sense as an argument; except that the Bible teaches something else: Moral absolutes are absolute because they emanate from God's absolute nature, which even He cannot violate. It is not that God is a pragmatist and tells us (by writing it on our hearts) what to value that is good and what to resist; it is that God IS love, God IS charity, God IS compassion, God IS self-sacrifice, God IS patience, God IS light as opposed to darkness - God is where all of these qualities originate and emanate from, and because God IS those things, they are inviolate standards which are to be upheld.

E-Fav

"how do we know what God’s judgment is – a biblical interpretation? A voice in our heads? (or in a particular authority’s head)?"

Truly, time alone will tell. Exactly what to do at ab=ny may be less clear than some things we should not do. We do know that if we obliterate a species we have taken it out of play for the rest of eternity, though.

You can get into a Care Ethics viewpoint from this without a lot of strain if you think of the Universe as created by God as an abode for life.

No voices from the TV set either. :-)))

Gerry,
I mistakenly figured you were a younger man. In spite of the fact that you are as elderly as you are and that your mortality is hovering like a black cloud, you continue to deny God. You resist a healthy fear of even the possibility of Divine judgment. That is unusual. I am impressed with your fortitude, but obviously I believe it is misguided. I suppose there will be no deathbed conversion for someone as opposed to the very idea of God as you are even in their late years. I hope you decide to repent before you find yourself appearing before your so-called "man-made concept" as He is pronouncing judgment on you. That is not my threat, it is a warning made by Jesus and his apostles.

" In order to continue along that path you must devalue the healthy fear of authority as being a weakness"

Um - I repeat my point about authoritarian mindsets? (& thanks, btw - I do try to avoid the whole nasty and rude thing .. .)

The whole 'atheists deny God so they can indulge their base desires' thing . . .well, I can't say it doesn't exist anywhere - after all, you describe yourself as feeling that way when younger - but I *suspect* it's rather rare (at least among the kind of affirmative atheists one tends to run into online), and that such folks tend to end up as theists when they get older, as you did. Would be interesting to study.

The whole divinely-objective morality debate's an oldy but a goody. Is everyone (still) here familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma (from Plato's dialogue of the same name)? In simple modern form, basically, if morals come from God (if good is good because God says so), then they're ultimately arbitrary - we've just kicked utter moral relativism up a few notches: God could suddenly declare that, for example, rape, sadistic torture-murder, and baby-eating were moral goods. Of course, the moral absolutes you feel in your bones reject such a thing with horror - were God to tell you such a thing, you'd refuse. So one could argue that God would never do such a thing - that God tells us to be good because goodness is good. But then God isn't really the source of morality - rather, just a messenger passing independent morality along.

I tend to think, being rather simpleminded, that the problem is we're arguing about morality at too high and abstract a level. Instead, we should (and really can only) view morality in terms of our own existence and experience - bounded, limited, and with its own givens - from the ground up, not from the heavens down. From that perspective, morality, in its basic form, is far from relative, and seems to arise and develop from human reality, experience and ways of thought (indeed, there are some folks arguing that the evidence suggests the existence of an inborn moral facility, akin, at least in a sense, to that for learning language -and just as all known human groups have complex language, they also all have morality - and while there are differences in the exact details, no-one's ever stumbled upon a group with a genuine anti-morality, in which evil is self-consciously sought.) And like many other atheists, it's obvious that our ability for empathy, combined with foresight and reflection, is very, very important - it's not surprising that some version of the golden rule occurs in culture after culture, nor that some of our most horrifying criminals seem to have had something go haywire with this ability, nor that much harm requires (sometimes quite formalized) practices and beliefs that blunt it, from dehumanization of the other to the deadening of the self to constant drilling, causing such acts to be automatic, at the time (ie, in the military).

Eric,
with all due respect: I was the bigot believer in my adolescence, praying for my team to win a match. And I simply don't adhere to a philosophy of fear, your police example notwithstanding. A Psalm with your "fear of god" quotation has no meaning whatsoever for me. I don't fear god because he is a man-made concept which I don't have anything to do with. He doesn't exist outside this "Attributed Value". And thanks for the compliment for the rebellious adolescent at my age of 77. You don't need god for law and order, concepts that easily can deviate to crime and suppression (as already shown in the bible ad nauseam). In Nazi Germany there was enough law and order, believe me!

I thought we could take for granted meanwhile after hundreds of really relevant and convincing posts, that moral has nothing to do with religion. It is an established fact. Cling to your warm and cozy religion, and I stay with my chilly freedom of thinking, the principal attribute of human dignity.

Gerry, I did fear God, or the thought of God, even though I wasn't brought up that way. I wouldn't say that my religious choice is only "based on" fear, although there certainly is that element. It makes sense to "fear" God, just as it makes sense to "fear" the police car you see when you are tooling down the road. The cop has the power to apply the law against you if you violate it. So, the very thing you cite as weakness or foolishness on my part is actually a prudent judgment, if I am to accept that God is a God of law and order. It would be far easier in certain ways to continue a belief in atheism, but such a belief would be inconsistent with the moral absolutes that I know in my bones (when I am being honest and not repressing them) are there and must not be violated.
You have chosen to disregard any claim of a Supreme Being on your life and that is your choice. In order to continue along that path you must devalue the healthy fear of authority as being a weakness.
One of the Psalms says that "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." When I really ponder the logic of this, I can see its truth. Maybe you will too someday, I hope and pray. Just remember that when we on the other side of the spiritual fence hear you devaluing the fear of God, it sounds to us as the sound of the rebellious adolescent, with all due respect. I was there. I know.

Eric, the idea of God holding you accountable, cramping your lifestyle only corroborates my stance: Religion is based on fear. And you value fear, which, as you say yourself, is your own decision, positing a god at a given moment in your life. Fear is your value. My life is not cramped. It is free of fear, and it is full of curiosity.

When I say there is no "objective" value, I maintain that every value is "ATTRIBUTED to something: You obviously ATTRIBUTE value to your religion of fear, whichever you voluntarily have chosen out of the thousands available. My statement about value doesn't have anything to do with atheism or theism: It is established common sense. If you are dying in the desert for lack of water, you probably attribute a thousand times more value to water than to the gold you may possess. Your last sentence therefore is way below the level of this discussion.

Gerry, I am not saying my life is more meaningful than yours. I am saying that if atheism is true, both your life and mine are *ultimately* meaningless accidents. However, if theism is correct, then your life and my life have meaning far beyond our temporal experience. I think that is a scary thought for atheists (I was an atheist in my early life; the idea of God holding me accountable cramped my lifestyle).
Also, to say "there is no such thing as objective value" agrees with my point. An atheist must hold that nothing is objectively valuable, that everything is a matter of personal taste. Hide your wives and daughters if that view becomes mainstream!

Eric - I do consider my life a gift - from nature.

Please consider that your idea that the good things in life have to come from God might originate in religious indocrination.

Moderate – thanks for continuing the conversation. All I can say is that I share your feelings about our responsibility for the earth, and find no added value in God’s involvement. You say, “We must not let our hasty human judgment replace God' judgment” and I would say – how do we know what God’s judgment is – a biblical interpretation? A voice in our heads? (or in a particular authority’s head)?

Based on some of the awful things people have done in God’s name, I’d say we’re not too good at discerning his judgment. Really, I’d say there isn’t a God.

Eric,

value is what we attribute to something. There is no such thing as "objective value". I think my life is just as meaningful as you think yours is. My love to something or somebody is just as valuable and profound as yours may be. An all-loving creator is something I certainly don't believe in, considering the concept of hell and its silly implications, considering all the biblical threats, both in the old and new testament. And if you think my life is arbitrary and meaningless as compared to yours, it only would prove a complete lack of maturity and an incredible hubris on your side, as is so often the case with believers.

Atheists,
Love and beauty may be awesome and pleasurable, and seemingly profound, and human rights worthy of standardizing, but if such things are only happy accidents along with our more base instincts, and not gifts from our transcendent, infinite, immutable Creator, they are ultimately as meaningless and arbitrary as our beautiful, but anomalous and lonely planet in the infinite, cold darkness of space.

Dear Ben,

I like your thoughtful approach to the statistical issues. I also work in the technical fields, and actually use statistical inference in my day job.

I have to add to my previous comment about the education level of Atheists and their predominance of white collar jobs that I have no demographic data to back it up. So it is just a hypothesis to check. Could be interesting, though.

Dan,

"a habit of thought leading to the idea that rights (or laws, or morals, or biological complexity) can only be handed down from above, and, perhaps, that political authority derives not from the consent of the people, but from God and/or a strong leader...Where we *come from* doesn't *matter* (for this question). What matters is what we *are* - that we live and love and strive and hope, feel joy and pain, are born and die; thus we have rights."

Excellent point. Rights that are "handed down" are mostly definitely NOT inalienable.

Gerry,

Have you seen the Map of Science? You can check it out here: http://www.didi.com/brad/mapOfScience/ or here: http://informationesthetics.org/node/20

What I mean by flinging poo is just being sloppy, sort of how I was in one of my posts above. Being a software engineer working on databases, I find that I need to be very, very rigorous to avoid pitfalls. The same applies to the interpretation of real statistics.

I don't think the data show that Christianity has a negative influence on social order, crime, etc. I completely agree that there is very little reason to believe that Christianity reduces victimization or crime.

Ben,

of course I know that correlation is not cause. The prison inmates statistics have many more factors, like race, education, money, prejudice, social surroundings, even superstition and random biographical facts. Logically, my wording "religion destroys morals" was wrong, but my point was and is that there is no positive correlation between religion and morals and certainly no positive causal relation.

Moreover, as the huge 1/50 ratio seems to point also to education (you agree to the "white collar factor", we might even call it "enlightenment"), it seems at least plausible, if not cogent, that religion does not have ANY positive influence on morals, statistically speaking. BTW, I don't quite understand what you mean be "poo flinging". One can, logically, ascribe "poo flinging" to any argument one disagrees on, depending on one's olfactory sensitivity.

Eric: "How can a soulless biological machine which accidentally developed from the primordial slime truly have "rights"?"
To me, as an artist interested in science, it always remains a mystery why the fact that I need a brain with billions of neurons to think, feel, perceive (which organ do you use for thinking btw?) should devaluate the greatness of nature, the miracle of my own life, the beauty of art, the profoundness of love and mercy. The fact that all this has developed through immeasurable times does not diminish, but enhances my awe and wonder towards the universe - and towards life.

I am a convinced atheist, but nothing less than a "materialist", another one of those silly prejudicial concepts thrown around all the time.

Of course, thinking is more dangerous and painful than believing. Thinking implies the cool breeze of doubt, believing the cozy warm and stuffy security of abandoning one's responsibility to an imagined higher ("super"-) being. It boils down to freedom vs. security. I know what I am talking about, having experienced both.

Dan,
Good reply, and the first one I've received in this discussion that was not at all nasty or rude, which is to your credit.
You Without the existence of the Supreme Being serving as a real, transcendent source of real qualities including The Ultimate Standard of Love and Goodness, we are left with mere hallucinatory, chemically induced novelties. Removing the transcendent source of these qualities removes their objective value totally and reduces them to mere physical phenomena. We may decide that we like them, and therefore exalt them, but others may exalt other qualities in opposition and we cannot tell them they are wrong to do so, since they are following the same logic in assigning value as we are, even though we may see their valuations as perverted. Removing God from human relations removes the Gold Standard by which real goodness has an objective value apart from human opinion and biology. Mere soulless biped flesh-computers (who naively live their lives as if they are something more than just flesh-computers) can only assert that such qualities as love and kindness are "good" as a matter of their own opinion and not because they are objectively "good." The same can be said for "evil." If there is no objective "good," and if human rights are just a matter of convention and taste, then we have no basis upon which to assert to the Nazis or to a baby-torturer (for example) that what they are doing is *actually* "evil" and that they are violating a *real* standard of goodness.
My whole point is that the theist understands that the beauty of the human experience is a gift from the Creator who made us in His own image, meaning that, unless we have become perverted or damaged, we will know intuitively the true valuation of what He values - selfless love, justice, mercy, beauty, and kindness - as real qualities with transcendent value, not just one set of conventional values among many, which is how the materialist must see them if he is to be honest in his materialism.

The Moderate:

"I think that Atheists are, on average, better educated than the religious in the nation if only because it is an upstream swim. I am guessing that makes them predominantly white collar. How does the Atheist percentage of the prison population compare to the white collar criminals incarcerated? That would be the sensible basis for comparison."

That would be very interesting and productive to know, though I doubt it would entirely eliminate the poo flinging. I can imagine a commercial for an undergraduate statistics program saying "Aren't you glad you understand statistics? Don't you wish Everyone did?"

Happy 4th!

Dear E Fav,

To continue the ethics discussion, You may remember the Penrose thread on an earlier topic? I think the Penrose computation that rejects the hypothesis that the Universe was an accident supports two axioms of Religion:

1.In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.
2.She did this to make an abode for Life.

Please note that this offers no support to historical Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, or any other particular sect. The use of She is a device to underline this.

I am open to others being added only with care and great reluctance. A bad axiom will reduce the system to nonsense.

Some ethical conclusions jump out at you... If we define Good as doing things consistent with these axioms and Evil as doing things counter to them, we can make some ethical statements within this simple system.

That which furthers Life is Good because it it the work of God. So stewardship of the environment which preserves the ability of the Earth to support Life is Good.

That which destroys life is against the work of God. So nuclear war that sterilizes the planet is Evil. Destruction of the ecology is also prima facie Evil in this system.

We are all, in some sense, God's Children as we live together in her abode.

We are all, in some sense, Brothers and Sisters in God. Does the Golden Rule follow from this? I don'e think it is too much of a stretch.

We should avoid the large scale destruction of each other and the unnecessary destruction of other life. This is Evil because it does not diminishes life.

We clearly live in a food chain, and life at our level involves eating other life forms, so some use of living things like grains, and meats is consistent with living in God's abode for Life. We with intelligence should preserve and increase other forms of life, rather than decreasing the possibilities of the future.

Life improves in sophistication by competition. This is a bitter lesson, but one we are forced to live with. But winning should not mean ruthless and utter destruction of other lifeforms. We almost blotted the North American Bison, for example, and we did blot out the passenger pigeons. Extinction is Evil in this system because it means that a life form will not be able to contribute the furtherance of life for the rest of Eternity. It is lost forever. It remains to be seen if intelligence will further the increase of its own life, and other life.

Does this lead to eugenics? Not if we avoid substituting our own judgment for God's. Time must be allowed to tell its tale about the living things of today. We must not let our hasty human judgment replace God' judgment.

That's a bit random right now, but I find it more interesting than the much more limited set I had to work with in my Atheist days. The Golden Rule in that system was always vulnerable to the a simple counter assertion by another that he thought that I should serve as a means to his ends; Kant not withstanding. I had no real moral basis then, other than practical (as in “Try and make me, dog breath!”), to object.

Any thoughts?

"How can a soulless biological machine which accidentally developed from the primordial slime truly have "rights"?"

This sort of attitude (from which the question comes) always puzzles me. I tend to associate it with a rather authoritarian mindset, rightly or wrongly . . . a habit of thought leading to the idea that rights (or laws, or morals, or biological complexity) can only be handed down from above, and, perhaps, that political authority derives not from the consent of the people, but from God and/or a strong leader - a complex of ideas that, if still marginal, are becoming disturbingly widespread and influential here in the US. Where we *come from* doesn't *matter* (for this question). What matters is what we *are* - that we live and love and strive and hope, feel joy and pain, are born and die; thus we have rights.

"And what is this lofty-sounding "love" she talks about? Just the illusory result of firing neurons and chemical interactions, according to her materialist worldview."

Of course, "color" as we understand it is essentially an illusion - indeed, it could be described in part as "the illusory result of firing neurons and chemical interactions." After all, things aren't red, white, blue (etc.) in the sense that we perceive them - rather, they reflect different wavelengths of light, which then activate cells in the eye which are then interpreted by the brain (to give a cruelly simplified and incomplete account).

It's a common desire to want to wall off those things we value from the seemingly drab and dreary world of _things_, whether commerce or chemicals; it's understandable that we want to declare our most intimate or important aspects somehow inviolate and wholly transcendent, above any material influences. I know the feeling - it's shocking to consider, for example, how something as basic as personality could be changed by a brain injury, and what that says about what we are. But the thing is, they still have to exist in this world. By denying that love exists in the brain and body, insisting that it must be some pure thing floating in an immaterial void somewhere, one denies this reality - it's like carrying on aghast at the idea that the _Mona Lisa_ exists as wood and pigment, or that a song would exist as (shudder) sound waves produced by (ugh!) muscular contractions and vibrating mucous membranes.

" It's interesting how atheists often say things that they don't really believe in their heart of hearts."
Not really.

Dear Ben,

"I think it simply demonstrates that atheists are in general more socialized than your average Christian. Honestly I think you are flinging poo - I do that sometimes."

I think that Atheists are, on average, better educated than the religious in the nation if only because it is an upstream swim. I am guessing that makes them predominantly white collar. How does the Atheist percentage of the prison population compare to the white collar criminals incarcerated? That would be the sensible basis for comparison.

Happy 4th!

Luke:

First, to give you a bit of context, I will tell you that I am of Slavic descent, and as such am what Nietzsche and his Nazi disciples called “Untermenschen” or subhumans. So some of my people in the Old Country were on the Nazi hit list.

“Catholic Germans held hostage by Hitler? If that isn't ever a convenient argument.”

No less true for being convenient.

Remember also that Pius was surrounded by the troops of Mussolini. Pius was in a dance with the devil trying to survive and not provoke the tyrants to kill more. You may know the Adolf and Uncle Joe studied each other's techniques in terrorizing their populations and their opponents, such as Pope Pius. One might argue that he caved in to murderous pressure, and that was a great failing in character. But that would be a pretty easy call from here in Disney Land, were we live.

“It is really convenient to argue that the Nazis were all atheists...”

I never argued that they were all Atheists. As noted, Himmler was a practitioner of Occultism and Aryan Paganism. Hitler was anti-religious and tried to make National Socialism into the National Religion. Remember that the Hitler Youth song said: “The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.” They did take Nietzsche's God is Dead stuff as part of their creed, along with his racist stuff. They generally attacked Christianity because people with religious conscience were harder to control and so a threat to the State.

“If you focus on the figurehead of a movement, regardless of those who followed it, you can blame any one group of people.”

If you think that Hitler was a figurehead you really DO need to study history. He was as much of a figurehead as Stalin. The piano wire hangings after the General's bombed the Wolf's layer with Hitler in it in 1945 should hint at that.

“The KKK are mainly Christian, as were the majority of whites against civil rights for blacks (and still are for homosexuals).”

You are right on that. The American terrorist KKK is a black mark on all the Christian communities that supported it. However, it is not a black mark on the Christian Abolitionists who ran the underground railroad and opposed slavery because of their Christian principles. It is not a black mark on William Wilberforce the Anglican Abolitionist who lead the successful campaign in the British Parliament end the British slave trade. Some Christian sects have Gay and Lesbian priests, even if this is a complex issue for some. Given time that will work itself out, though. Also, the Main Line Christian churches were instrumental in supporting the Civil Rights movement of the nineteen-sixties.

“Most black slave owners were Christians too.”

Most antebellum slave owners were Christian because most everyone was Christian in that time and place. Before them, most slave owners were Roman believers in the Pantheon. Later most slave owners were Atheist Communists who ran the Gulag.

“The point is that Christians, Muslims, or whomever do not have a monopoly on morality. Pastors can be criminals just like any drug dealer.”

Yep. Never said they did. I even discussed my own attempts at an ethical life during my thirty years as an Atheist. The criminal priests and pastors are worse than “honest criminals” for their betrayals. However, my pastor drives a cheap compact car, runs a school, raises a family on a very middle class income, and works hard on behalf of the community.

BTW, you are throwing in the kitchen sink on slavery, and pastors, because you lost the debate on the Nazi thing. ;-)) It is a good old debater's trick. Nice try, but No Cigar.

“You can't say that someone who murders someone else is not a Christian because he didn't follow the Ten Commandments and then say that an atheist is incapable of morality. That's just dodging in it's irresponsible on your part.”

I guess I missed those posts. Also, and again, I never said that Atheists are incapable of morality, or that Christian sinners were necessarily non-Christian. However, the leading Nazis at most tolerated Christianity, or manipulated, it while working toward its demise.

I used to have a friend who was a Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust there. He was a youngster in Poland in 1939. Being a self righteous Atheist I said something like you posted here about Christians who helped this to go on.

He told me I was wrong. When the SS came to his village, he said, with their submachine guns to round up the Jews and kill them, the local Catholic priest interposed himself between the SS gunners and the Jews. He told the SS men that they would have to kill him to get a clear shot. They shot him down where he stood. My friend escaped the slaughter mostly because there were too many to kill to catch them all when they ran. After the war, and years on the run, he came to America. He died peacefully a few years ago of old age with many friends mourning his passing.

So it is easy to make intolerant and naive statements like yours, and mine back then, but I wonder how long you would have stood fast in front of SS machine guns. Or if I would have had the courage of that priest. That is why I talk about making judgments from Disney Land of people who faced choices difficult beyond our comprehension.

I recommend the official biography of Karol Wojtyla, who later became Pope John Paul II, for details of this time period in which the Nazis snuffed out the lives or twenty-five thousand Polish Catholic Priests. As one of them he put his life on the line every day in the face of the two most powerful, and most murderous, tyrannies in history. Eventually, he helped free Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe.

Sorry, but I think your net is too wide and your approach too simple to contain enough of the truth to understand much of the real world.

JWest and All,

Indeed, a happy 4th to you as well!

Gerry,

Also, the prison population is not representative of the population at large. And your statement "Religion (at least statistically) destroys morals." is not statistical at all. You just inserted "destroys morals" where you should have said "is somewhat correlated with the rate of imprisonment" or something like that.

Hi Gerry,

You know the saying, a correlation is not a cause. And being socialized includes much more than just the golden rule or even morality. Logic and science are two forms of socialization, in my view. They help to guide peoples' behavior. But that is a matter of semantics.

Ben,

lol!

But then, what is morality other than being socialized according to the golden rule?
My point is not invalid, and I took great pain to state it "statistically", not in a deeper sense morally, let alone religiously, leaving it up to everybody to define morality, which isn't so easy if you want to avoid circular reasoning.

Luke,

"I am told constantly that my morality comes from Christian faith - which is funny because I believed that Muslims and homosexuals deserved to burn in hell for their sin and that women were made to be submissive to men. Now I think all of that is nonsense - it is quite liberating."

I was told by other kids at school that western morality comes from Christianity. When I discovered that it does not in general come from Christianity, I was told that all of my ideas about truth come from Christianity, and that my interest in science and philosophy is just a veiled form of faith. Many argue that the United States was founded on Christian principles. Others are more clever and argue that enlightenment principles are derived from Christianity.

Christianity twists secular words around so that they seem inherently intertwined with Christian faith. Many Christians opine that there are no tentative truths - there is only "faith"; atheists must be arrogant to be so absolutely sure that there is no god (as if every opinion must be tantamount to religious faith).

Christianity is not rigorous. It is not true knowledge. It is a horribly constricting and distorting system.

Happy 4TH all. Remember America belongs to all Americans..

A very interesting article I'd like to share with all of you.

http://exchristian.net/2/2007/07/faith-is-it-red-white-and-blue.html

Gerry:

"The atheist US prison population is about 1/50 of what it should be, statistically, if it represented the ratio of atheists vs. Christians in the general population. It points to the conclusion that atheists have a higher degree of morals, if measured by prison inmate numbers, than Christians, statistically, wiping away the old stale argument that you need religion for morals. It points to the contrary: Religion (at least statistically) destroys morals."

I think it simply demonstrates that atheists are in general more socialized than your average Christian. Honestly I think you are flinging poo - I do that sometimes.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

I am told constantly that my morality comes from Christian faith - which is funny because I believed that Muslims and homosexuals deserved to burn in hell for their sin and that women were made to be submissive to men. Now I think all of that is nonsense - it is quite liberating.

Luke,

I think I see what you are saying now. It's difficult to convince some Christians that someone who identifies as an atheist is a totally different animal from someone who simply lacks virtue/morals. I hadn't even considered that.

Ben, I was agreeing with you completely, but I was giving you warning as to the argument you face.

The atheist US prison population is about 1/50 of what it should be, statistically, if it represented the ratio of atheists vs. Christians in the general population. It points to the conclusion that atheists have a higher degree of morals, if measured by prison inmate numbers, than Christians, statistically, wiping away the old stale argument that you need religion for morals. It points to the contrary: Religion (at least statistically) destroys morals.

Sorry to burst so many bubbles here but I lived in Germany for many years growing up. I knew many people that survived WWII and they were devote christians. There were such a thing as Nazis but not all people were nazis. Most of the population was christian. Hitler came into power not on a anti religious platform but on a promise to rebuild a bankrupt germany to past glories. Religion didn't play a significant role at all. The Pope turned his back on a lot of people during WWII, people that needed help to stay alive. Gypsies suffered horribly because of the Vatican as many other not favored by the church did. Atheism had very little to do with hilters regime.

Luke,

Atheists make up a very small percentage of the prison population for some reasons. I do not mean to say that Christians are inherently criminal - nothing of the sort. Perhaps I am suggesting that atheists are often socialized and educated to a greater degree than the average Christian. I should have specified that.

Eric, please take note of the above paragraph. I am in no way suggesting that Christians are criminal.

Ben, you are setting yourself up for the "Well, they don't act like Christians, so we will say they aren't Christians and lump them in with atheists" argument.

Eric S:

By the way, I don't think neuroscience or evolutionary biology entirely explains society. But I think something like Systems Theory does. So not all scientific thinkers are monists. Neither are they always complete reductionists - evolution and neuroscience do not attempt to encompass absolutely everything, though I would argue that Science in general encompasses the vast majority of of coherent and meaningful questions.

Western thought started with the Greeks - your idea of God, my ideas on science, even the logic that pervades our informal debates. Aristotle created the first taxonomy, very similar to the one biologists use today.

There is nothing new about explaining reality though it's components and attributes.

Additionally, democracy, law, and ethics in the West is greatly influenced by the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle. Their words were borrowed and twisted by Christians starting around the 7th century ACE. Thus ethics do not require religion. Only uniquely Christian ethics require religion, and I am not particularly interested in those.

One more thing: Look up the percentage of prisoners in the United States who are atheists. Hmmmmmm

Catholic Germans held hostage by Hitler? If that isn't ever a convenient argument. It is really convenient to argue that the Nazis were all atheists because of their actions and the things that some of their officers, generals, and the like said, but that would just be pure ignorance and stupidity to assume that. If you focus on the figurehead of a movement, regardless of those who followed it, you can blame any one group of people. The KKK are mainly Christian, as were the majority of whites against civil rights for blacks (and still are for homosexuals). Most black slave owners were Christians too. Ofcourse, I don't blame slavery in America on Christians because there are other schools of thought that played into it (although it is true that the Bible condones slavery). The point is that Christians, Muslims, or whomever do not have a monopoly on morality. Pastors can be criminals just like any drug dealer. You can't say that someone who murders someone else is not a Christian because he didn't follow the Ten Commandments and then say that an atheist is incapable of morality. That's just dodging in it's irresponsible on your part.

Erik, even your neurons fire when you write your intellectual nonsense! And it will remain your secret why a quality which has developed ("primordial slime", ha, that fits!) has less value than a quality that has been the same, undeveloped, static, sterile from the beginning. Everything in life points to evolution, life IS evolution, even yours, from the time you couldn't write and read, from the time you were happy, without any religion, in your mothers slimy womb!

And Mr. Moderate, looking at your development from 30 years of atheism to some personal or institutional sort of "faith", let us not exclude a further step of maturation and neuron rewiring when you liberate yourself from the recently adopted concepts, since you seem to be a curious and researching person, whom I would regard sufficiently honest and intelligent to become emancipated from superstition. (I know how superstition feels, I used to be happy and dumb, wrapped in it myself!)

If you had died in that atheist phase, would you have landed in hell? Now, after the new "insight", would you, still being the same person, land in heaven? Does "God" reward or punish your rewiring or re-rewiring?

The whole heaven and hell phantasm is beyond infantilism, it serves only as a cheap manipulation tool through greed, fear and terror, but is still touted by the masses and their protagonists like Cal Thomas et al.

Eric S:

"Interesting how Susan Jacoby, an atheist, objects to religion because it has spawned human rights abuses. How can a soulless biological machine which accidentally developed from the primordial slime truly have "rights"? And what is this lofty-sounding "love" she talks about? Just the illusory result of firing neurons and chemical interactions, according to her materialist worldview. It's interesting how atheists often say things that they don't really believe in their heart of hearts."

It is even more interesting how Christians twist words that were used by the Greeks a thousand years before they were used by Christians. For instance Virtue, truth, eternity.

Aristotle did not believe in an immaterial soul, but he had ideas on virtue, ethics and truth. Christian ideas do not define our society. Take The Moderate's advice and read some history.

Moderate - our posts passed in the night.

Thanks for your response to my earlier question - sounds like you lived by a good humanist code - maybe still do.

The Moderate:

I would, of course, not argue that religion is a chief cause of large-scale warfare. But I don't think you have read enough about Nietzsche or Foucault. Both of them revealed truths about western society that continue to influence intellectuals and ordinary people. Their truths were inherent in the technology, art, religion and politics of the times in which they lived. Nietzsche didn't influence the world as much as he looked around, predicted it, and hastened the flow of existential and (later) post-modern (with a hyphen) thought. He was not even original. Chinese intellectuals generally regard Nietzsche has an educator rather than a philosopher.

I view some of Nietzsche's conclusions with suspicion, but I think his methods and ideas were essential to the intellectual progress of the West. If you would like to erase much of the last century of intellectual progress (tentatively irreversible change), then it makes sense for you to go ahead and attempt to associate Niezsche with the Nazis. The majority of the academic world disagrees, but whatever floats your boat. Then again, I don't think it would be useful to throw out the last 2000 years of history because of my views on some aspects of Christianity. And it would be dishonest if I claimed that I knew that Christianity was a chief cause of warfare. Intellectual honesty is more important to me than balancing a debate. Very well then.

Regarding Christianity ~
In reality, people take Christianity less seriously than before. The logical conclusions one draws from the bible are so ridiculous that it must be interpreted very abstractly. In the modern view, God only created the universe, and not storms, wars, or anything else. "He" doesn't directly influence anything anymore. The Greek origins of the modern ideas on God, and the contradictions inherent in this, are forgotten by many Christians.

Obviously many people still take moral guidance from Christianity. But the trend of nihilism continues, partly a result of the meaningless of Christian ethics, partly a result of the feeling of man's smallness in the universe.

It may seem as if Christianity will continue indefinitely, and maybe in name it will. Politicians may use the memes of Christianity, and communities may gather in it's name. But in truth that is just a reaction to the moral vacuum created in the wake of tremendous technological change.

Interesting how Susan Jacoby, an atheist, objects to religion because it has spawned human rights abuses. How can a soulless biological machine which accidentally developed from the primordial slime truly have "rights"? And what is this lofty-sounding "love" she talks about? Just the illusory result of firing neurons and chemical interactions, according to her materialist worldview. It's interesting how atheists often say things that they don't really believe in their heart of hearts.

Moderate, you say, "The idea that there will be a harmonic convergence of peace, love, and understanding, if we can only get rid of religion seems far fetched to me. Quite a few here do seem to think that way."

that's funny, I've haven't noticed that at all. Show me where anyone said something like that.

E Fav:

As to ethics in my three decades as an Atheist:

Objectivist ethics of Rand strongly figured into it. No coercion, and maximal freedom for all in so far as no harm is done to others. Offer the best you can make in exchange for the best others can make.

Kant's Categorical Imperative being the formalism for a scientific ethic is basically the Golden Rule dressed up. I liked that.

Somewhere I got a strong sense of identification with victims, rather than identification with aggressors. That on puts a Golden Rule spin on most everything.

Though I did not want to be, I think that I remained strongly influenced by my Christian upbringing:

Feed the hungry.
Tend the sick.
Do not repay evil for evil.
If you have done this for the least of these you have done it for me.

The non-religious of the Ten Commandments figured into it for me as being an important part of a good life:

Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.

Pretty prosaic, maybe, but that's about it.

Dear Ben:

I agree that Nietzsche did not guide the Nazis. But they did take guidance from him. That said, they were pathological in the extreme, so they no doubt twisted some of it. Still, some of it did not take much twisting to become deadly. Nietzsche was a favorite of Mussolini, too. So my take is when handling philosophically radioactive material we need to be very cautious.

Nietzsche and his pathological views are far from over. Keith Windschuttle in “The Killing of History” draws impressive connections between the Nazi philosophers and the current crop of postmodernists including Foucault, Lacan, and Derrida. For exampleDerrida just repackaged the works of Martin Heidegger, who was exposed as “a financial member of the Nazi Party from 1933 to 1945, a Nazi informer against academic colleagues in the 1930's, an anti-Semite and who lamented the defeat of the Nazi regime right until his death in 1976.” (page 178) The postmodern, and largely Atheist, school seems to be badly contaminated with the kind of thinkers that helped cause World War II. Interesting that the Left latched on to a bunch of Nazi influenced thinkers in the sixties, seventies, and eighties. Interesting read, and I recommend it to people who want to understand the methods of historical interpretation.

As to the last paragraph, I think Christianity has already transformed. But you have to know which sects are doing what. Sure, there are some extremists, but any group of over a billion people will have its bad apples. So one of the things that happens here is that many people who do not understand the Christian, Jewish, and Moslem communities feel free to hold up the most violent, intolerant, and inhumane instances as representative. It is a way of throwing rocks. And as I have mentioned, as a community service, there are plenty of violent, intolerant, and inhumane Atheists to point to as well, just to balance the discussion. For example the old KBG crowd seems alive an well in Russia. That may become problematical in the future, or it may not, but it bears watching.

The idea that there will be a harmonic convergence of peace, love, and understanding, if we can only get rid of religion seems far fetched to me. Quite a few here do seem to think that way.

The Moderate:

I appreciate your rhetorical method. I guess a lot of atheists throw logic out the window without knowing it.

I have nothing against religion per se, in fact I am very interested in understanding and appreciating it.

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

I am on the side of the atheists because conservatives of the world currently condemn advancements in True Knowledge and support fundamentalist religion, and atheism somewhat supports True Knowledge of the ancient Greek sort. True Knowledge is necessary in order to solve the very complex problems of the world. That is one truth that many very historical minded, excessively 'postmodern' (without the hyphen) and devoutly religious people often miss.

I think that some atheists on this board lack historical perspective. I generally lack historical knowledge (that is not my area at all), but my experience in debates shows me that history is not something to be taken lightly.

I don't know how constructive it is to fling poo at each other all day long. If Christianity is to transform, or perhaps be replaced, there obviously needs to be something in it's place. Science alone won't be enough. The past, the future, technology, and psychology should be discussed in order to determine a wise course of action.

Moderate - I see you're very active here. I hope you get to my question:

"you mentioned that you were an atheist for 30 years. Did you have a set of ethics associated with your lack of belief? If so, what were they and how did they change when you became a Christian?

Thanks

It's unfortunate that a discussion on the belief in a supernatural afterlife has degenerated into a contest to see which side of the argument has the worst murderous monsters. This, too, is the problem with blind belief. It hinges on the attack of otherness. Humanism supposes that mankind might, with a little study, figure out how to not kill each other, and maybe help those who need it, not because someone threatened to kill or damn us if we didn't, but because we as a species benefit from unity rather than division. I am atheist because there is no evidence for gods. I am humanist because I am human. Monsters who kill millions and popes who lead billions do so by the same methods, whether their gods are a sky spirit, dialectical materialism or a charismatic nutbag like a hitler or pol pot.

ANDREW FROM OR:
“What pathetic drivel. The Nazis were Christians. There are no atheistic roots to Nazism. Every Jew, Roma, homosexual, Slav, communist, etc. murdered in Hitler's death camps was murdered by a Chhristian - every single one. Your claim is nothing but the rankest, most anti-intellectual Christian revisionism designed to evade accountability for one of the greatest atrocities ever perpetrated by humans.”

You really are getting over the line into hate speech with this. You should lighten up. Also, not to put too fine a point on it you you are flat wrong. If you are right, why did the Hitler youth marching song say:

“We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.”

Plenty more where that came from, too. Look up Horst Wessel to get a clue what it means.

Luke:

“It's strange that lots of people have "quotes" from Hitler saying that Christianity is the scourge of the planet, and plenty saying that he supported Christianity (he was pretty buddy-buddy with Pope Pius - who also preached some pretty anti-semitic sermons from what I'm reading).”

Those quotes from Hitler are really inconvenient, aren't they? There are plenty more where that will be at least as inconvenient for you.

As to the Pope, as Patron Saint of Atheists, Uncle Joe Stalin, said: “How many divisions does the Pope have?” Did he have any good options? There were millions of Catholic Germans held hostage by Hitler at that time. What Hitler did to the Catholics in Poland illustrate the risks. Maybe Pius did blow it, but the times presented immensely difficult choices.

Susan, thank you for a reasoned and reasonable response to an issue normally guided by circular argument and shouting. For those posters who say that the atheist has no true argument for their stance, I say only that the onus is not on the atheist to disprove god, but on the theist to prove it. If the universe, upon examination, appears (as it does, if you actually study biology, physics, chemistry, cosmology, etc., ad infinitum) to be a natural, evolved thing, and if you must then posit a completely different plane of existence (without any observational or experimental evidence) to house a nonphysical entity which does not obey the laws of the universe, but created that universe, the burden of proof should be on you, not me. I see a universe amazing and complex, worthy of study and understanding. I do not see any gods, spirits, devils, heavens, hells, souls or psychics. I see no evidence for these things outside of the writings of people dead for thousands of years, people who did not understand their world but sought to explain it with the tools at their disposal, the tools of myth and story. Zeus, Diana, Set, Bast, and many thousands of other gods have fallen by the wayside, casualties of understanding. Why is there no requirement for proof of a christian, muslim or rabbinic deity? Why are these areas not open to the standards of evidence required for all other human behaviors? If a man claims that aliens speak to him through his fillings, we classify him as a delusional fool, and ask him to prove his claims, just before we medicate him. If a man claims that there is an invisible creator of the universe who lives outside time and space and sends people to paradise or hell depending on whether they believe in the right version of it, we accept this as a perfectly reasonable thing. If I claim that humans are the result of natural selection over millions of years, there are transitional fossils, DNA comparisons, countless other pieces of evidence supporting the theory, yet we are "monkey lovers" who deny god's almighty plan. I see no reason to disprove spirits and gods. It's a worthless gesture, aimed at people who do not believe in proof, anyway.

Jeremy,

“For the atheist-haters: try reading Sam Harris' "End of Faith"”

I do not hate Atheists. I was one for thirty years. I do dislike irrational fulmination against religion (I do not think you are really doing that, but there are many here who do, as you can see.)

“Furthermore, Hitler, as a mass-murderer, has more in common with the Old Testament Yaweh than with any atheist who ever lived.”

Flat Wrong. Try on Mao, and Uncle Joe for size. They were Atheists with higher butcher bills than Hitler.

“Genocide anyone? The christians love their genocidal god, but the hate atheists for a false link with Stalin and Hitler!!”

The God of the Old Testament is troubling in many ways. But the problem of the madness of the Twentieth Century Atheists is problematical too.

“At least in hell I won't be surrounded by such people.”

Heaven for the climate. Hell for the company? :-)))

Ben:

“If you want to make a case that either religion or atheism is more responsible for warfare than the other, then dig a little deeper, instead of just flinging poo.”

You are the only one who seems to have a clue as to my rhetorical method on this. That would be the point. The poo is routinely flung at the religious side and goes unanswered. The point is that there is plenty of poo to go around. My, possibly vain, hope is to bring some balance to the discussions and get people to actually start thinking. My challenge is: start thinking, start reading some history!. Religions have made some real messes and had deadly wars. Atheist societies have made some real messes and killed truly vast numbers of people. The real history is complex.

"The reports indicate that Himmler was an Occult Aryan Pagan, and Hitler was mostly just anti religious, but would use pre-Christian rituals to suit his purposes. As a group they were guided by Nietzsche who was also a mess in terms of mixed Atheism and racial cultism. So the answer is yes, they were."

While Nietzsche certainly created a great big jigsaw puzzle that could easily be incorrectly assembled, he did not guide the Nazis. I am sure you will disagree, since it is easy to say what you are saying and difficult to contest. After all, Hitler surely admired Nietzsche. But actually, the insights that made Nietzsche such a great thinker are in no way fascist.

I wouldn't consider Hitler to have been a seeker of true knowledge. He was not much of a Christian, not much of a scientist, and not much of a philosopher. He was an opportunist and an angry person.

The problem here is not religion per se, because American society has always been quite religious. It is the clannish, insular, conservative mindset that has caused us to neglect some very important aspects of our nation.

There must be something wrong with our system of government or with our society, at some level. We currently support a fairly large group of leaders who can't see the value of science, art, intellectualism, good public health, and even many advanced technologies - because they can only see the world as an eternal field for their insular, reactionary antics. These antics - fear tactics, condemnation of other cultures, "faith", plutocratic collusion - have led to our current situation of having no useful urban public transportation, a poor primary and secondary education system, a health care system that costs too much and doesn't protect the health of many Americans, slow and unsure enforcement of our laws, intermittent harsh and highly publicized punishment of powerful figures (while the rest get away).... (the list goes on).

The last thing we need is more "faith". But unfortunately the problem isn't simple enough to be reduced to that.

Dear Dan S.:

"Hang on, I thought they were supposed to be atheists! After all, cooked-up nationalistic pseudo-Germanic paganism =/= atheism."

The reports indicate that Himmler was an Occult Aryan Pagan, and Hitler was mostly just anti religious, but would use pre-Christian rituals to suit his purposes. As a group they were guided by Nietzsche who was also a mess in terms of mixed Atheism and racial cultism. So the answer is yes, they were.

It is a real pleasure to read Susan's voice of reason after just reading about the Alabama Governor's making this a week of prayer for rain in the drought stricken state. How is it these complete whackos have taken over the government?

This mass insanity harboring back to the bronze age has got to stop! We need many more sensible people like Susan to verbally slap the god deluded upside the head so as to knock some that ancient superstition free from what's left of their brains.

"Christians say that--without exception--their God answers all of their prayers; it's just that He sometimes says "yes" and other times "no," "maybe," or "wait." Of course the same could be said of the rain-god,"Bob." -Rev. Donald Morgan

It takes delusional people like G. Bush and D. Cheney to start wars with christian justification. God told him to attack Iraq.

This debate regarding the effects of "religion" vs. the effects of "atheism" seems hopeless.

First of all, we are not going to get rid of war (much less conflict) any time soon.

Secondly, we are not going to get rid of dogma perhaps ever. Not unless we all become calm thinkers who take the middle way.

I think the truth is too complex to simply blame religion or science or even dogma or ideology for war. There is little point here in arguing for what you WANT to be true.

If you want to make a case that either religion or atheism is more responsible for warfare than the other, then dig a little deeper, instead of just flinging poo.

For the atheist-haters: try reading Sam Harris' "End of Faith" It explains that dogma is the problem--so the problem with communism (meaning stalinism and such) isn't atheism, but the dogma of stalinism. Atheism CAN'T lead to murder. Something else must lead to it. Atheism doesn't tell one what to do. It's not a dogma or a doctrine, it's simply a lack of belief. Germany and Italy weren't really atheistic. They were more occult-like.

The evils of twentieth-century communism has NOTHING to do with atheism. To say otherwise simply shows that you hate atheists and want to demonize them by associating them with evil. Atheist who associate all religious folks with David Koresh and suicide bombers and Crusaders and witch-burners and inquisitions, etc., etc., ad infinitum, are doing the same thing.

Furthermore, Hitler, as a mass-murderer, has more in common with the Old Testament Yaweh than with any atheist who ever lived. Genocide anyone? The christians love their genocidal god, but the hate atheists for a false link with Stalin and Hitler!! At least in hell I won't be surrounded by such people.

On the same note I was talking to a young lady at the gas station about the high cost of gas and how she had trouble affording it. She mentioned her pastor said something about our duty to pay and we should be thankful to the companies that provide gas for us at whatever the price. Her pastor turned out to be a the leader of an abundant faith living center. She has to pay the jerk a large part of her small salary and he in turn has a big fancy house armani suits, front row tickets to all the sports venues and is building a new 24 million dollar center at the expense of her and others like her. Well number one it is her fault first for paying him but the threat of god punishing her if she didn't is what scares her the most. And this guy is good at threatening his following. Sheep and flock come to mind. This is criminal, he is nothing more than a crook legally stealing from unfortunate people with a false promise of eternal life if she gives up her hard earned money. But he doesn't have to give up his rich lifestyle. It makes me sick. I talked to her and told to get out of that "church" as fast as possible because he will bleed her dry if he can. She says he has special fund drives all the time because the lord wants a lot. I see this pastor around town and I get the creepyist feeling that he could suck the money out of any wallet within a fifty meter radius. Money, that is all these religious leaders want from you and you give it to them by the millions. I find it foolish.

I don't understand why it matters if you are atheist or otherwise - if you can find an excuse to kill me, why should I trust you? Muslims believe I should be killed, Christians and Catholics believe that God will do it for them, and I am supposed to be alright with this?

"The Nazis were Aryan Pagans"

Hang on, I thought they were supposed to be atheists! After all, cooked-up nationalistic pseudo-Germanic paganism =/= atheism.

It is true, JWest, that I have never seen a pastor who didn't drive a fancy car and live in a rich neighborhood (or own several acres of land). I knew a pastor (who had a stripper for a daughter I was dating - figure that one out) who lived in what was practically a mansion. He had 4 electric ovens, two washers and dryers, a gym, and multiple flat screens (he was divorced, so it was just him and his daughter). He also had both a BMW and a Mercedes Benz (a Z3 Roadster). I guess the meek really do inherit the Earth, or maybe just all the pretty and expensive things in it.

Moderate, you've just got all the bad in the world wrapped up in atheism. It is not. I don't believe in your god so I'm some kind of horrible baby killing, people suppressing, oil consuming freak. I think not. It is you that believes in the supernatural, not me. As far as the middle east is concerned, you are not paying attention what christian groups are doing over there. Supporting the illegal jewish settlements in the west bank is only aggravating the muslims further. Extremeist christians exsist and they are causing problems in the middle east. Denial is something I find in the christain community. Atheism is NOT a following. We don't have leaders taking huge sums of money from the poor and living lavish lifestyles like you all do. We don't want to take over the world like you do. we believe in tolerance and caring unlike you. (The you is in general referring to the christian cult). As you can read hre not everyone agrees with you. When you were an ahteist did you rob banks, kill, steal, or hate for hate's sake. I don't think so. You are nor superior or special, just a human that for some reason thinks he has all the answers. I find your answers wrong.

E-Favorate, I bookmarked that link and will go to it later.

Tonio, I've always said that the my creator is the earth through evolution. Imagine the looks I get when I say that.

Andrew from OR.. Exactly, well said.

Once again moderate, you can't hide what christianity has done. Bad things have happen in throughout world history and behind most of it was religion. FACT!!

"Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov's contention that if there is no God, everything is permitted is a central conundrum for the Atheist community. Apparently Sartre says that this sums up his Existentialism. How do you construct your ethics? I am not throwing a rock here, but hoping to have a real discussion."

While I respect Dostoevsky and Sartre as writers, I strongly object to the notion that ethical behavior requires a belief in God. Humans have a moral sense, a conscience, although too many people ignore it or are not in touch with it. Some people define "God" as a metaphor for one's conscience and not as an actual supreme being, but theistic religions don't allow for that definition. Instead, theistic religions define God as a conscious being defining rules that humans must follow. Rule-following is about pleasing authority, not necessarily about morality. Even if one believes that a deity wants humans to follow a version of the Golden Rule, the point of the belief is the deity's wish and not the Golden Rule's merits.

Gerry - thanks for chiming in. I'd be interested to hear how you became a non-believer - sounds like it happened well into middle-age.

Moderate - Ditto what Andrew said above.

There is an ethical point of view that includes lack of belief in God; It’s called humanism. Here are some definitions from the American humanist website:

Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity. (American Humanist Association)

Humanism is a democratic and ethical lifestance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality. (The International Humanist and Ethical Union)

More info here: http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/manifesto1.php

Moderate, you mentioned that you were an atheist for 30 years. Did you have a set of ethics associated with your lack of belief? If so, what were they and how did they change when you became a Christian?

It's strange that lots of people have "quotes" from Hitler saying that Christianity is the scourge of the planet, and plenty saying that he supported Christianity (he was pretty buddy-buddy with Pope Pius - who also preached some pretty anti-semitic sermons from what I'm reading). I guess we won't ever really know, but the argument that atheists deserve representation and respect is more due to the fact that we pay taxes and are law-abiding citizens, and, well, since churches don't pay taxes and religious leaders are being caught every day committing crimes, I don't think we really need justification outside of that.

Dear Andrew from OR:

“The Nazis were Christians. There are no atheistic roots to Nazism. Every Jew, Roma, homosexual, Slav, communist, etc. murdered in Hitler's death camps was murdered by a Chhristian - every single one.”

You fell for that one??? It shows unbelievable historical ignorance. The Nazis were Aryan Pagans. A few questions for the you to consider if you believe Nazis were Christian:

How do you explain the extermination of the Catholic priesthood in Poland?

Why did Heinrich Himmler say “Judeo-Christianity is the greatest plague delivered by history.”?

Why did Martin Borman say “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.”?

Why did Alfred Rosenberg say: “One is either a German or a Christian, you cannot be both.”?

Why did Adolf Hitler say “Life is will to power...”?

Sounds really Christian.

I recommend a couple of excellent books to you:

“Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman“ by Abir Taha, Author House 2005.

“The Occult Roots of Nazism” by Nicholas Goodrick-Clark New York University Press 1985.

You are unbelievably misinformed.

I am proud to finally have arrived to be a non-believer, or atheist, whatever you want to call me, after having been "divinely" brainwashed in my childhood and youth, like most everybody else. And I am proud of this personal development in my quite successful long life. Don't even try to tell me your arguments, Mr. moderate, I have been through them all ad nauseam.

I (we) don't have any agenda whatsoever except of wishing to be spared all the superstitions, private or public, and not criticized or harassed or killed for this attitude. Atheism is liberation from unrealistic dreaming, the arrival at a profound feeling of awe for nature and life. Nature with all its incredible miracles, including its evolution, is already "super". No need for "super-super". It is the bigot human presumptious hubris that wants even more than the infinite.

Atheism is the absence of religion, "thank god", not another religion.

Religions, all of them, including their different traditions, scriptures, beliefs (thousands of them) are historical events sustained for generations for want of intellectual reasoning and insight, for want of honest modest scientific thinking, which means: Asking questions, but giving answers only as far as we KNOW, not as we wishfully BELIEVE. No eternal truths, please, they are the abyss into which the lemmings fall.

Moderate:

What pathetic drivel. The Nazis were Christians. There are no atheistic roots to Nazism. Every Jew, Roma, homosexual, Slav, communist, etc. murdered in Hitler's death camps was murdered by a Chhristian - every single one. Your claim is nothing but the rankest, most anti-intellectual Christian revisionism designed to evade accountability for one of the greatest atrocities ever perpetrated by humans.

Nice try, Tonio, but no cigar. They were Atheists. How will yours be better???

Communism, Nazism, and Fascism all share Atheist roots. When they flowered, vast numbers of perfectly good humans died. Are your sure yours be different? If so, how? Roots that the currently fashionable Postmoderns share, I might add.

What is your thinking on Atheist ethics? Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov's contention that if there is no God, everything is permitted is a central conundrum for the Atheist community. Apparently Sartre says that this sums up his Existentialism. How do you construct your ethics? I am not throwing a rock here, but hoping to have a real discussion.

Also, Chris Hitchins says that Mother Teressa was evil because she didn't get Computerized Axial Tomography for all of the people that she helped. Give it up. The guy is a moron.

Moderate

You saying over and over that atheists have to answer for communism, doesn’t make it so, though it may plant the idea in some people’s brains.

If religion shouldn’t have to take the rap for all the bad things done it its name, does that mean it can’t responsibility for the many good things done in its name? Wouldn’t that apply to anything that religion had done, both good and bad? Wouldn’t that also apply to people’s actions across the board? People certainly have done some remarkable good and bad things throughout history. Paraphrasing what Chris Hitchens says (quoting someone else, I think), “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” The idea is religious belief can encourage, or even demand, a good person to do something they’d otherwise never consider, e.g., kill people just because they believe in different God.

Jwest – hi. Nice to see you here.

"Drop this idea that Man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights and what happened? The greatest orgy of murder the world has ever seen, and which dwarfed all the “religious wars” put together. Ideas have consequences."

Why do you assume that "creator" refers to God and not the forces of nature? The principle of inalienable rights doesn't require a conscious supreme being. In fact, I think the idea of such a being would mean the rights are NOT inalienable, because the being could take away those rights if it damn well felt like it.

I think it's pointless to argue which side has the greater atrocities, the organized religions or the pseudo-religions such as communism and Nazism. The idea that has the consequences you describe is the idea that an individual must subvert his conscience to an authority, whether it's the authority of the state or an alleged heavenly authority.

"The great religions are a moderating influence in human affairs, and always have been."

Moderate, just to use two examples, what about the Inquisition, or the genocide of Jericho by Joshua and his followers? Both crimes were committed by people who were honestly convinced that they were doing God's will.

Even though communism was officially atheist, in reality the system amounted to a state religion, the same as Nazism. Both were about subverting the individual's conscience and reason to authority. That is exactly what theistic religions do - they insist that people believe and act a certain way "because God said so."

Dear Jwest,

“Atheism in America today has nothing in common with the despots of Germany, Russia and the rest.”

Religions of today have nothing to do with the crimes committed in the religious wars of five hundred years ago, yet is commonplace here to sling pseudo historical BS that says otherwise. Even our ignorant panelist does this kind of specious stuff. If the Theists have to explain Torquemada then the Atheists have to explain Stalin. Sorry, but your guys have some very bad history for you to think about. Shoe pinch when it is on the other foot?

“So you blaming atheism for autrocities being worst then the autrocities of the religions is a joke.”

It is no joke. It is history. They were far worse. By the way, nothing happening in the Middle East remotely resembles the Atheist doctrine of Total War.

My study of the Middle East says that Saddam idolized Atheist Stalin and imitated his methods of government. That was one big issue. He also attacked Iran and Kuwait in an attempt to expand his territories and take Oil fields. He would have been in Saudi before long if we hadn't stopped him in Gulf War I. The other issues are Oil, tribalism, Oil, racism in the form of antisemitism, Oil, the oppression of Palestinians, and Oil. Religion has little to do with the various conflicts there. Moaning and groaning about religion causes you to miss the real points of the conflicts there.

Atheism in America today has nothing in common with the despots of Germany, Russia and the rest. All we are asking for is a lttle respect and a secular government. And not to be associeted with everything bad that has ever happen since day one. Atheist are not engaged in the takeover of this country as xians are. All you xians out there are atheist to other religion. It is extreme christianity, jewish and islam that are keeping peace in the worlld from happening. Study the situation in the middle east a little harder and with a more open mind and you will see the root of the problem. And as long as we have to put up with this extremeism we will never have peace. So you blaming atheism for autrocities being worst then the autrocities of the religions is a joke. The above mentioned countries were ruled by individuals not an atheistic group and as you can see they did not succeed.

Khote,
As for your word use of Childish...Child-like would have been better. Being Child like in wonder and innocense is a good thing...Childish means petty and behaving badly.

To see things as a child with no preconcieved ideas is to have a wholey open mind. Unlike some...

terra

E Fav:

Yes, I know that not all Atheists are Communist. But Communism does provide examples of Atheist societies at work. It was resolutely Atheist as part of its ideology. One of the commonplaces on these blogs is that all manner of sins of various practitioners are attributed to the religion. Turn about is fair play. Stalin, the great saint of Atheism said: “Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.” Mussolini said that the Atheist philosopher Wilhelm Frederich Nietzsche liberated him to pursue his Fascist agenda. I could quote the leading Nazis at length on that too.

To say it again, the madness of the Twentieth Century Atheist societies in Germany, Italy, Russia, and China is a fundamental problem for the Atheists here. Especially those who want to spout pseudo historical stuff like our panelist:

“Religions that have allowed themselves to be modified by secular knowledge downplay orthodox ideas of heaven and hell for the very good reason that such beliefs have been used throughout history to justify the most evil earthly acts imaginable. Christians slaughtered Jews and Muslims during the Crusades precisely because they believed that they were earning themselves a place in an all-Christian heaven, hemmed in by restrictive covenants.”

The only thing more destructive than Christians, Jews, and Moslems at war is Atheists at war. Drop this idea that Man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights and what happened? The greatest orgy of murder the world has ever seen, and which dwarfed all the “religious wars” put together. Ideas have consequences.

Moderate -- Communism is an ideology. Atheism is simple disbelief in Gods

Would you say that Christianity has to answer for the US Revolution? Christians were the majority religion on both sides and the state religion of the English.

Of course not, that war was not about religion nor was it fought in the name of religion. It was about taxes, colonial ties, dominance and independence.

Moderate -- Communism is an ideology. Atheism is simple disbelief in Gods

Would you say that Christianity has to answer for the US Revolution? Christians were the majority religion on both sides and the state religion of the English.

Of course not, that war was not about religion nor was it fought in the name of religion. It was about taxes, colonial ties, dominance and independence.

Moderate -- Communism is an ideology. Atheism is simple disbelief in Gods

Would you say that Christianity has to answer for the US Revolution? Christians were the majority religion on both sides and the state religion of the English.

Of course not, that war was not about religion nor was it fought in the name of religion. It was about taxes, colonial ties, dominance and independence.

Moderate -- Communism is an ideology. Atheism is simple disbelief in Gods

Would you say that Christianity has to answer for the US Revolution? Christians were the majority religion on both sides and the state religion of the English.

Of course not, that war was not about religion nor was it fought in the name of religion. It was about taxes, colonial ties, dominance and independence.

Dear Seth,

Yep. Hide the women and children! Hide the sheep! An Atheist is coming!

At least when I was an Atheist, I didn't have these fantasies about being persecuted.

BTW, are your underpants really made out of Kevlar??? :-)))

Moderate - I'm not surprised to hear that Newton was an Alchemist. For him it would be a starting place.

I think it's safe to say that chemists today do not pour over alchemy the way Newton did, before entering into the study of chemistry, any more than astromomers learn how to do astrological charts or MDs learn how to lift curses.

Nah Mark,

Ours are made of Kevlar.

Dear KHOTE:

Regarding your idea that:

“The unbelievers are marginalized, they are not allowed to be in government, not even allowed to speak their unbelief for fear of the social damage that comes with being an outsider.”

Sorry, dude, but I was a vocal Atheist for thirty years, and I was never marginalized. I did well in my career, and I got regular promotions from religious people whom I worked for who knew that I was not a believer. As a young man, people had many spirited discussions with me about religion, but I was not scorned. Bear in mind that this was in the sixties and seventies in the Midwest which should have been a hotbed of the kind of intolerance you imagine. Later, when I moved to the big city, the issue mattered even less. The victimology myths that so many kinds of groups in society today perpetrate is a poor substitute for reasoned argument.

Seth sez:

"I swear, some atheists seem to think they're wearing radioactive underpants"

That would be the Mormons...

KHOTE,

"Along come the unbelievers, among whom there are many who calmly and indifferently don't seem to care about these rules, and who don't seem to care about these promises, who don't seem to fear the idea that life is just a short trip with a specific end after which there is nothing."

Don't flatter yourself. The music don't stop just because you happened to walk into the room. I think you might be disappointed to discover just how many people really don't give two straws what you think. Neither do I know a lot of people at church who would be terribly impressed by your little "smooth criminal" act.

I swear, some atheists seem to think they're wearing radioactive underpants or something and that the mere mention of their names ought to send god-fearing mothers screaming to protect their children.

Khote
You've pulled it together nicely. There's nothing I could add there, except to remind you that those without ill will are probably more numerous than a site like this might reflect.

Tonio & E-Fave
Thanks for your well-considered replies. As I suspected, your positions are not foreign to my way of thinking. Bottom line, none of us is comfortable telling others what to believe or how to live -- beyond maybe a general adherence to the substance of the Golden Rule. In my case, it is because I trust in the kind of G-d who is no cultural imperialist; in yours, it may be reason and simple altruism.
The part of my religion and others that I have trouble buying into is where it says your reason and altruism are not a force for good in the world.
This question has brought out some troubling views on a few of the other threads, and not really solved anything.

Among the common theist herd there are those who find solace and comfort in the notion that there is an afterlife. They believe it as hard as they can, certainly for them the idea that there is no afterlife is too frightening to even consider.

The Christians, as an example only, have been given a guarantee, provided they follow certain rules. The Bible is a blueprint, an application, a code for how to behave and what to believe to ensure this guarantee. Not hard to see how this would work in the mind of a believer. An eternity of blissful afterlife if you just follow these simple rules describing what to do.

There is also a guarantee of punishment, for those who don't follow the rules. An eternity of torment, equal and opposite to the bliss mentioned before. An easy set of rules describing what not to do.

There is 100% certainty, but it is a surprisingly brittle certainty.

Along come the unbelievers, among whom there are many who calmly and indifferently don't seem to care about these rules, and who don't seem to care about these promises, who don't seem to fear the idea that life is just a short trip with a specific end after which there is nothing.

The calm certainty of the believer is challenged by the casual indifference of the unbeliever. How can they just not believe! How can they just not care about the possibility of an afterlife!

The believers require more certainty than they can generate themselves. They gather together in churches where the programming can be reasserted. They gather together into interest groups, elect themselves into positions of power, and pass laws that show how even the government is certain of the beliefs.
The unbelievers are marginalized, they are not allowed to be in government, they are not even allowed to speak their unbelief for fear of the social damage that comes with being an outsider.

This always happens, no matter where on the planet, no matter at what time in history, it is as certain as the certainty of the believers.

The credulity and gullibility of the believers makes this all possible.

I can tell you believers that if you kept it to yourself, if you could handle our indifference to your beliefs without trying to cast us out, we unbelievers would never pay you any attention at all.

I know that many believers do not do this, do not feel any ill will towards us, but how are we to know the difference?

Tonio:

Actually, the latter statement is what the Atheist monsters of the Twentieth Century said. YOU must do as MY dialectic says, or die. Not so many Catholics say that. Not so many Jews say that. Not many Moslems say that. Surely you know that Communism claimed universal truth. The Athiests on this forum need to come to terms with the vast crimes of Atheist societies. There is enough history here for us to know where state sponsored Athiesm leads. The great religions are a moderating influence in human affairs, and always have been.

Viejita del Oeste,

"(If you are certain that hell doesn't exist, it should be of little concern who the deluded assume will be there.)"

It has nothing to do with whether hell exists. It has to do with hell as a reference for eternal suffering.

"Why do you care what I believe -- since I am not sure there is a hell, since I do not assume that nonbelievers automatically go there if there is one, and since I have said and done nothing that can be construed a threat to rational thought except that I believe in G-d?"

I don't necessarily care that you believe in a god. Now, if you claimed that I must worship or obey your god, then I most definitely care and I'm justified in doing so. It's the difference between "I must do what my god says" and "YOU must do what MY god says." In practice, the latter statement is what theistic religions do, at least the ones I know about. They make claims of universal truth regarding how people should live their personal (as opposed to interpersonal) lives.

E Favorite:

Newton was also an Alchemist. That was the proto science that provided the experimental archive that systematic chemistry needed to emerge. So, yes, I do read about alchemists. Try it. You'll like it. The level of illiteracy on these blogs is remarkable. For example, our panelist is a historical ignoramus. If she eve cracked a history book, her "brain" would probably explode. :-)))

Moreover, I do know that people create living hells for each other, and themselves. Lewis knew it, and I think you do too. So you might read The Great Divorce as a thought poem rather than literally. There is a whole lot to it.

Also, try the Screwtape Letters. Lewis shows, more psychological insight into how lives go wrong than Freud ever had. You can read the Screwtape Letters as masterworks of psycology rather than literal theology and come away better equipped to live your life than you were before. That makes it worth the effort.

Hi E-Favorite

Bill Teal
It is exactly your way of thinking that I don't believe. As hard as you think your are right I know you are wrong. If you bothered to put it all together like mnay have you will see that your claim is a belief man has created. But please be happy with what you believe. All I ask that you respect me for not believing like you do.

I don't know, Moderate, about the need to "read up on what the geniuses of the past have written" about hell. Would you recommend book by geniuses in the fields of astrology or alchemy?

If you don't believe hell exists any more than any other supernatural location or event and have no evidence of its existence and find the very idea of it abhorrent, what does it matter what the geniuses think about it?

Dear Susan,

Did you read The Great Divorce by the great Christian appologist C.S. Lewis?

He advances the idea that Hell as a place we choose to go by cutting ourselves off from all that is right, good and happy. God gives those who choose to reject Him a place to dwell apart from Him out of respect for the free will He gives us. It is we failed humans who make it into Hell. Choosing Hell is voluntary, as is the decision to stay there. We choose the Hell of our own making when we let hatred, fear, alienation, greed, destruction, and exploitation of our fellows dominate our lives and our spirits.

Different perspective than the classic Dante one, and an excellent read.

You should really read up on what the geniuses of the past have written. You are not the first to wonder about these questions. The three thousand year written tradition is most useful in understanding the issues you seem to be interested in.

Victoria,

How goes the analyses/independent thoughts/investigation of Islam?

To repeat some helpful suggestions:

"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 to get you started)

"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 wingie talking 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 cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingie talking 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.

i agree with you both, theyre both just mindless reactions.

neither includes any effort or independent thought or investigation.

That's a good question Seth, but let's think about it in another way: why let the fact that you were born in a predominately christian country determine that you will be a christian? Or a Muslim/Jew/Hindu/Whatever ...?

This is the same kind of intellectual bankruptcy, isn't it?

Being hurt by a fellow believer is an understandable reason for no longer wishing to participate in a particular community of believers.

But it seems a rather intellectually bankrupt reason to abandon an entire system of belief over.

Why let a pedophile priest, a self-righteous churchgoer, or an abusive husband determine what you will or will not believe for you?

Emily Dickinson also wrote:

I never saw a moor...

I never saw a moor,
I never saw the sea;
Yet know I how the heather looks,
And what a wave must be.

I never spoke with God,
Nor visited in heaven;
Yet certain am I of the spot
As if the chart were given.

And

Hope is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without words,
And never stops at all

And

Because I could not stop for Death,
He kindly stopped for me;
The carriage held but just ourselves
And Immortality.

Hi, Viejita -- I'm not trying to convince the fundamentalists. Unfortunately, I think they're pretty locked in and beyond reason. Asi es la hermana mia. Some fundamentalists do change, on their own -- I know a few. It’s usually a matter of being betrayed by their own kind – their church community or their pastor.

I’m focusing more on the people who are reading through these posts, pondering the different views. When I find Christians like you, I want them to know how much we have in common. Most atheists know much more about Christianity than vice versa, because we’ve been there. I want to get across the point that some who call themselves Christians don’t deserve protection from people like you. I’d like people like you to examine their beliefs more, too. Now that I’m on the other side, it seems odd to me to harbor ancient supernatural beliefs in an otherwise modern, reasonable life. A “cafeteria catholic” friend of mine dropped out of a new testament class we were taking together because she “didn’t want to know” about Christian history. She just wanted to enjoy the rituals without thinking about it. I’m sure if push came to shove, she and I would be marching down the street shoulder to shoulder against Christian theocracy. I hope it doesn’t come to that, but I’m afraid that comfortable moderate/liberal believers could be inadvertently giving cover to their more radical brethren.

I was a “lazy believer” for many years. Your sister sounds like what I’d call a “lazy non-believer” – someone who doesn’t want to be bothered. I’d still like to get her impressions of this forum. Maybe she’d do it for you.

Dear Susan,

“...such beliefs have been used throughout history to justify the most evil earthly acts imaginable. Christians slaughtered Jews and Muslims during the Crusades precisely because they believed that they were earning themselves a place in an all-Christian heaven, hemmed in by restrictive covenants.”

Are you really that naïve, or is this just another self promoting act? The Moslems slaughtered the Christians from 700 on, and the Crusades were just a botched counter offensive against an imperial Moslem hegemony that encroached as far as Greece and the Adriatic Coast in the east, as far as Spain and France to the west, and as far north as southern Italy.

How many Byzantines did the Moslems impale when Constantinople fell? Look it up, if you can stand to read about great historical atrocities. Is it any wonder that Christendom fought back? The Crusaders may have talked about heaven but they were really working on avoiding the Seljuk impaling stake. The Christians were amateurs at cruelty by comparison, no matter how incompetent they were on the battlefield.

But Islamic Religion had nothing to do with this extravagant cruelty, and neither did Christianity. Life was hard then, and people were hard then, no matter what religion you were. You should stop making judgments from Disney Land about the real word. At least read a history book or two before you spout off.

Tonio,
once again you've answered a different question than the one I asked. I can only guess that is because of my lack of clarity or the inefficiency of this form of communication.
I didn't ask "Why don't you like people telling you you're going to hell?" although that is a related question. (If you are certain that hell doesn't exist, it should be of little concern who the deluded assume will be there.)
I asked "Why do you care what I believe -- since I am not sure there is a hell, since I do not assume that nonbelievers automatically go there if there is one, and since I have said and done nothing that can be construed a threat to rational thought except that I believe in G-d?"
BTW I think we're ready for a better, less Christian chauvinist question.
My neighbor thinks she looks good in pink and I see that it is not her best color but it looks okay. How does it hurt me for her to wear pink, particularly if she lets me dress any way I want?

Jihadist:
"Belief in heaven and hell of the hearafter ironically makes one the most sceptical of temporal promises and designs by man on Utopia or heaven on earth for all mankind, and especially the means to attain it."

Yes, ideologies, ideas of utopia or heaven on earth are quite silly, and not so different from theism in certain ways (I will refrain from calling Islam/Christianity/Judaism an "ideology"). However, some aspects of the ideologies of the last century will probably be included in the social systems we live in when we are older.

Theism also ironically makes several people skeptical of the possibility of any meaning or purpose on Earth. That is not a realistic kind of skepticism. A realistic skepticism would be wary of any individual ideology or utopia that seemed too good to be true. But a realistic skepticism would allow that there is value in such exploration and that, ultimately, we may be living in a system with aspects of several different utopian ideas.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a failed experiment. There must be imagination and hope on Earth.

Excellent piece. I thank you Susan, and I thank the organizer of this discussion even if it is a relatively stupid question. They are asking the question all too many people care about. Glad to know that the papers will allow for at least one sane viewpoint.

All too often they do naively and panderfully assume as DW does that in order to discuss a question by religious people, one has to be professionally and personally religious. A true debate has to include the 14% that don't believe. Frankly, I, as an atheist know a lot more about the various religious texts of the world than 95% of theists, and this is no anomaly.

As to Mothworm, good and bad are easy to secularly define. Anything that increases the quality or quantity of life is at least partially good. Anything that decreases the quality or quantity of life is bad. Nonlife objects don't apply, because if you break a rock into 2, it's equally good for the 2 new rocks as it was bad for the original.

Life is different. It can go without providing more life in some cases. If a bird eats a fish, it may break even more or less as it is good for the bird, bad for the fish, and has to be a subjective judgement. However, if a doctrine within a sect of a religion says to kill yourself and 20 other people, and your bodies all get buried, that's bad, no two ways about it.

So again, thank you thank you thank you for presenting an honest and logical look at a question made silly by the implied yet incorrect default answer.

--William

"He who is without a political agenda cast the first stone".

"Examine thyself first, before you label your neighbor".

"He who has largest ego cannot make any rules".

"Do not believe in anything that ends in IST or ISM"

Just a few new 21st century commandments.

From 2006 article in the NYT by Slavoj Zizek:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/opinion/12zizek.html?ex=1299819600&en=aad910dac0b75734&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

"During the Seventh Crusade, led by St. Louis, Yves le Breton reported how he once encountered an old woman who wandered down the street with a dish full of fire in her right hand and a bowl full of water in her left hand. Asked why she carried the two bowls, she answered that with the fire she would burn up Paradise until nothing remained of it, and with the water she would put out the fires of Hell until nothing remained of them: "Because I want no one to do good in order to receive the reward of Paradise, or from fear of Hell; but solely out of love for God." Today, this properly Christian ethical stance survives mostly in atheism."

Emily Dickenson wrote this poem about Heaven:

What is — “Paradise”—
Who live there—
Are they “Farmers”—
Do they “hoe”—
Do they know that this is “Amherst”—
And that I—am coming—too—

Do they wear “new shoes”—in “Eden”—
Is it always pleasant—there—
Won’t they scold us—when we’re hungry—
Or tell God—how cross we are—

You are sure there’s such a person
As “a Father”—in the sky—
So if I get lost—there—ever—
Or do what the Nurse calls “die”—

I shant walk the “Jasper”—barefoot—
Ransomed folks—won’t laugh at me—
Maybe—“Eden” a’nt so lonesome
As New England used to be!

I am trying to stand up to those Christians here. But they are mean. They put up a tough fight. As for their power in the world, I am not sure what to do about that. If I would call a tv station and complain, it would not make any difference.

To eliminate any confusion, my last post referred specifically to the "Christians with a real ax to grind" described by Daniel, not to all Christians.

"Conversely, the Christians with a real ax to grind in the world, and a political agenda, and a lust for fortune and power, you will of course notice them, and maybe find them to be off-putting, to say the least."

I had assumed that most of those Christians honestly believed that their god wants them to push American government in a theocratic direction.

Daniel, the reason I include all christians is because no xian speaks up against those that do tell lies. The lies that are told should, under their own standards, put them on the fast track to hell. Christians leaders are becoming a mighty powerful group that is free to say anything they wish without any repercussion. Not many xians will stand up and challenge the falwells, robertsons, dodsons and the like. I listen to john hagee sometimes on Sunday morning TV and I am amazed at what this man says. He tells people bold faced lies and the crowd agrees with him. These leaders preach the US as a christian nation and the wall of separation is a lie. That our founding fathers wanted it that way. A lie. Right wing TV talking heads spew this crap and christains don't say a word. I guess when you grow up being treating like sheep you just learn to follow the flock.

There is a wide range of expression among people who call themselves Christians.

There are many Christians who consider Christianity to be a personal adaptation to life, and who do not believe in the outward expression of a philosophical or political agenda, and who do not go around quoting versus from the Bible to prove how right they are and how wrong everybody else is; those people, by definition, you will never hear from, but maybe you know some of them.

Conversely, the Christians with a real ax to grind in the world, and a political agenda, and a lust for fortune and power, you will of course notice them, and maybe find them to be off-putting, to say the least.

Daniel, I had understood that the "Born-Again-Right-Wing-Christian-Evangelicals" were ether fundamentalists or Bible literalists, although I'm not sure if there's a practical difference. I've been told that evangelical Christians differ greatly in their interpretations of the Bible.

As an example, I read about the split among prominent American evangelicals over the issue of global warming. The ones who dismissed the issue were the ones who advocate what I would describe as theocracy. I suspect that most evangelicals disagree with Tim LaHaye and Glenn Beck that global warming is a hoax concocted by a conspiracy to create a one-world government.

"You've convinced me that you care. I'm still not sure why."

Why shouldn't I care when someone believes I deserve to suffer for eternity? It's no different from believing that I deserve to lose a loved one. To borrow an Old West movie cliché, them's fightin' words.

Taking myself out of the equation, what belief about the supernatural or lack of it would be so awful that it would require a punishment of eternal suffering? I might understand if someone advocated such a punishment for crimes such as mass murder or burning children alive.

Jwest says that his problem with Christians is that they all lie. I agree that alot of them lie; the ones that speak with the loudest voice lie a great deal. Christian radio for example, and television evangelists, just put out simple minded propoganda to promote their political agendas, and to raise money for themselves, and are not promoting any kind of real or traditional Christian values. These are all examples of ignorant and primitive quasi-religious Christian thinking.

But ALL Christians are not fixated on homosexuality, and all Christians do not hate gays. Some Christians understand that the founding fathers were not Born-Again-Right-Wing-Christian-Evangelicals. I for example, am aware, that George Washington would not take communion in church, and if pressed to do so, would get up in a huff and leave. I know that Abraham Lincoln held seances in the White House. I, and alot of Christians, are aware, that there are many varied and unusual beliefs, not only among us, as Christians, but among all people, as well as agnotics and atheisits. And that it is not our job to constantly lobby our beliefs in endless arguments and proofs.

Did you know that the Protestant Evangelical sects of Christianity, so prevalent an obnoxious in America, are actually a tiny minority, by world standards? So if you are a member of one of these sects, and you can't take it no more, you should leave, but don't say all Chrisians are like those people you left behind.

I still like my argument for the Christian idea that God doesn't send us to hell, we choose to go there. Here is a great analogy. Lets say that you are walking across a very busy road with a lot of speeding cars, and next to you is man or woman in a wheelchair. You ask them if they want help across the road, and they say "No thanks.". Do you let them get crushed by the semi? You can argue that God gives us a hundred billion chances, but regardless, when does he tire and give up on us? Are the handlebars of our wheelchairs too dirty for him? You'd think for the omnipotent being who created dirt he would have little to no aversion to putting his hands in it.

E-Favorite & Tonio

Your points are well taken. Unfortunately, I fear that the people you really seek to convince -- those who think you will go to "hell" for failing to mouth their chosen dogma and perform their required rituals -- are not paying any attention to you. Thus you and I, who have more commonalities than differences, wind up playing this game of theological ping-pong.

And you're missing the point about my sister. As I said before, she finds this kind of discussion boring and a waste of time. I can't imagine her giving up valuable hiking, piano-playing or daydreaming hours to read a book that argues either position. (Ademas, ella es mi hermana pequena, no es tan vieja. Se que llama "Hermanita no que piadosa," o "Cientifica del sud.")

You've convinced me that you care. I'm still not sure why. I call myself a Christian (some here and elsewhere might dispute that claim) and even I am finding it hard to get too interested in this particular question. I do often feel that as a follower of what Jesus actually taught I need to try and rein in the narrow-minded and overzealous.
I see this as my duty as a believer.

Thanks, at least, for keeping things lively.

Daniel, you say, "Frisbeetarians...believe, that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof, and no one can get it down."

Now there's a religion a lot of people could relate to.

I guess the Post's having just one free-thinker/atheist/humanist in this whole exercise really pust into perspective what a minority we still are in the US. Thanks for articulating the atheist point of view so well. However I think, as always, it's important to stress that not only do we not believe in the Christian "Heaven" and "Hell"...we don't believe in any form of afterlife whatsoever. This is all we get, this short time on Earth. We can only make the best of it.

Bravo!

Thanks for turning a stupid question into something worth reading.

(From the original question) "Do you believe in heaven or hell? If not, why not?"

I would think not believing is the default, and "Why?" would be a better question to ask of believers. Of course, this formation pretends to require a meaty response from a non-believer, but it won't sound warm and fuzzy next to believers' responses. Sure, it sounds dismissive to admit that you don't believe in something because it's based on fiction! I don't believe in _______ because I've never had a good reason to believe in it. And yes, that means I don't think anyone else's reasons are compelling.

Kudos to Susan, for taking an empty, slanted question and finding something to discuss.

The world of ideas is much broader than the scope of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. One might correctly say that modern forms of monotheism are derived just as much from ancient Greek myth and philosophy (for instance Parmenides) as from the holy books themselves.

Theism, or the notion of heaven or hell, does not own the intellectual landscape. Actual thinking atheists are certainly not afraid of heaven or hell. Thinking atheists don't view the world through a theistic lens.

Besides. If god is supposed to be unchanging, without beginning or end, as many theologians would have it, then nothing exists. There are no living beings, because to create living beings would be an event in "Him", a beginning. In the modern world where there are no repetitive "creations", no entirely mysterious events that seem to repeat infinitely both backwards and forwards in time. Perhaps "He" does not exist anymore.

The cost of religion was a contradiction.

I would have more respect for xians if they would be a little bit more truthful. Instead they make up things like gay marriage destroys marriages. No my ex and I destroyed our marriage, gays had nothing to do with it. They lie about our founding fathers stating we were founded on christian principles and our laws from the bible. Wrong and wrong. Whatever position a xian takes a lie is soon to follow. That is one of the first thing that lead me out the door of the church. It's easy being a xian. If you don't know something make it up in the name of god.

Is god omnipotent? Of course!
Is his reason above our reason? Of course!
Does he need reason in order to be god? Of course not!

Then how do we know what he thinks and wishes? If we know his thought and will, our reason has to be above his reason! Logic?

In other words: There is not a single imaginable fact, event or episode in the universe or in our lives, no matter how great or trivial, that cannot be traced back to a "virtual" imagined god who is above reason. Every imaginable religious or secular nonsense can be traced back to such a god. Every fact or event can be tied to this imaginary, virtual being. The flying spaghetti monster or a pink elephant serves this purpose just as perfectly as any entity named god, Allah, Jehovah, Zeus or Wotan. It can all be reduced to a man-made semantic question. If I survive an accident - thank god. If I don't - it was god's will.

Religion is a man-made chimera mostly produced out of ignorance and fear millenia ago.

This atheist conviction doesn't mean any contempt for believers as fellow humans! When I was a child, I also believed that black is white, and I would have rejected, even scorned anybody who didn't believe this - until I found out that black still is black and white still is white!

I only would hope they get over it.

I think that is a reasonable approach Druval. Religion was a frequent topic of conversation in my house. My parents didn't keep the way they felt about things secret or anything, they just didn't push me one way or another.

You'll be ready to do a good job at it when you can think of your wife's beliefs with the same joy that you can think of your own. In other words, lose the 'grrrr'. Your wife's beliefs are no more or less valuable than your own. If you don't truly respect them (and I think it's pretty obvious it's a struggle for you), your daughter will pick up on that really quickly. Kids are devilishly smart that way.

And now the mockery begins... Thanks for the sarcasm, Mike and Daniel. You must be related to Ms. Jacoby.

This comment is directed at E Favorite, who seems pretty thoughtful:

Have you ever heard of "Frisbeetarians?"

They believe, that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof, and no one can get it down.

TJ,

Thanks for the advice. I can only hope she grows up to take enough of an interest to think about her options. It is a big fear for me that she will be surrounded with the religious hatred and apathy that seems to be growing and be swayed to stay away from something that brings such peace to my heart. I truly do not want to push her to become something she may not want to be, but I feel she should be exposed to, not just my beliefs, but (grrrr...) my wife's as well.

Druvas,

For the sake of your child, let her decide when she grows up. If she wants baptized, she can make that decision. If she wants blessed by an Indian Guru, she can make that call. If she wants both or wants neither, she can decide that too.

I grew up in a somewhat similar environment. My dad was a Baptist, although I wouldn't at all call him a fundamentalist, and my mom was a liberal Lutheran with leanings towards native American beliefs. My parents made a conscious decision to let me make these decisions for myself and I'm as thankful to them for that as for anything else they've ever done for me.

The next big question for the panel of religious experts:

When you hear the sound of hoofs hitting the ground should you assume it's a horse or a unicorn?

Druvas, you say, "when humans live without religion, they degenerate into base animals that prey upon one another."

Really, people manage to prey on each other with or without religion. Religion is often used as an excuse for preying on other humans - think the inquisition and the crusades. China has an ancient culture, predating european cultures. Without population control (mainly birth control, by the way), their country would be overrun.

Also, as has been mentioned before, other primates - like apes and chimps - have exhibited moral behavior.

Next time, before you posit a theory, please do a little simple research.

E Favorite: I guess I will have to go back and re-read it. That is how I interpreted "God's chosen people". Thanks for bringing up that point.

I have been getting a mental religious excercise lately, as my wife is a science teacher and does not have the same beliefs as me. In fact, she is more of a Pocahontus meets Buddha and Vishnu kinda gal (I don't mean to offend anyone with that statement, I am just expressing the (what I consider to be) bizzare mix of philosophies that she has...). Now that we have a toddler running around, it is becoming more important to us to see that our child has exposure to religion. I, of course, want her baptized in a Christian church and she wants our daughter blessed by an Indian Guru. Oy vay! In any event, the argument will continue for some time, I imagine...

Wiccan,

Please excuse my inaccurate statement that the Golden Rule is Christian idea, though it is refined a bit in Leviticus (thanks TJ!). I had not researched that beyond my own religion. It's concepts have been around for a long time in nearly all religious doctrines, Wicca included. I am familiar with the inclusion of pagan rituals in Christianity. Thomas Paine summarizes much of this in "The Age of Reason".

But what IS simple human decency and why do we have it? Do tigers have simple tiger decency? Or any other animal on this planet for that matter? In answer to my own question, I would posit the theory that "simple human decency" is a set of moral beliefs that have arisen throught the long history of human religious concepts, beginning with simple animist cultures first discovering fire to the modern age. I would further state that, when humans live without religion, they degenerate into base animals that prey upon one another. Take China for example, where religion is not a very popular thing to take up. They enforce mandatory abortion on their population in an effort to control the vast numbers. However necessary one may think that this practice is, I would not consider this respectful of "simple human decency".

Druvas - thnaks for representing a milder view of christianity.

I wonder where you got this idea, though: "The Jews are Gods chosen people, just as the Bible says, and are protected independant of Christ." I know the Bible refers to Jews as his chosen people, but didn't know that got them off the hook regarding heaven.

Druvas,

You can find the golden rule in Leviticus too.

Why is it that the apostates are usually the ones teaching Christians about the bible?

Bill Teal:

Listen, I consider myself a Christian too, but I have to take issue with some of your points. 1:Jesus does not "come back for his Own, those whom He has chosen". We all have free will to choose Christ as our Saviour or not. 2:The Jews are Gods chosen people, just as the Bible says, and are protected independant of Christ. 3:Even if Christianity is the "one true religion", you do not do it any good service by flaunting that position. Humility my brother. Your attitude only drives people away.

Bill Teal,

That was funny, you made my day. You also point out why my search for faith failed. I am unwilling to just swallow a set of beliefs without reason, proof and common sense.

Your premise is that one single religious belief is correct and all others are false. This is where I fail to have faith. If there is a god who actively chooses to bring a few select humans into his heaven and then send the other billions of mankind into an eternal hell, I don't want to have anything to do with this evil god. Thankfully he does not exist and I can live my life for its worth each and every day. If I see a hungry homeless alcoholic I can get him a sandwich without judging him to eternal damnation.

To all,
1. Who has ever seen someone who has "reincarnated?" How did they prove they did it? What is the state of completed reincarnated existance? Who has ever seen an example or any proof that it exists? Who wants to be a cow, or a bug, or a dog-if that is what happens! That is not evolving!
2. Atheists-What makes you think you decide your path and choice? You think a mental decision can thwart the Creator of the universe? You think this decision makes any difference? Decide that gravity is non-exixtant. Then jump off a building. See what happens. Just because we decide to "be" something, does not make it so. Jesus is not concerned with your decision. He comes back for His Own, those whom He has chosen, and unless you believe (His Gift) you aren't going with Him.
3. There is only one true religion: Christanity. All others are false. All others are man's creation, or attempt at designing a religion. Jesus is the only way anyone can know God in any fashion. If you do not know Jesus, no matter the designation you give yourself, it just does not matter. Any religion, or lack thereof, is as good as any other. Only Christianity is true.
4. "For by Grace are you saved, and that not of yourselves, it is the Gift of God." KJV, Eph 2.
Sorry guys, you cannot have it your way like Sinatra, you gotta go the way of the Cross!

"If I could prove to you right here and now that there was no god, no heaven, no hell, would you treat other people differently than you do now? Would you beat up your neighbor, rape his wife, and shoot his dog?"

That sounds like the golden calf scene in DeMille's "The Ten Commandments." Not only did the Hebrews apparently turn to calf worship on the flimsiest of pretexts, the worship led to a drunken orgy of sinfulness and debauchery. The Book of Exodus meets "Reefer Madness."

"Druvas said:
If there is no afterlife in which you will be punished or forgiven, why should anyone care about those things?"

Simple human decency? Google the Golden Rule and see how many versions there are. Quite a few predate Christianity.

For me, it is the knowledge that everything around me is part of the Divine, as am I.

Let me ask you something. If I could prove to you right here and now that there was no god, no heaven, no hell, would you treat other people differently than you do now? Would you beat up your neighbor, rape his wife, and shoot his dog? I'm betting you wouldn't, and you didn't need a belief in god to make you choose to do what is right.

That was me with the anonymous post at June 28 at 11:55 AM.

"Druvas said:
If there is no afterlife in which you will be punished or forgiven, why should anyone care about those things?"

Why should anyone care when their religion provides a "get out of jail free" card? If i can commit any atrocity and believe I can be forgiven for it at any later point, with no consequences, what deterrent is there?

Would it be too wholly ironic of me to say 'amen'?

"GENE said:
You use terms like "good" and "evil," but as compared to what? What is the standard against which you judge something "good" or "bad"?
If you have no standard, anything you say is just your opinion and carries zero weight with anyone but yourself. It carries no prescriptive or proscriptive power."

What you erroneously ascribe to atheists could more accurately be applied to god.

If morality comes solely from god, then it is arbitrary. God, being all knowing and all powerful, could declare anythiing to be good or bad, and his followers would be commanded to agree. In this scenario, god could easily declare rape and murder "good" (as he in fact does in several places in the Bible), and there's nothing you can do about it.

If you (as I suspect you do) find rape and murder abhorant, and claim god would never do such a thing (as I've heard many believers say), then you agree that standards of good and bad exist outside of god's decrees, and can therefore be arrived at by the believer and non-believer alike.

What good is a god who cannot be morally judged? How do you determine if he's worthy of your worship? Since it's quite possible (easy, even) to develop a system of ethics (more worthwhile than "morals" anyway) that exceeds the one found in religion, you can either see that there is a god, but that he's a flaming a*hole, or that people made up whis whole god/morality concept during the rocky road to enlightenment, and that it's high time to move past it.

"Where do atheists get their morailty?"

Honestly, from the same place you do. Cultural standards common to our culture. We do tend to be more likely to question those standards and attempt to revise them in an effort to expand freedom and equality, though. Secular progressives have historically been at the forefront of movements, like the drive to extend full equality to women, minorities, gays and lesbians, etc (read Susan Jacoby's book for more), by following the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It's all right there in the (secular) Constitution.

My search for God started while I was in High School, some 26 years ago. After High School I earned two degrees at Oral Robert's University and a minor in Biblical Studies. I did not find faith in my search, but something much more powerful, reason and truth.

Any Christian who is on this blog owes it to his or her self to take a step back and examine beliefs and reason. After reading this list of books, plus another dozen more I see Christianity as just another ancient man made social construct to control people's behavior. Once that was necessary, but in an age of reason and rule of law, faith is an antiquated, inefficient, and unnecessary system. Start with Letter to a Christian Nation and take the challenge if you are not afraid of truth and reason.

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris
Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution
A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett

"Susan's "freethinking" only seems to extend to those who agree with her particular paradigm.

Without religion to deconstruct and critique, I doubt seriously anyone would have ever heard of her."

I disagree. Susan's writings display an intellect that would do well in many other disciplines. I don't think we need worry about her.

On the other hand, one can safely say that without religion as an option for employment, the world would be overrun with grifters and snake oil salesmen, at least if we look at the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Randall Terry.

Dear Druvas -

As others have pointed out, the Golden Rule pre-dates Xianity by at least 500 years. Examples:

"This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others what you would not have them do unto you." — Mahabharata (5:15:17) (c. 500 B.C.E.)

"What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." — Confucius (ca. 551 - 479 B.C.E.)

You might be surprised at how much of the Judeo-Xian tradition is derivative of other religions and myths. There's plenty of info out there on the subject...if you care to learn.

Druvas, the Golden Rule is found in almost every culture and religion, including those that predate Christianity.

An emotionally mature adult does not need punishment or reward to value empathy or kindness or to recognize the merit of the Golden Rule. To regard humans as incapable of empathy without reward or punishment is to reduce us to laboratory rats who respond to nothing but stimulus and response. Humans have moral intuition, although many don't listen to that intuition.

"I may believe that someone deserves to go to Hell, but I do not desire that they do so."

I don't understand how that is possible. To believe that someone deserves to go to hell is to believe that someone is worthless and doesn't deserves to exist. Individuals have intrinsic worth no matter what anyone else believes about them.

Susan's "freethinking" only seems to extend to those who agree with her particular paradigm.

Without religion to deconstruct and critique, I doubt seriously anyone would have ever heard of her.

Mockery is not a substitute for crafting intelligent alternatives.

Why believe in empathy, kindness, cooperation, the Golden Rule (Christian in origin, mind you), or dignty? Why is it wrong to infringe on anyone's personal boundaries? If there is no afterlife in which you will be punished or forgiven, why should anyone care about those things? Man's punishment, especially in the US is a joke. If I take your life, say in a State without the death penalty, I get to watch TV and have 3 meals a day for however long my sentence may be. Some consequence.

I may believe that someone deserves to go to Hell, but I do not desire that they do so. I would hope that that person would turn away from evil and gain salvation. For instance, I believe that Hitler deserved to go to Hell. But, had I lived in that time, would have prayed for him to turn away from his wicked acts. And who knows, maybe in those final moments before his life ended, he begged the Lord for forgivness (I doubt it, but one never knows...)

"What I am hearing from Tonio is that as long as it doesn't infringe on his personal boundary then it is okay with him?"

That's not quite accurate. It's wrong in principle to infringe on anyone's personal boundaries. I just have a stronger emotional reaction when the boundaries are mine.

"And why is it morally wrong for me to believe that someone else deserves to go to hell?"

Would you agree that it's wrong to deliberately cause others to suffer? If so, doesn't Christianity teach that a desire to sin is the same as committing the sin? And as a practical matter, when someone believes that I deserve to go to hell, is it reasonable of me to wonder if the person is tempted to cause me to suffer directly, or if the person believes that they're carrying out God's will by causing me to suffer?

Druvas asks what it is that atheists believe, and who provides them with a framework for morality.

I for one believe in the golden rule. I believe in the dignity of humanity. I believe in empathy, kindness, and cooperation. Morality is simply a matter of not hurting each other--what more framework would you need?

Jacoby, you rock.

You are a beacon of hope in a sea of stupidity.

Thank you for giving the only sane response to this question I have read so far.

It's sad that we have become such a gullible, god-intoxicated, anti-intellectual nation.

Very, very sad.

One of these light-years, we will snap out of it.

You are helping us to get there.

What I am hearing from Tonio is that as long as it doesn't infringe on his personal boundary then it is okay with him? And why is it morally wrong for me to believe that someone else deserves to go to hell? Under most circumstances, it certainly is morally wrong for me to try and send them there, but my belief in whether or not someone SHOULD go there is not a moral position.

Viejita - in answer to your question:

1. Ditto what Tonio said (Thanks, Tonio)

2. I’m not your sister. Maybe if I lived in the Bible belt, I would react more the way she does. Certainly, if I hadn’t recently read “The God Delusion,” “God is not Great,” “Breaking the Spell” and “The End of Faith,” I’d be much less aware and less likely to be vocal. Non-believers are conditioned to be quiet about their differences with general society, just like women, racial minorities and gays have been in the past. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that your sister reacts openly about religion only when she’s with people like you – people who already know her views and accept her in spite of them.

This forum has also made me aware of the many people out there with views similar to mine. Does your sister know about this forum? If not, please urge her to check it out. I’d love to see a post directly from “Hermana de Viejita.”

Druvas, I agree with Justin that non-theistic morality is consequentialism.

Laws aren't intrinsically about morality, although there are some commonalities. As I understand it, part of the principle of law is compromise between an individual's interests and the interests of society or government. It is not moral behavior to simply follow the letter of the law. That is simply obeying an authority. The same is true for any commandments which believers claim were created by their gods.

"We can all agree that the evangelizers and exclusivists are a pain in the neck, but why the animus toward those of us who would prefer to travel along on our own path?"

Viejita Del Oeste, my animus is toward any doctrine that makes an exclusive claim to universal truth, not toward those who subscribe the doctrine. Christianity and Islam don't allow for "one's own path." Instead, they say that there is only one correct path. Not all Christians and Muslims believe in eternal damnation for those who follow a different path. Still, those religions insist that everyone must obey their god. The concept of universal truth in religion is inherently hostile to the idea of "one's own path."

"If there is no G-d, how does someone else's belief harm you?"

It only harms me when that belief is about me and other people. When someone believes that I deserve to suffer for eternity in hell, I feel bullied and pushed around, like my personal boundaries have been invaded. Whether hell actually exists is irrelevant. It is morally wrong to believe that someone else deserves to suffer. That might sound like I'm telling people what to believe, but this is about standing up for myself and not letting people walk all over me. I'm not referring to you personally, of course.

In a different way, the doctrine of original sin is also hostile to the principle of personal boundaries. The doctrine saddles people with the guilt for a crime they didn't commit, and blames humanity for all suffering in the world.

I see no reason to even have the concept of universal truth in religion. What if individual believers saw their "gods" as personal deities for themselves alone and not for others?

I wonder what it is that Atheists believe? What provides them with a framework for their morality? Is it laws? If so, who's law? Can one of you answer this for me?

This question produced a sea of fluffly, brainless posts from a lot of adults who should really have gotten passed this nonsense by now.

Thank you for being an adult among kindergarteners, Susan.

This question produced a sea of fluffly, brainless posts from a lot of adults who should really have gotten passed this nonsense by now.

Thank you for being an adult among kindergarteners, Susan.

This question produced a sea of fluffly, brainless posts from a lot of adults who should really have gotten passed this nonsense by now.

Thank you for being an adult among kindergarteners, Susan.

I was communicating with a preaching entity from the Andromeda galaxy the other day and they were explaining that the multiverse mobius torus (it's version of the human concept of heaven) was a lot less parochial then the mighty mouse invisible magic man in the sky's human version. Get real folks, have any of you religious people ever read Carl Sagan's Reflections on a Mote of Dust? Do you really believe that your petty little gods of judaism, christianity, islam, zeusism, thorism or whatever have any bearing on the reality and wonders of the *REAL* universe? Heaven and hell exist only in your own little neurobiological hallucinations. You are nothing but a bunch of pathetic little tori, (torusus?) get a good book on mathematical topology and figure out what a human torus might look like. Hint your cephalus needs to be inserted into another bodily orifice that also ends with "us",this particular contortion also makes it very difficult to smell the roses, if you catch my drift. QED.

This is the only response to that silly question worth reading!
Well said Susan.

"Well, you gave it the old college try, Ms Jacoby. You're an author and a reporter, true, but sorry, you're not an authority on faith, beliefs and understanding why we are here. Being an atheist, you inherently cannot be an authority on such subjects. Im sure, though, that you are an authority on atheism."

I am reminded here of Richard Dawkins's question, in "The God Delusion," when he ponders exactly what it is that theologists study and how they develop their expertise: "Just what questions beginning with 'Why' is it that are so important and that theology is uniquely equipped to answer in a way that science isn't?"

To Gene: There is ample evidence both that morals seem to be shared across societies without regard to what religion they are -- if at all -- and also that the religious rely not on any guidance from deities or holy books in making their moral decisions but on the same instincts that serve us all. I doubt there's any convincing the likes of you, but if your answer to the question, "If you truly believed the voice of God was telling you to murder a child arbitrarily?" is "No," then you've already made my point.

2nd Opinion

I wholeheartedly agree with what you say about religion and rationality, but I think to my sister it's beside the point.

I am occasionally reduced to an ad hominem judgment (like calling someone a nut) by those whose internal logic requires them to make me agree with them. Such conversations can be incredibly frustrating for both sides, with me doing a lot of smiling and nodding and them becoming increasingly alarmed that I will end up going to hell.

You see this kind of argument often on this site: a loud and continuous repetition of a certain point or rhetorical question, without any interest in answers outside their particular canon. I don't mind what beliefs anyone practices, as long as they don't try to make them into laws for the rest of us.

Viejita del oeste,

Thank you for your reply. I would never call anyone a nut. Religious people follow their own internal logic with great sincerity and seriousness and dedication. They deserve better than my flawed judgement. Besides, the whole goal should be to elevate the discussion not diminish it. Thus, lets agree beforehand that there are no nuts.

Instead there are simply houses built on sand, and houses built on rock. Religion tempered with rationality is like a fortress on a hill - absolutely unassailable. Better yet, if you design your religion carefully, Darwin will even help you build the fortress. God moves through evolution. And if you don't believe me, consider how you and I are communicating now versus our non-communication say 20 years ago. Technological evolution is no less a manifestation of God's greatness than genetic evolution. Ask your sister about that and I'm sure you will have a great conversation.

Thanks for your kindness, 2nd Op

It is pretty simple really; it is all about choice.
In each case, based on an individual’s life experiences and interpretation of available evidence, some choose to believe in supernatural events and others choose not to.

Now what?

It is pretty simple really; it is all about choice.
Regardless of whether or not one believes in supernatural events, someone still has to choose to go out into the natural world and sow the seeds, harvest the crops, care for the children, bury the dead, and make decisions that enable us to collectively or individually adjust to the events around us.

Now what?

It is pretty simple really; it is all about choice.
The results of our actions and the bounty, decay, or destruction that ensues implicitly or explicitly impact others in our community. How the impact is shared, divied up, or meted out is another round of choices we engage in as human beings.

Now what?

It is pretty simple really; it is all about choice.
The choices we make define us as individuals and as nations, and since all that we really have as individuals or nations, is the next generation of our offspring or citizenry, our choices today will have an eternal impact on future generations.

Now what?

It is pretty simple really; it is all about choice.
Ultimately, it comes down to how we choose to choose. So, beware of anybody that is trying to restrict your choices based on their particular belief system. Everybody’s belief system has some element of truth to it; the left, the right; the believers, the non-believers; all ask legitimate questions and have some legitimate answers.

I have chosen to end this little treatice from my own particular point of view as a baby boomer citizen of the United States of America, the state of Virginia, and the county of Fairfax. I could certainly have chosen to respond by any or all of many other perspectives, including from the perspective of my race, gender, economic status, or back to the original topic of this discussion, whether or not I believe in supernatural events.

I personally have learned and benefited from the choices and actions of believers and non-believers alike, and I believe as our founding fathers believed, that ensuring the rights of others to believe as their conscious dictates is the most important choice that we make.

By the way, faith is not based on fact. Every "proof" that can be given for the existence of G-d or other metaphysical conditions, can also prove the reverse. We do our children a disservice when we pretend that they are not capable of reasoning at least as well as we can (sometimes better because they are less biased).

...And I say this as a confirmed Catholic.

khote stated/asked above:

>>Which scripture DW
Rev 12:9

>>Which creator?
The living God, creator of the universe

>>The one being taught by the people around you where you were born? Or the one being taught on the other side of the world?

As I stated above, it was mankinds decision to turn the existing one creator God of the universe into many. As the book of Hebrews states, He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

>>How about those scriptures being taught 2500 years ago in ancient Greece, Egypt, Anatolia, Assyria? Australia?

all were being compiled 2500 years ago..not yet cannanized

>>What did Neanderthal, or Erectus believe, without being able to write any scripture?

All of a previous time. The original Hebrew of Gen 1:1 states 'In a beginning'...KJV erroneously translates 'In the beginning'

>>I guess you were just lucky enough to be born in the right place and during the right period of history, lucky to have the right scripture.

All of mankind has and will again have a chance to know God and will see the choices we have clearly. All will be, as you say, 'lucky' (emphasis yours)and given a chance to follow Gods law, His commandments and live life abundantly

>>Think of all the other poor idiots born into the wrong country and at the wrong point in history,

Sounds terribly cynnical to refer to those who have not yet had the chance to know God and live life in abundance as He desired..to refer to them as idiots. We (mankind) set ourselves on our own course to learn lessons of life the hard way.

>>burning in hell for eternity for the misfortune of having done so.

Sorry, but that is part of the deception encompassed around Rev 12:9. No souls burning in hell for eternity. That dogma crept in thru, again, mans doing. There will be a consuming (gahenna) fire for all who choose to deny God and deny an opportunity to do things the right way. His laws, His commandments are just. Keeping the commandments would benefit our world today..would make the headlines less heartbreaking

Some of the theists on here have asked what atheistic moral standards are and what the source of morality is. The two are seperate questions.

Atheistic morality is consequentialism. That which leads to human suffering is evil and that which leads to happiness is good. Because of the indivisibility of human consciousness, all humans have intrinsic worth and a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Morality really is not a difficult thing to understand.

The ultimate source of morality is a more difficult question to answer. But note, one does not need to know the source of morality to acknowledge its existence. Moral behavior is not completely unique to humans-other primates have been observed to show moral traits. Animals have evolved more complex nervous systems over time which has led to social awareness and culture. Scientists have yet to fully understand how this came about.

-Justin

E Favorite
Then you are a good person to answer my question: Why do you care?

Here is why I ask. I have a sister who is an atheist (maybe agnostic, I'm not going to get into terminology). She finds discussions about religious issues mightily boring, and I have enough respect for her that I don't bring stuff like this up with her. She is a good person, and even though she lives in the Bible Belt (not where we're from) she only very rarely has to defend her lack of belief. Usually it's just some well-meaning person inviting her or her children to go to church or to a Bible study or something with them. She just declines the invitation politely, and refrains from criticizing them for believing nonsense as long as they don't press it. Every once in a while she will be in the room when someone (often me) gets into an intense religious discussion and it usually just makes her laugh.

So that's my experience with a nonbeliever who is close to me. I understand why she feels that my faith is trivial and beside the point, even though I disagree. She is perfectly happy the way she is.

2nd opinion, I understand your point, but not everyone believes that faith and reason are incompatible. Religious nuts are just nuts with a particular focus, and religion and politics make a poor mixture.

There is a new sort of evil in the world. Look behind so many of today's problems and you will find science deniers and math deniers. The deniers are hindering our efforts to stop global warming, torture, gun violence, death of oceans, etc.
Darwin has shown us that the deniers will gradually be eliminated through the process of evolution, but it is easy for intelligent people to pulled down with them. For this reason, all good people must reaffirm our faith in science and math and rationality.

Viejita - I wasn't raised with a "narrow and exclusivist Christianity" either. My childhood Catholism was fairly undemanding, quite comforting and completely cultural.

It was presented as being based on fact. I know now that isn't true. That makes it a lie.

Jihadist,

Hmmm, careful the Malaysian Islamic police are reading your e-mails. You are slighting Mohammed when you question the existence of heaven and hell and the implied renunciation in "angel belief", a fundamental of the Islamic religion.

So if there are no angels, how did Mohammed communicate with Allah??

I wonder why those who do not believe in G-d are so offended that some of us still do. If there is no G-d, how does someone else's belief harm you? I'm not talking about the people who reject you and try to publicly humiliate you for your lack of religious faith -- many of us would like to be free of such people. We can all agree that the evangelizers and exclusivists are a pain in the neck, but why the animus toward those of us who would prefer to travel along on our own path?

If there is no G-d, who cares?

My remark about Jacoby's upbringing was not about her discovery of reason and logic: She has described that discovery eloquently herself. The examples she chooses, and the passion with which she argues, hint at her having experienced firsthand a narrow and exclusivist Christianity. I was not raised that way, so I tend to shrug off commands and interpretations that don't make sense to me. Shrugging it off seems to be impossible for so many of the atheists here...

I'm sure that the narrow, simplistic, anti-intellectual view of faith that is so dominant in US society is partially at fault.

Here's the deal. There is no heaven, hell or even a meaning of life, there is just life and death. We live, we die. If we could all BE a little better while we are here that would be great. Maybe we should spend more time on ourselves, by ourselves, instead of wasting our time worrying others or about an afterlife that doesn't exist? I can only dream...

D Rihl

I stand shoulder to shoulder with you. A brother in Humanity. All this scripture quoting can be very tedious. I have said here, as a Muslim, I do not believe in heaven nor hell. This might come as s shock to most Muslims but I say these things because I know them to be my Truth.

I believe in appreciating this life as I know it and being loving towards ALL who I come across and extend help whenever I can even if I have to go out of my way. Thus I have risen above the concept of a hell or heaven, as we can see here it clearly serves no purpose other than to say: my god is better than yours, blah, blah, blah. Thus in itself gives rise to mistrust, bitterness, division and conflict, none of God would have wanted for His Creation.

Do not quote scripture. Tell me what YOU think/believe in and NOT what others have told you to think/believe in. In other words be a Creator and not a slave.

Peace to ALL.

If there was an eternity where I existed as more than stardust, I'd rather spend it with Huck Finn and Mark Twain than with Aunt Polly. However, since I don't really know, I'm content to spend the here and now with my rather irreverent raping and pillaging buddies on Charing Cross Road.

I don't think it's by chance that columns by Ms Jacoby and the other non-believers at On Faith garner the highest number of responses and the most-spirited discussions. Compare the discussion here to that of the columnists who are the biggest defenders of the faith. Except for the ramblings of Cal Thomas, the thoughts expressed here by the "faithful" elicit hardly a whimper: 2 responses here, another 9 there...and almost all of them posts by Bible-quoting literalists.

Perhaps this is something to think about when one ponders with WHOM they will spending their preferred eternity. If you value conversation, eternity with the saved may be a very, VERY dreary affair, while an eternity with the non-believers might be just the ticket :)

Jihadist - As Norrie Hoyt, my favourite agnostic here stated, no one really knows what will happen after one dies.

This is not what you said to me a while back. I quote "Double, triple, multiple jihaaaaaaaaad on you both.

Oh, can't find the "sword of Islam". But let me try to find the Flying Spaghetti Monster to hurl at you both. You want carbonara or pesto sauce on it?

Yes, there is Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ask any mother. Better believe in it or you'll go to hell and have spaghetti without any sauce for all eternity. Or to mop ceilings, walls and floors for the rest of your natural lives. Whichever is more hellish for you.

May the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Swimming Falafel Creature haunt and demonize you for the rest of your lives. May you live in interesting times. May you never sleep in the same bed every night. May the lice of a thousand camels infest your armpits. Ummm.. can't think of any other curses/jihad to scare y'all, only the Chinese, Gypsy and Arab ones in that order."

BTW, I've been making some delicious Carbonara lately. Wish I could share some with you and Norrie and a number of others. How have the markets been?

Maurie

Just read jihadist's post and I will agree with him we don't know and we have no control of anything so no worrys mon enjoy life to the fullest find a little happy.

Well said Cleve. The problem as I see it is simply SOK7s of the world don't understand what it's like for those of us that have made the christian to atheist transistion. So much of what we were taught by our parents, teachers, pasters/priest and even friends is not something you just chuck of your back like a bag of potatoes. Unbringing is hard to shed. I still love Christmas, even christmas carols, I like how people act nicer during the seasom. I still say Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays because it is a holiday. Christians schreech about how the secular progressives are trying to kill Christmas, RE: culture wars, because some say happy holidays to include the many. This culture war is really about the SOK7s of the world hearing our voice of disagreement and considering it an attack on them. They of course are now justified to go after all that disagree with them with whatever power they can bring to bare. That power is embedded in our federal and state governments, federal courts the supremes et al., school boards, public schools teaching the bible and a whole bunch of faith-based programs to tune of billions of tax payer's dollars. My dollars if you will. You are winning right now SOK7s of the world because our voice is pretty silent right now. I hear our voice getting louder and soon more Jwest, Susans, Cleves and E-FAVORITEs will start speaking up until our voice is as loud if not louder them the SOK7s of the world. I've been a non-believer for over 10 years and I'm just hearing from others with the same experiences as I've had. It is nice to know that a community is developing. So yes SOK7s of the world, you are winning right now but it's changing and at a fairly quick rate from my viewpoint. A suggested site; www.exchristian.net read some of the stories and you will see and hear something very familiar to you. Cleve, you hang in there I'm sure I will learn lots from you before this is all over. I am Jwest

Nice post Ms. Jacoby, very well reasoned.
And you are cute also!

Nice post Ms. Jacoby, very well reasoned.
And you are cute also!

Nice post Ms. Jacoby, very well reasoned.
And you are cute also!

Heaven and hell?

Hmmmm.... some randomly insensitive, delusional and idiotic thoughts:

If one don't believe in heaven and hell, why do one fear it? Why do one get bothered by it?

If one believe in heaven and hell, why do one fear it? Why do one get bothered by it?

So, in both cases, not living well as a good, decent, fair, just, ethical, conscientious person are we, as an individual and a member of society?

No doing the right thing, not feeling right about what we do, and should not do, are we, to have fear of heaven and hell whether as believers or otherwise?

So, believers will go to heaven and hell accordingly. So, non-believers will experience heaven and hell here on earth itself.

So, non-believers don't have any hope of going to heaven after living life in hell on earth. Or to hope that those who gave them hell on earth will go to hell after death.

So, one can give another enough temporal hell to break one to one's will. So, one can promise another of temporal heaven so s/he will be enticed and yield to one's will.

Temporal faith in human nature to be good, to do good within laws and one's own conscience is not enough. Man is flawed and all too human.

Belief in heaven and hell of the hearafter ironically makes one the most sceptical of temporal promises and designs by man on Utopia or heaven on earth for all mankind, and especially the means to attain it.

Those who don't believe in heaven and hell in the hearafter should not fear what will happen to them after they died, but only how the living regard their lives and the consequences of their actions on the still living.

Those who believe in heaven and hell of the herefter will go to heaven and/or hell as they hope for.

Those who are enraged by those who tells them they are going to hell, or will go to hell, bear in mind that those who said so have no divine power to actually do so, except to make life a temporal living hell if you let them get to you on that.

I don't care if anyone believe or don't believe in heaven or hell. I am not interested in telling anyone s/he will go to heaven or hell. I am only interested in my own heaven and hell here on earth and in the hereafter. Everyone, believers or otherwise, have their own heaven and hell in life already.

As Norrie Hoyt, my favourite agnostic here stated, no one really knows what will happen after one dies. Except that we all can say with certainty our bodies will rot. For believers, God knows best after that - as to whom will be consigned to heaven or hell and why, not man.

And so, why is this an issue again?:)

MAURIE BECK.

Awesome!

sok7

Where to start?
Reason is not an opinion,
Reason is a way of thinking.
Reason is using evidence
to come to a conclusion.
Reason is not involved in the supernatural.
You say 86% of Americans believe in God
so that means its true.
100% of people in the middle ages
thought the earth was flat.
Please,go do some research.
And don't be so scared of atheists.
You may learn things from them.
Unless you're determined not to learn.
And that's sad.

IF YOU BRING A BLIND MAN OUTSIDE, AND HE SAYS
THERE IS NO LIGHT, WOULD YOU TRUST HIM?

I have a question on the eschatological scenario that is familiar to those who subscribe to The End Times of Tim Lehaye.

If news reports were suddenly broadcast describing a mushroom cloud rising over Jerusalem, how would you feel? Would you be horrified, wondering how human beings could be so stupid? Or would you be happy and take this as the sign you have been waiting for, that the final battle is at hand, Christ’s return with his flaming sword to defeat the forces of Evil has begun, and the two billion Christians on this planet would soon be ascending to heaven in Rapture?

Think carefully how you would respond to this question. Remember, there are over 700,000 people in Jerusalem. A bomb the size of Hiroshima would immediately kill ~100,000, and they would be the lucky ones. The survivors, exposed to ionizing radiation would not be so fortunate. They would suffer a truly agonizing death with ulcers inside and outside their body, the sloughing of their skin, anemia, and multiple organ failure over days or weeks, and higher cancer rates over the longer term in both themselves and their children.

Such an event might be the result of stupid, deluded people doing monstrous things, or it could signal that the End Times are at hand, much like Mohamed Atta and his fellow hijackers believed as they flew their plane into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, on their way to seventy-two virgins in a martyrs’ paradise.

What would be your initial response? Horrified, …………. or Happy? If it was just delusional fanatics, we all would quickly condemn them. However, let’s say it really was the beginning of End Times. Then how would you feel? Remember, the suffering in Jerusalem would still occur, the sloughing of the skin and the terrible agony. And remember too that all non Christians (four billion people) would go to hell, to suffer worse than those suffering radiation poisoning in Jerusalem, and the suffering would go on for eternity. They would even include people you know and care for, whom you might even love. They might be people who led exemplary lives and gave back far more to society than they took. But they would die and go to hell because they were not Christians, while some person on death row who committed unbelievably grisly crimes, but converted to Christianity and accepted Jesus into his heart, would, after some time in purgatory, go to heaven.

What kind of God would do such a thing? A god of mercy? Of love? If a person did such a thing (four billion innocent people), he would make Hitler look like a choir boy. But this is God, and according to the good book, this is part of his plan. My initial reaction would be, “With a god like that, who needs the devil?”

Frankly, I wish that all the Christian Fundamentalists (along with all other fundamentalists) would just go to heaven and leave the world to the rest of us sinners (and any other Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, pagans, shamanists, etc. who love life and want to stick around). Let us live out our lives as part of the thin film of life covering a blue-green sphere, spinning on its axis, orbiting an average star in a solar system on one of the arms of an average galaxy, in an ever-expanding universe. Just let us live without ideology, enjoying strawberries and sex, living in wonder at the amazing diversity of life, wondering at our place in this universe that is bigger than we can ever imagine, occasionally asking ……………… Is Anyone Out There?

AMEN! er, I mean.. good job.

As A Hermit posted on a different thread in a lighter vein -

Here's an old joke about a Physics exam question on the nature of Hell:

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or Endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law, (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

"First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa Banyan during my Freshman year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you." and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze."

Posted June 27, 2007 6:26 PM

Most of us were bred, born and brainwashed in some form of religion. Each brainwashing has its own definitions of heaven and hell which thereby makes real definitions mythical.

How is that proving your point? You are proving my point because you say that the Nazis thought that the extermination of the Jews was a "good" thing, so does that mean that inherently that the Jews should know that their extermination was a "good" thing? There is your proof right there that the "morality" in this case is learned and not innate. If you are arguing Jung's theory of the collective unconscious then I understand. If "good" and "bad" are innate, then why do so many people group them so differently? If you are asking WHERE morality developed, I would say that it allows those who are weaker to remain amidst the stronger. I am not saying this is definite, just an idea.

SOK7:
Why so angry?
"Why would you expect the religious faithful to be any less vocal than people like yourself who bash any belief that doesn’t pass their moral litmus test?"

Bash???? I'm BASHING?? I have never stood in a pulpit, sweaty, redfaced and screaming into the face of a child that he will "BURN!!, BURN!!! for even THINKING thoughts of sin!!!" (I don't mean to imply that you, SOK7, did this, or would, though it is quite the popular tactic in many places.) I choose deliberately NOT to 'bash'. Disagreement, even passionate, heart-felt disagreement is not hate, violence, or even 'bashing'. I have tried to maintain calm, logical, and reasonable points and discussions... I have little patience for adults who drag children into this quagmire.. filling their precious noggins with fear so they'll behave.. But still I have never knocked on a single door, stood on a single street corner, nor tucked a single windshield flier to make my beliefs known... I do not put up lighted signs on every corner pronouncing my beliefs.. I do not have a darwin-fish on my car, nor a bumper sticker of any kind indicating anything other than 'Please spay or neuter you pets" Show me the bashing... I disagree with you, so I went to a public 'discussion' site and entered a 'discussion'... this is a debate site.. some come to watch and listen, other to play, participation is entirely voluntary.. I am not 'bashing' anything or anyone... Hell, SOK7, I dont't even exist!! There is no 'Cleve'

" . . . downplay orthodox ideas of heaven and hell for the very good reason that such beliefs have been used throughout history to justify the most evil earthly acts imaginable."

This argument isn't valid. All sorts of beliefs have been misused.

Darwinian evolution has been used to justify colonialism, racism, eugenics and some of the more extreme excesses of Nazism. These abuses have nothing at all to say about whether or not Darwin's dangerous ideas are correct.

"Whatever the concept of eternity, it is based on the demonstrably false idea that the hope of heaven and the fear of hell will prevent people from doing evil to one another here on earth."

This is not correct - there's nothing in the Hebrew scriptures, the New Testament scriptures, nor in traditional Jewish or Christian beliefs that argue for eternity life based on its deterent power. (They do suggest, however, that given the prospect of eternity, we might want to reconsider how we live our lives in the here and now.) Nothing in the life or teachings of the Buddha suggests that his concept of eternity is based on the idea of deterance. Nowhere do the Daosts argue for eternity based on deterance.

This is a common theory among some students of religion who assume socialogical reasons for its growth and development, but the idea is foreign to the actual religions of the world.

Luke

You prove my point for me. The Aztecs and Nazis defined their actions as "good" because they knew, inherently, that they are not to do "bad" things. Remember, redefining an action (justification) is like fleeing from the scene of a crime: it's proof of consciousness of guilt.

Again, simple question: where does that come from?

Inculcating--or allowing religious figures to inculcate--a fear of hell in their children is also the cruelest form of psychological control that parents can practice.

I say that as an adult who, as a young child, was threatened with a deep, hot, and eternal hell by my Roman Catholic mother and by the nuns teaching in the Catholic schools to which she insisted that I be sent. My mother's fear, in turn, was that my non-Catholic father was also destined for that hell, and I was told to pray for his conversion to Catholicism. (That never happened, of course; he was religiously indifferent, and never knew what hell I was being put through.)

I threw over religion--Catholicism and all the rest--when I reached adulthood, but that experience has left me with psychological scars that even as a man in my 60s I still bear.

I have returned to religious faith--not Catholicism, though--in recent years. Fear of hellish punishment and hope of heavenly bliss is not part of that, however. I would prefer to try to be at peace with God without either of these human inventions--heaven and hell--being part of the equations. In my faith, I simply try to trust God's assurance that, in ways I as a human being cannot fathom, all will be well.

Parents and other authority-figures who try to maintain their authority by promising heaven and threatening hell are committing child abuse. They are also pushing their children into atheism.

Take note, Mr. Cal Thomas.

Gene, then why did the Aztecs think human sacrifice was "good"? I'm sure having your heart cut out is painful, and it is murder, right? Why did Hitler think that the extermination of Jews was "good"? There are plenty of tribal laws that permit beating a woman. They think that it is "good". You live in a society that permits you to think that things are "good" or "bad" because it's all you have been exposed to. Your comfortable living permits it. When you have to survive, these things are not nearly as important. Maszlow's Heirarchy of Needs. The only reason that we know what a house is is because there are things that aren't houses. Concepts are bound in opposites - read the Tao Te Ching and I Ching. How would you know about morality if you were never taught it? You honestly think that if you lived in the wilderness your entire life and stumbled upon a farm with a hundred chickens that you would know it is wrong to take one? That's a pretty bold statement, Gene, and void of truth as well.

D Rihl:

Well put.

Seth R:

I agree that we are not attacking you in any way. You are brave to be on here and your arguments are intelligent. It's the religion itself I take offense to.

Anonymous at 4:42 Said:
“Modern man has come up with A - which in some sense denies that life has any meaning at all - since once life ends there were will be no reward for virtue and no punishment for vice. It seems a sad doctrine and those that believe in it have my sympathy but not my admiration.”

That something seems ‘sad’ hardly means that it is incorrect. I do indeed believe that life has no meaning in the sense you state it. To have meaning, is to imply intent or design. I personally deny that there is an inventor, designer, or creator, therefore no ‘design’, therefore no intent or meaning. At the same time and on the same line, there is no cosmic post-life judgment either. It may seem empty and sad, but frankly most things actually become more understandable and clear. The hurricane did NOT rip up LA because somebody cheated on their spouse, it was because the billions of variables involved in weather systems came together at that point and time… Grandpa didn’t have a stroke because you had bad thoughts about him….. You are not suffering poverty because you uttered a blasphemous phrase….. All of THAT seems a sad doctrine.
I get one shot at this life thing.. I occupy this body and this brain for a bit.. it will only do what I am able through will and effort get it to do. Once it pops, it’s gone….. I suppose I could go out and wreak havoc since there is no cosmic trial at the end, but to do so increases my risk of incarceration or bodily harm in the here and now., therefore I will not do very many bad things. It is not a sad doctrine at all. We in fact, quite possibly enjoy an inner peace and happiness not worrying so much about our souls or the souls of others. We can enjoy this life now without fear.

Rob asked:
"Are we all connected in some fashion? Are we all connected to the environment? Comments from the atheist please."

Yes - we are all connected. What gets described as "God" is really our capacity for good and whether we are "God-like", or not, is reflected in how we treat each other. That's all. That's it. No gray-haired man (with a chorus of angels to boot) in the sky dictating what happens.

We are connected because we are all we have.

As for Heaven and Hell - I'm with the camp that believes it's a description of a state of mind. Some of it we choose and some of it is thrust upon us, and perhaps we need some form of "grace" to move from "hell" to "heaven (good state of mind)".

There is no way I can believe that "grace" is delivered to us upon taking up some sort of belief. It's too easy that way.

It would be like a ruthless emperor who ruled violently his entire adult life, suddenly, on his death bed asked for forgiveness and was made a Saint. Oh wait....that would be St. Constantine. Or what about the religious prophet who cheated on his wife, bilked followers out of their money and used Church doctrine to suit his purposes and was declared the ultimate prophet for his troubles....damn, that one's not made up either...Joseph Smith.

It only makes sense to me that you could get there through a personal journey that takes into account those we are connected to. Otherwise you are only answering to the Church, and some on this forum have noted that that doesn't amount to much.

Sorry to put you in such a bind, Gene. Hate to have you explain yourself. =)

Luke

Once again you misread and misunderstand. Here's the question: how can you recognize the "not-thing" unless you first have a concept of the "thing"?

A blind child will not recognize "darkness" (or whatever it is that blind people "see") because he has never seen light.

But we DO recognize "bad" and condemn it only because we first have an innate understanding of "good." Where does that come from?

Note also that I have never used the words "Bible" or "Jesus" in my posts, so please don't put them in my mouth.

Finally, morality is not relative. We all inherently know that we are to do good and not do bad, even if we honor it only in the breach. We all understand that murder is wrong, and the very fact that murderers try to excuse their act by coming up with an excuse or by redefining it is proof that they know murder is wrong. As the cops say, fleeing the scene of the crime is proof of consciousness of guilt. Accordingly, trying to excuse a bad act by explaining it away or by redefining it is proof of consciousness of guilt.

Simple question: where does that come from?

Gene and Luke, rudimentary moral behavior has been observed in chimpanzees. There is a hypothesis that the sense of morality developed through evolution as an aid to survival of the tribe.

Anonymous:

Why is it that so many religious respond with the argument that "If there is no Heaven (rewards for a well lived life) that life can then have no meaning”? Does nothing you do have meaning? Do kind acts not have their own immediate rewards of satisfaction? Is God the only one who can give your life meaning?

We live each day and are responsible for our own actions. If daily kindness and selfless acts can only be worthwhile to you with the promise of Heaven in the end, then I pity you. You have obviously missed the whole point of Christ's Teachings. Kindness and selflessness have their own rewards. They are not a means to an end, but a means of enriching one's self and the lives of those around you.

It is precisely your kind of attitude that ultimately turned me from religious faith. I don't need the promise of heavenly reward to treat those around me with real concern. My life is enriched each day and I can see wonder in all things without being promised a prize in the end. What does it matter what happens after we die? What matters is how we live our lives, and how we touch those around us. Nothing is more important than that.

Gene, the only one laughing here is us. A "thing" cannot exists without a "not-thing", or, more specifically "a thing that is not the thing of which you are thinking". The Bible isn't evidence because it can't be tested. We can't make another Jesus, or part the Red Sea with our hands, or the like. True, we can't prove that morality is part of evolution (it's only developed in humans and only once), but I think it is evident that morality is relative but necessary for weaker beings to have some weapon against stronger ones. Why is it that you chalk up everything to God's will? Do blind children have an innate understanding of light as compared to dark? Doubtful. Do children born deaf have an innate understanding of loud or quiet? How do you know that there is a sun? It's because there is a myriad of things in the world that are not the sun. If everything was bright and warm than how could you tell what was the sun and what wasn't? Would you just have an innate understanding of it?

Gene, the only one laughing here is us. A "thing" cannot exists without a "not-thing", or, more specifically "a thing that is not the thing of which you are thinking". The Bible isn't evidence because it can't be tested. We can't make another Jesus, or part the Red Sea with our hands, or the like. True, we can't prove that morality is part of evolution (it's only developed in humans and only once), but I think it is evident that morality is relative but necessary for weaker beings to have some weapon against stronger ones. Why is it that you chalk up everything to God's will? Do blind children have an innate understanding of light as compared to dark? Doubtful. Do children born deaf have an innated understanding of loud or quiet? How do you know that there is a sun? It's because there is a myriad of things in the world that are not the sun. If everything was bright and warm than how could you tell what was the sun and what wasn't? Would you just have an innate understanding of it?

Suicide bombers including 9eleveners really have nothing to do with Islam: Islam explicitly prohibits suicide and the killing of the innocent-just war is only in self defence.But these extreme minority react according to their interpretation of accumulated grievances inflicted on Muslims around the world-earthly grievances-such as creating and supporting the Jewish state in the heart of the Arab world and destroying the Palestine nation, genocide of Bosnian Muslims, Chechens, Kashmir’s etc...These abhorrent bombings are political and not religious expressions of anger and rage...the crusaders’ wars which murdered countless number of Muslims (11th-13th century AD) were initiated by the Pope to "rid" Jerusalem from the hands of the "Heathen Muslims" and so were the Inquisition before and after 1492AD imposed by the Spanish Church on both Muslims and Jews.

Islam defines a martyr as a person who dies in self-defense of his homeland, family, and property...against an aggressor and including an occupier which is natural,human and sanctioned by international law..UN etc...Suicide IS Prohibited ...Suicide IS Prohibited and those who commit it go to hell-if there is one and contrary to Media Sensationalism.

Rob Adams,

I'm an agnostic pantheist who takes an empirical stance on deity - without conclusive evidence, I see no reason to believe in any deity. The burden of proof is on people who claim there is a god. (I've been told that my stance equates to "soft" atheism.)

In answer to your question, I take the same stance on the question of life after death.

Heaven:
Where the cooks are French, the cops are British, the engineers are German, the lovers are Italian, and it's all organized by the Swiss.

Hell:
Where the cooks are British, the cops are German, the engineers are French, the lovers are the Swiss, and it's all organized by the Italians.

Seth R
I did not say we do not mock at your beliefs. We most certainly, but we do not mock you. That is the difference. If we compare your beliefs to believing in tinker bell that indeed is a fair comparison. As both the beliefs are devoid of any substantiated evidence.

Luke:

You misrepresent my view and grossly misrepresent what Christianity teaches (never mind other religions). If you're going to comment on something, at least make an effort to understand it and don't rely on simply bigotry and straw men.

Bill Teal wrote: "No one that is not given the Holy Spirit can believe. This is a undeserved Gift from God through Christ by the Holy Spirit. No arguments I would make would matter, no matter what I said, it would not change the minds of those who are not given this Grace."

So you believe in a God who deliberately withholds this gift from some people, causing them to be damned for all eternity?

And you consider this God to be "good?"

Please explain.

Heaven: Santa Monica.

Hell: South Central.

Any questions?

KHOTE said “I ask the other visiting atheists here, do you think we will ever free ourselves from this disease? Will our species survive religion?”

I don’t think that it so much surviving religion as surviving the current ideas we have of ourselves, including atheists.

We need to look at the more basic questions that can be religion independent.

The basic question is can we evolve our beliefs (both theist and atheist) to the point that we understand that we are all One. You can take that literally or figuratively but I believe literally is a little more powerful. If we understood this and acted as if it is true, which I believe it is, we could make tremendous progress as a species.

The status quo is not working and as part of our evolution we need to question, explore and redefine our beliefs about each other. That is the hurdle to overcome. If used properly religion can be used as a tool to help us get there. If used properly and given a chance observation and experience can be used as a tool to help us get there. There is a tool for everyone to help us get there.

I definitely want feedback from atheists here so let me ask some questions.

An atheist believes there is not God. However what do you believe on the following:

Are just our physical bodies or do we live on after death as spirits, consciousness, energy, whatever?

Not believing in God does not need to mean not believing in something after we die. It could be a purely scientific, all be it unproven. Consider that when we die we go to another realm/universe. I think there is evidence that there may be something to this; ghosts, near death experiences, out of body experiences (in which there has been some scientific exploration, see Robert Monroe’s work). What are atheist’s thoughts on this?

Next question and consider this totally separate from the first one. Are we all connected in some fashion? Are we all connected to the environment? Comments from the atheist please.

How does this relate to Heaven and Hell? I am in the camp of they are a state of mind, both here in the physical realm and in the afterlife. Do any atheist consider to idea of Heaven and Hell as a state of mind as a plausible theory?

I believe acting as if we are all one gives us a better chance of being the right frame of mind. I think it works spiritually and I think it works practically.

Comments?

Mr. Mark sez: "There's plenty of archaeological evidence to support it. Sorry you don't know that.

BTW - since you brought it up, where is your "evidence" that morality finds its origins in religion? Ever read through Leviticus or the sayings of Jesus?"

Really, we actually have archeological evidence to show that the concept of morality (an abstract) comes through so sort of evolutionary mechanism? I'll say this politely, but please don't make me laugh. You explanation is just like Rudyard Kipling's "Just So" stories such as "How the Leopard Got His Spots." It takes what is and invents a fanciful explanation that has explanatory power only so long as you accept the opening premise, which itself is snatched out of thin air.

And morality doesn't find its "origins" in religion. It has to be rooted in something outside ourself to have any force, an ultimate "Says who?" if you will. Otherwise it's just rank opinion. The question remains: something is "good" as compared to what? It is "bad" as compared to what? You cannot have a concept of crooked unless your first have an innate understanding of straight. Where does that concept come from, and why is it universal?

Yo-Yo (June 27, 2007 12:23 pm)

I know of the war you speak of. Perhaps you like to think it is a war between reason and superstition, but you are just kidding yourself. What is ‘reason’? Reason is when you are in agreement with an idea, concept, or action. Reason is an opinion based upon values and experience. That’s why extremists think they are infinitely reasonable. To their pears, they are. By equating religion with extremism, superstition, or violence, you make the same mistake Susan makes, week after week.

In her post, Susan says that 86% of Americans believe in God. Do the math. There are 300-million Americans. Do you honestly mean to say that 258-million of these Americans condone murder, torture, or any other form of violence? Even if you consider that perhaps only one-in-three Americans attend church, mosque, or a synagogue regularly, do you mean to say that 100-million American harbor or support extremist views that might endanger your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness? Are 100-million Americans delusional? The truth is that if even 1% of Americans who practice their religion were extremists of the type you refer to, you would be dead already. Yet you can’t seem to separate extremism from being a person of faith.

Religious faith is a belief, like nationalism is a belief. But is nationalism a superstition? I guess it is if you want to make fun of it. Is nationalism reasonable? How reasonable is it to wave the flag and place your hand on your heart, pledging undying loyalty and honor. Do extremists kill, maim, and injure in the name of their (and our) country. Of course they do – every day. Is nationalism bad because of what extremists do in the name of their country? Of course not. An extremist will take the best of beliefs and turn it into an excuse to do harm. I like to wave the flag on occasion and I still stand during the playing of the national anthem, but that doesn’t mean I want to pick up an M-16 and go kill me some foreigners.

You’re in big trouble yo-yo. The delusional ones outnumber you 86-to-14. Thank your lucky stars that the overwhelming majority of them aren’t extremists.

Cleve (June 27, 2007 12:08)
You say you wish theists would keep their superstition to themselves. Why would you expect the religious faithful to be any less vocal than people like yourself who bash any belief that doesn’t pass their moral litmus test? Why should we shut up while you bad-mouth anything and anyone you see wrong with the world?

I never said that religion had a monopoly on peace, love, morality, or hope – but the fact that religion does not have a monopoly on these values does not mean that it does not teach them – it does not mean that religion does not supply love, peace, or hope to millions of people each and every day. If you believe there would be more of any of these qualities without the religious faithful than with them, you are wrong.

Just because you do not have a relationship with God that brings you comfort and hope, teaches values of morality and moderation, and asks us to live a life of love and empathy, does not make those who do either wrong or evil. If you think this is delusional, then perhaps reality is not all that its cracked up to be.

Aethistic view is nieve in many ways. Its is much of the same protocol used by critics of environmental warming. They look at one aspect, and make broad generalization over the rest.

Like I said, the true measure of if an individual or religion follows Gods laws or not is by its actions. Does the person or religion isolate and distinguish themselves, their thoughts, actions, and teachings from other persons and religions? Does a religion seek to belittle another religion and claim it superior? Does a religion seem to take from others more than it gives (ie does christianity seek to covert muslims to christianity instead of forming cooperative bodies and shared teachings)?

Self-consciousnes and self-separation are conceptional ideas but drive people and institutions away from God. Jesus taught about inclusiveness of individuals and religions, not exclusion and separation. The religions of today seek to divide and conquer. This is a tactic that is anti-christ(ian).

Early Judaic mystical teachings did not have a devil. An archangel, bound to serve God, is called Samael. He is the one who tests the will and quality of an individual and testifies before God. Michael, another archangel most like God, is an abstraction of ones "will to seek unity, conformity, and harmony." It was natural to see tempation fighting ones will to do good. However, religion corrupted these teachings to see Michael and the anti-michael (devil). Then it choose to personify an abstraction into cute figurines.

I believe the writer is eligant, but ignorant. Before a judgement is made, more research should be made.

Oh me oh my miss Susan. Are you suggesting that Pharaoh lied? He was such a nice man, big shot, president, warrior, had a solid gold snake on his hat, a terrific dresser, ladies man capable of satisfying a whole harem. you name it. And his most important contribution to western civilization was his invention of a place called hell. That would be one hell of a place where his dead enemies were discarded. That way they were not in the next world waiting to revenge their murders. Ideas don't get any better than that.

Faith in hell, the only real faith of the three great faiths is now successfully operated as a gold mine. The big money goes to those who lead the multitudes to hell. How do I know for sure? http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul for the Bible tells me so.

Heaven is a poor choice of words but there is more life after this life and it will be enjoyed by all without exception. Well,, there are cases like big Al Capone who had 235 of the finest people who ever lived waiting for him, making Al the life of the party ;) Today suicide attackers expect to go to heaven while Allah condemns their victims to hell. As I'm sure you can see, hell is a valuable place in more ways than one. What would the crook like big Al or jihad suicide's do without it?

KHOTE,

Mormons don't believe in the traditional Christian idea of hell. So I can't very well believe that you're going there, can I?

Kathleen Flake just put up another panelist response to the hell question from a Mormon perspective. If you're simply dying to know where I'm coming from, you can read her post - I think it's pretty good.

Mr. Mark, Gene lives in the fantasy world where all evidence is re-written to prove that his beliefs are correct. That's what real intelligence is, ignoring the truth to make your own! If you are saying that Christ brought morality to the people, then you don't believe in Jews - not that you don't believe in what they believe, you simply do not believe that the exist or have ever existed. Human beings NEED each other to survive, just as every animal on the planet does. Ofcourse, belief in God surely hasn't stopped many people from raping and murdering each other, just as "unbelief" in God hasn't stopped anyone. God's not too successful at guiding his children eh? Rambunctious little suckers we are. I guess that's why he would need heaven and hell to control us. Some incentive - don't they train dolphins the same way? Really says a lot.

Khote, I absolutely agree that it's wrong to wish suffering on others in the form of punishment after death. But I oppose the idea of responding in kind. It should be possible to evaluate a religious belief on its own merits without judging the people who hold that belief. The issue for me is that the believers claim that their beliefs represent universal truth. If that wasn't the case, we might not even be having this conversation. Is it possible for someone to hold a belief about the afterlife or the supernatural and not involve the rest of the human race? After all, we have no control over other people or their beliefs.

TONIO,

"However, it's much more wrong for Christian doctrine and Islamic doctrine to claim that non-believers deserve to burn in hell. That's the moral equivalent of claiming that others deserve to die."

I'd agree, except that I don't read Christian doctrine as saying this. I think the burn-in-hell crowd represents one reading of the Bible, but only one reading. I espouse a different reading.

Admittedly, there are plenty of self-identifying Christians who are convinced I too will burn in hell for the way I read the Bible, so it's not like I haven't been on the receiving end of that as well.

Mr. Mark sez: "The concept of "good and evil" is the religious version of traits we developed over the ages through the evolutionary process."

GENE writes:
"This is nothing but rank speculation with zero evidence to support it."

There's plenty of archaeological evidence to support it. Sorry you don't know that.

BTW - since you brought it up, where is your "evidence" that morality finds its origins in religion? Ever read through Leviticus or the sayings of Jesus?

After death we have five possible options:
A. We cease to exist
B. We reincarnate
C. We go to heaven
D. We go to hell
E. We go to less intense forms of heaven or hell

Traditionally, most people in the west tend to believe C and D many in the East believe in
B and the ancient Greeks believed in E. Modern man has come up with A - which in some sense denies that life has any meaning at all - since once life ends there were will be no reward for virtue and no punishment for vice. It seems a sad doctrine and those that believe in it have my sympathy but not my admiration.

Seth R., I certainly made no accusations regarding your belief in any tinkerbell, I feel safe in assuming that you do not.

But why? Why is it that neither of us believe in Tinkerbell?
I don't remember learning about any tinkerbell when I was young, but perhaps I just can't remember that far back. But neither of us believe in tinkerbell now, I feel sure about that.

Tinkerbell here is an unfortunate fictional character that is being used to describe how one can believe things when one is a child that are left behind when one grows up.

I hear all manner of condemnation from the believers, all sorts of horrible suffering which will surely be my fate for not believing as they do. Of course the condemner here is freed from responsibility for these curses, it's their god that's going to do it to me, not them.

Well I hold to my own thoughts by myself. I am resonsible for them, myself. I feel, probably as strongly as you feel I'm going to hell, that believers have failed to reach a certain level of maturity, and are unwilling to leave their various tinkerbells behind in their childhood. they still want that all-powerful daddy looking after them, punishing the wicked and the bullies.

why am I not allowed to have this view, and to state it? why is it that the believer can tell me how terrible my fate will be, but I cannot respond in kind?

I haven't read much of the comments, but I applaud you Susan. Heaven and Hell is a scare tactic that has been used throughout the ages. Pick any book and the bible is just one of them. You can beleive the writings or not. The only thing that matters in our lifetime is how we conduct ourselves for the short time we have on this planet. Eternal life is a copout to think that you can behave in any way you feel and then go to confession. Be good to your (thou)neighbor is an earthly matter. Anybody who goes out to kill, mame or bullies someone for the sake of "it's their right" due to difference of religiuos faith, would be bound for a personal "hell" on earth. At that point it would not matter what happens next. After my parents and sister died I was devastaded, but I had no regrets over my relationships with them. Love my children and grandchildren and want them all the best. That is what is important to me and I can live with myself in a good way. That is how I want to end my life some day.

Mr. Mark sez: "The concept of "good and evil" is the religious version of traits we developed over the ages through the evolutionary process."

This is nothing but rank speculation with zero evidence to support it. I've seen variations on this sheer guessing in many places, and it amazes me how gullibly so many people simply buy it because it sounds "scientific."

Really, now, can't you do better? Do you honestly think that if for some reason "evolution" decreed that cowardice was good and treachery was desirable that we would think that a good thing?

"No, you just call us childish, brainwashed, 'ignorant morons', who believe in Tinkerbell and the Tooth-fairy (all these terms have been used in this conversation)"

Seth, you're absolutely justified in your objections. However, it's much more wrong for Christian doctrine and Islamic doctrine to claim that non-believers deserve to burn in hell. That's the moral equivalent of claiming that others deserve to die.

I know plenty of atheists who are condescending with their responses to theists. The difference is, I don't think you should suffer in eternal torment for it. God loves me so much, but he can't deal with the dirty sin I am covered in, so he throws me into a lake of fire? Makes me seriously re-think the definition of love. Maybe I don't want my family to love me, jeez.

To Seth,

Regarding the "tinker bell" comment, honey, you can't put any stock into Concerned's posts.

Dear Seth -

Thanks for your comments. Your points are taken, even if I don't find myself agreeing with you about the tenor of the comments offered by A Hermit and others.

Dear W78 -

Words escape me. The delusion is strong with you. Good luck.

Dear Gene -

The concept of "good and evil" is the religious version of traits we developed over the ages through the evolutionary process. What started as "beneficial to survival/non-beneficial to survival" morphed into "helps our family-based community to develop/harms the community's development" to "right/wrong" which eventually became "good/evil."

Just more proof that religious beliefs are the absolute theft of our innate and better selves. Our "morals" date from pre-history, their foundation from the earliest days of man's existence. Religion is a latecomer to the party...and a thief, at that!

Actually, W78's post is so cartoonish, that I'm not entirely sure he isn't just a mischievous teenager trying to get a rise out of people by making deliberately inflammatory statements.

I don't consider anything he said worth responding to. He's a troll. Move on.

But geez SECULAR, have you even read this thread yet? Or done any self-examination? You wrote:

"I have never seen one of us disrespecting you."

No, you just call us childish, brainwashed, "ignorant morons", who believe in Tinkerbell and the Tooth-fairy (all these terms have been used in this conversation).

But I'm sure a lot of you meant no disrespect by it. You were simply trying to respectfully point out that we're mentally deficient. Nothing offensive about that at all!

I totally agree with you Houston Reader.

Of all the panelists' essays that I've read, this is the only one that doesn't sound like it was written by an insane person.

As a Catholic, my faith is not driven on merits and rewards. My faith is driven on the truth, which I believe the scriptures profess.

It’s more important for me to have a relationship with my Lord Jesus Christ then to concern myself with heaven and paradise.

I love my Lord and I love his church…

To all you fundamentalist Christians who have posted your own thoughts, I ask this:

Where do you believe Chris Benoit to be? This is the WWE wrestler who brutally killed both his wife and 7 year-old son in a tragic murder-suicide. News reports indicate there were Bibles present when he took all three of their lives. Was he righteous for wanting all three of them to go to Heaven (no doubt what must have been going through his head)? Or was he a madman under the influence of steroids?

My personal feeling is, I don't know, and that nobody will know ... for sure ... until time's up. You can use hermeneutics to analyze the Scriptures to an atomic level about the situation, but I don't think anyone can know for sure where he is right now. Speculation, to me, rings a bit arrogant.

I am writing to all of you bigots. in refrence to the above post:

"
w78:

Susan,

I pray for your soul-you have so much anger, bittnerness and downright hatred against "us" Christians; your poisenous venomness words of hate and total indifference to us "Funadamentalist" Born Again Belivers resonates loud and clear in your blogs-so sad.

Even Darwin now believes-and so too will you find out (when its too late-I'm afraid), since you proudly and adimantly reject the love of Christ. As human beings we have two choices to follow-Christ's love and acceptance/forgiveness for our sins (yours too), in believing in Him as our Lord and Savior period-to do nothing puts you in the same lost camp with all the rest of mankind (the unsaved souls)destined for hell. Even the demons believe Susan-repent and belive while you still have time to do so.

Posted June 27, 2007 3:52 PM "

Who gave this arrogant, righteous ignoramous to curse Susan this. Does this fool really think, just because another ignorant moron wrote something 50 years after the so called jesus's time wrote gibberish, that gibberish is right? You theists wonder why we get incensed. All we do is follow the evidence and proof. We do not wish any ill will towards you thiests why is that you all display such arrogance ofr condescension towards us. leave us alone, we do not need your false sympathies nor your curses. If you wish to make a point do so, but not this invective. I have never seen one of us disrespecting you. We only challeng your beliefs. You guys are the only ones who come of vile, just because we do not buy into your superstitions.

Susan,

I pray for your soul-you have so much anger, bittnerness and downright hatred against "us" Christians; your poisenous venomness words of hate and total indifference to us "Funadamentalist" Born Again Belivers resonates loud and clear in your blogs-so sad.

Even Darwin now believes-and so too will you find out (when its too late-I'm afraid), since you proudly and adimantly reject the love of Christ. As human beings we have two choices to follow-Christ's love and acceptance/forgiveness for our sins (yours too), in believing in Him as our Lord and Savior period-to do nothing puts you in the same lost camp with all the rest of mankind (the unsaved souls)destined for hell. Even the demons believe Susan-repent and belive while you still have time to do so.

Anonymous:

You clearly don't know anything about the Crusades either!

By the mid 700's, the Muslim empire had reached its height and spread westward to parts of the Italian peninsula, and most of the Iberian Peninsula (Modern day Spain). These were invaded from North Africa. It did not extend beyond Asia Minor (Modern Day Turkey) which was controlled by the Byzantine Empire (Easter Catholic). They did, however control the Holy Land and Jerusalem.

In the late 1000's, Pope Urban called for a Crusade to regain control of the Holy Land and establish a Christian empire seated in Jerusalem. He promised land and titles to the restless and un-landed nobles of Western Europe in exchange for their service. The common foot soldiers we in many cases motivated by religious zeal, but most were more hopeful of enrichment through plunder.

In 1099, Jerusalem fell and a new kingdom was formed, consecrated by the church, and ruled by a French Nobleman. Along the way, untold numbers of Muslims, Jews, and Christians were slaughtered by the crusaders, including the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Before their arrival, the Muslim leader Saladin had enforced the freedom of all its subjects to worship as they wished. This was a departure from the early Muslim conquests, but remains a fact.

Don't fool yourself into believing that anyone from the Pope on down was motivated more by religion than by greed. Nothing was served by the next 250 years of fighting other than to further alienate Christianity and Islam. Also keep in mind that it was in the Muslim world, and not Europe, that made the most advances in science, mathematics, and medicine were made from 600 AD to 1500 AD. Why? Because the "Church" deemed anything that could not be directly related to the worship of God as Heretical. How Enlightened!

Wow, W78, although you may be a firm believer in Christ you obviously aren't a firm believer in spelling. No matter how much I hated you, W78, I would never condemn you to eternal torment. Shows how much you and yours love me.

God is merciful! The only people who will be damned are those who wish to be destroyed. Sometimes are worst enemy can be ourselves!

As always I'm grateful to you for fighting the good fight, but when it comes to discussions like these the only real response is to throw up one's hands, as this is not a subject for intellectual debate but rather a symptom of glaring deficiencies in our educational system. When we become a social democratic society that believes so strongly in the power of education that we invest what it takes to send all of our young people on to higher education these primitive beliefs will whither away naturally and painlessly...

Mr. Mark,

The scripture referencing "becoming as a little child" is more a call to humility and reliance on God. It is not an injunction to throw tantrums and avoid education (although some self-professed Christians make you wonder sometimes). Some of the most educated and independent minds in world history have still admitted to a reliance on God.

Incidentally Mark, if you'll re-read what I actually wrote, you'll note that I never accused atheism itself of being "juvenile." But I did call some of the comments here juvenile. Ridicule doesn't even come close to being a convincing argument.

For instance, KHOTE wrote:

"Picture how you would feel upon meeting an adult who still believed in the tooth fairy."

KHOTE, why not just admit you don't have an actual argument to make and just be done with it?

A Hermit,

I'm perfectly fine with not blaming Communism on atheism. I just wish the atheists would extend the same courtesy to me. Communism was human beings doing terrible things and using a belief system - atheism - to justify it.

The Crusades were pretty-much the same thing. Humans twisting a belief system to fit their own agenda.

On the other hand, I'll be the first to admit that I get a little tired of comments like those of "Bill Teal":

"So rant and rave all of you all you want-it matters not. It does not change anything, only proves you do not know the Living Saviour, and your are not one of His."

Who died and made Bill God's own personal casting-director anyway? For all we know, Susan may be closer to Christ than he is. These holier-than-thou testimonials do not serve Christ well at all.

The problem with this essay is it relies on religious concepts while denying religion.

You use terms like "good" and "evil," but as compared to what? What is the standard against which you judge something "good" or "bad"?

If you have no standard, anything you say is just your opinion and carries zero weight with anyone but yourself. It carries no prescriptive or proscriptive power.

I love how atheists prattle on about how moral they all are, but they are a classic case of wanting their cake and eating it too. They get to live in a world where religious principles guide us, even if only in the breach. If we lived in a world that was truly governed by the principles underlying atheism, it would be a truly hellish place.

Susan,

I pray for your soul-you have so much anger, bittnerness and downright hatred against "us" Christians; your poisenous venomness words of hate and total indifference to us "Funadamentalist" Born Again Belivers resonates loud and clear in your blogs-so sad.

Even Darwin now believes-and so too will you find out (when its too late-I'm afraid), since you proudly and adimantly reject the love of Christ. As human beings we have two choices to follow-Christ's love and acceptance/forgiveness for our sins (yours too), in believing in Him as our Lord and Savior period-to do nothing puts you in the same lost camp with all the rest of mankind (the unsaved souls)destined for hell. Even the demons believe Susan-repent and belive while you still have time to do so.

Anon at 3:41pm,

Well, I know the current stereotypical atheist is an educated, interesting person...but don't hold it against us that we don't all live up to that in your eyes :)

850 The origin and purpose of mission. The Lord's missionary mandate is ultimately grounded in the eternal love of the Most Holy Trinity: "The Church on earth is by her nature missionary since, according to the plan of the Father, she has as her origin the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit."341 The ultimate purpose of mission is none other than to make men share in the communion between the Father and the Son in their Spirit of love.342

851 Missionary motivation. It is from God's love for all men that the Church in every age receives both the obligation and the vigor of her missionary dynamism, "for the love of Christ urges us on."343 Indeed, God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth";344 that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God's universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary.

KHOTE - For those people and cultures who never heard of the word or gospel of Christ are not held accountable for there unbelief and therefore are merited on there good works...

The Church and non-Christians

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

Also don't forget that God's will is to bring all men and women to salvation! And know one knows how God will accomplish this. I believe in the end all will be saved accept for those who wish to be cursed and damned.

These atheists are getting really boring.

I think this is a beautiful opinion. I, at this point in my life do agree very much on the views expressed. I agree but will not solidify anything of my opinion on things I do not know. I just know I am not going around telling people about all these Heaven and Hell places and stories. I live how I believe to be good and serving to everyone (including myself)to the best of my knowledge. So once again, I appreciate this opinion and think it fair.
Thanks,
Valecia

You use human failure as proof that there isn't a God. That is equivalent to saying that since a student came up with 2+2=5 that there are no absolutes in Math.

It is true that as long as there has been man, he has been a sinner. And yes, many so called spriritual people have committed many crimes in the name of their god. That doesn't disprove anything. It only proves that man is sinful.

There are too many things that can be explained by nothing other than the presence of God. Study Our Lady of Gaudelupe. Study some of the Eucharist Miracles.

And by the way, don't be so arrogant towards the vast majority that believe there is a God. It really makes you look small.

DW;
I hate to toss logic back at you, but you have to see that if, because Ms. Jacoby is an atheist she can not be an expert on 'faith' you likewise are easily dismissed, as a believer, as someone who can not possibly understand atheism, nor atheists... I do not see that she claims to be an authority, as you tacitly imply that you are. Are only experts on a subject allowed to ask questions or pose opinions? Can we not just say: "Here's what and why I think as I do , and how it makes me feel... "

You state:
"we see a limiting of the center of the universe to 'human knowledge';

I am sorry but I do not understand how human knowledge, 'limits' anything, as human knowledge, even with all it's shortcomings, calls for, demands; examination, questioning, verification, and constant updates, and is thus infinite in potential and dynamic in nature.... There are no pre-set limits. It is the traditional religions that limit the size and center of the universe to a single point in the cosmos, a fixed alpha and omega, all spinning around a single possibility. It is religion that explains that anything 'human knowledge' is too small meek or lazy to comprehend is 'magic' 'supernatural' or 'unknowable' or is in fact being deliberately hidden from us by our mysterious creator.
Of course ‘human knowledge’ falls short of explaining all the wonders of the universe.. (I'm struggling with a 'DUH!" here, please forgive me...) Where is it that you learned that atheists, or science has all the answers?? I assure you, as an expert on... me... that I do not know how the universe started, or how magnets work at the quantum level... or even why my wife still loves me.. I don't know... I merely do not worry about it so terribly much. It's quite alright to not know all the answers, in fact it's quite nice finally coming to realize that we're all pretty much just figuring it as we go along.. quite a ride indeed.

I ask the other visiting atheists here, do you think we will ever free ourselves from this disease? Will our species survive religion?

maybe it's a matter of faith, but I just don't see it. the shia and sunni in iraq are soon to begin a terrible religious war, and I can't see the christians and the jews staying out of it -- the story can be forced in too easily to their revelations nonsense.

Too many believers don't really want to test if there's life after death, as they've been promised. They want this rapture thing to happen in their lifetime. The western believers will join the war ... will we surivive it?

Susan, you don't have the slightest clue about the crusades! What religious group attacked first? It wasn't the Christians it was the Muslims and there conquest to globalize Islam.

You should be grateful for the crusaders because they defended western civilization from the Barbarians! If it weren’t for the defeat of the Muslim invaders, you and I wouldn't have the freedom today to profess Christianity and Atheism.

I don’t know about you but I want a choice to believe in whatever I wish too. Under Islamic tyranny you and I wouldn’t be given that opportunity. Convert or die… In that scenario I would choose death then to convert to ISLAM!!!

Which scripture DW, which creator?

The one being taught by the people around you where you were born? Or the one being taught on the other side of the world?

How about those scriptures being taught 2500 years ago in ancient Greece, Egypt, Anatolia, Assyria? Australia? What did Neanderthal, or Erectus believe, without being able to write any scripture?

I guess you were just lucky enough to be born in the right place and during the right period of history, lucky to have the right scripture. Think of all the other poor idiots born into the wrong country and at the wrong point in history, burning in hell for eternity for the misfortune of having done so.

Susan,
I am sorry you have not had the Grace given to you to believe in Christ Jesus as Savior. No one that is not given the Holy Spirit can believe. This is a undeserved Gift from God through Christ by the Holy Spirit. No arguments I would make would matter, no matter what I said, it would not change the minds of those who are not given this Grace. Reincarnates, aethists, all non-blievers of Christ can all rant and rave about Heaven and Hell all they want to here, but one day the truth will be all too evident. Sure there is evil, committed by a lot of religious people, a lot of religious zealots, a lot of fanatics, but none of that takes away from the Grace of Salvation that Christ Jesus gives to His own. Your ability to believe or not believe, is a decision that Christ has made, not even you can believe with out His giving you that understanding. So rant and rave all of you all you want-it matters not. It does not change anything, only proves you do not know the Living Saviour, and your are not one of His.
I pray that will change, hoping God is merciful to you and yours.
Bill Teal
Concord, NC

If a worker possesses only a hammer then every job encountered must necessarily be treated as a nail. So it is with faith. We atheists are accused of "believing" in evolution and that our "god" is the environment and we "worship" science, etc. I prefer to restric the word "belief" to personal situations only, such as; I believe my wife when she tells me she loves me, and that because I'm down to the bottom of the bottle that I will have another beer.

In one of the last episodes of the ScFi show Babylon 5, one monk councils another that "Faith is like a pair of shoes. One can go further with it, than without it.

I myself am not religious, but I found that statement very enlightening. For those I know of true faith, those who live a Christian (or other) life of self sacrifice, giving, and devotion, are strengthened by their faith. Their faith gives them the power to be more than what they are. I have a great deal of respect for that, despite my own lack of similar faith in a higher power.

Heaven and Hell are seldom an issue for them. It is not theirs to decide. They simply live a life as best they can, believing that you reap what you sow.

To me, Heaven and Hell are simply constructs of the primitive mind, first in an attempt to explain the unexplainable (where do I go when I die?), but then subverted to become a Carrot or Stick to frighten and control the laity. Almost every religion, pagan or monotheistic, has some form of these 2 constructs. They can't all be right, so I submit that none of them are.

We can still be kind and giving without the offer of reward in the end. If the only reason to act civilly is the belief of post mortem reward, it hardly seems to be of value. The reward is in the here and now. Live for today; Tomorrow will take care of its self.

Well, you gave it the old college try, Ms Jacoby. You're an author and a reporter, true, but sorry, you're not an authority on faith, beliefs and understanding why we are here. Being an atheist, you inherently cannot be an authority on such subjects. Im sure, though, that you are an authority on atheism.

Here, once again, we see a limiting of the center of the universe to 'human knowledge' (tongue in cheek on the 'knowledge')

Scripture states that the adversary has decieved the whole world. Logical thinking and observation finds this to be true with regard to religion. So many religions for one Creator. This has happened due to mankinds decisions. Not God's.
Human ‘knowledge’ and our thought process is a wonderous thing, but it falls short for the full answers to not only how we manage our planet and deal with each other, but what our purpose is and our potential beyond our physical being.

Our creator is watching us learn lessons much like we do with our own offspring. Reiterating again...we (the family of mankind) decided to do things ‘our way’….at our own request.

One more time.
Its not just faith against reason,
it's the supernatural against the natural,
the unreal against the real,
the unlikely against the likely,
nonsense against sense.
myths against truth.
There is no middle road.
Either there is a God,or there isn't
Either there's a supernatural world,
or there isn't.

Viejita Del Oest,

I suspect that Ms. Jacoby, as a freethinker, did not rely on her "upbringing" to form her conclusions about faith and reason. She did what few people seem to be willing to do: examined the evidence independently, and arrived at her own conclusions.

If she seems to care "too deeply" about the issue of faith, perhaps it's because atheists, including me, may deeply resent the stigma attached to believing in one less god than most..

Viejita Del Oest,

I suspect that Ms. Jacoby, as a freethinker, did not rely on her "upbringing" to form her conclusions about faith and reason. She did what few people seem to be willing to do: examined the evidence independently, and arrived at her own conclusions.

If she seems to care "too deeply" about the issue of faith, perhaps it's because atheists, including me, may deeply resent the stigma attached to believing in one less god than most..

Seth, please don't make the mistake of equating atheism with Communism; the first is nothing more than the absence of belief in god(s); the second is a political movement, with as many variations as any religion.

And while I don't consider Communism to be a religion exactly my objections to it as a movement are very much like my objections to religion; the primacy of ideological orthodoxy over independent thought, the substitution of dogma and faith in the program for reason and logic, the division of the world into "us vs them", etc.

Regards

A Hermit

I'm sorry that Ms. Jacoby had the kind of upbringing that taught her that faith and reason could not co-exist. She seems like a warm, thoughtful and articulate person, and to care -- a little too deeply maybe -- whether the rest of us believe in G-d.
ISTM that this is exactly what is wrong with the various exclusivist religious teachings.

Seth labels atheist ideas as being juvenile, yet atheistic arguments are based on fact and reason whereas religious beliefs are based on pure fantasy. What's with that?

He also takes umbrage at atheists using the word "childish" to describe Xian beliefs, yet Jesus himself told his followers, "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."

Seth doesn't seem to agree with St Paul who proudly proclaimed that Xians should be "fools for Christ."

If you ask me, the atheists are simply reminding the Xians of what their master told them. If Seth has a problem, it's with Jesus, not the atheists. :)

"Take the religion v. science argument. Some would say there is no way for the two to co-exist. My own background and up-bringing preached this."

From my perspective, the conflict occurs because many religions define natural events as having supernatural causes. Supernaturalism inevitably results in objectionable definitions of people as individuals and as a species. Original Sin not only blames people for a specific crime they didn't commit, it also blames humanity for all suffering in the world. And then there's the hateful idea that hurricanes and other natural disasters are punishments from angry supreme beings.

Gould's concept of NOMA might be a good principle for resolving the science/religion conflict, if the religions left the natural world to science. Imagine what religions might look like if they focused on ethical principles and on one's quest to find or create meaning for one's life.

Ja Jos, et al;
Thanks for the daily dose of wise, divine and inspired gibberish. I would really like to learn your language so that we may speak of greater things, but lo, I am a mere mortal human, burdened with a heavy cloak of woes and inadequacies, and I simply do not have the capacity to comprehend that which you and your alter-ego have to say. But please, don't let that weigh you down, you have the obvious gifts to see things I can not see, hear things I can not hear and speak in secret tongues that I will probably never comprehend. I am so very happy for you that you have found a place in the universe. Please read my heart and know that even though you may confuse and even frighten me, I wish you nothing more than peace, prosperity and though this may be reaching quite a bit, an actual date with an actual living human.... peace brother, keep on preachin' the faith!

Oops - forgot to sign the above post. It was me.
Ashley

"The quest of a people to rise above slavery and establish a free and virtuous nation that would eventually transcend human sorrow? A story that has inspired people everywhere to throw off the yolk of oppression and seek a better way - from Martin Luther King, to the American revolutionaries, to the uprisings of Latin America?"

"What do you see?"

I love the revolutionary aspects of the New Testament (and the Old), particularly the idea the Jesus led a movement that was particularly with odds against much of what society valued at the time.

Kindness, caring for the poor, belief in everyman's right to salvation, and the call to action for everyman to fight for a better world are all relevant today too.

There is no denying the Bible is a powerful book. It's shaped and inspired countless lives, but reading it literally is dangerous. It is a work of man, and therefore flawed.

Heaven and hell certainly make a point for those with ego issues. "You may be more attractive, stronger, and smarter than me, but you will burn in hell because I sure am more jealous than you!"

young children are often taught that Santa Claus is "making a list", that the tooth fairy will replace a tooth under the pillow with a shiny new quarter. That the family cat run over in the street will have a place in kitty heaven ... that there are gods and devils and heavens and hells and magic and miracles.

But children grow up, they realize there is no santa claus, no tooth fairy, and the little kitty is now just a rotting skeleton in the back yard.

But, it seems, most children never abandon their beliefs in gods and devils and heavens and hells and magic and miracles.

This is why I use the word "Childish" to describe believers. I do not mean it in a derogatory sense, it is purely a descriptive term.

If you as a believer wish to hear it in a derogatory sense there is nothing I can do about that. Picture how you would feel upon meeting an adult who still believed in the tooth fairy.

Seth:
Therein lies the problem with arguing on these threads (and I do love reading this site, so no disrespect to On Faith intended). You don't really know the full extent of who you are debating with and what they exactly believe.

I've found myself wildly decrying some aspect of religion only to find myself labeled an atheist (which I'm not-fully) and pitched into a camp I don't completely agree with.

Take the religion v. science argument. Some would say there is no way for the two to co-exist. My own background and up-bringing preached this. But, as you pointed out very well - there is no black and white answer to every aspect of the religious debate.

I agree with Susan on this thesis. The concept of Heaven and Hell as literal places is beyond silly. You alluded that you have a different interpretation of Heaven and Hell, and I would be interested to know what that is, and could possibly find common ground with it.

On a day to day basis, however, I find myself ostracized, pitied, and prayed for by in-laws (whom are decent people in and of themselves) and it INFURIATES me. I'm in a current debate on whether my future children will be baptized. They will not, as I was not.

Bottom line: Debating theology is a lot of fun. I enjoy it on a purely theoretical basis - but, it's not theorectical for most people who believe strongly (on both sides).

Att: C L E V E , et al; You said,

"but religions has never had, nor does it have now a monopoly on peace, love, morality and hope we atheists have merely cut out the middle men..."

All Pre-Apocalyptic belief, faith and or religious System(s) have one thing in commin, besides all kinds of Shiat, and that is; They know how to DISTURB THE FORCES of biblical, man made, never Eclat, "Good and or Evil" as in Biblical, man made, never OURS Eclat , Heaven and or Hell.

We are family, together forever in and with the Holy Cosmic Harmonic Convergence in new ages of ours eschatologies via Source One's Cosmic Heart Beat..

"But what recourse does a skeptic (or believer in the 'good' aspects religion offers) have when faced with an angry zealot who proclaims you deserve death or banishment for not believing in their views?"

I don't know. Saying something like "My soul is none of your business" doesn't sound assertive enough.

Wiccan writes:

"My famly believes that if you live a good life this time around, the Yama Kings will let you come back as a housecat, and have owners as doting as us!"

I agree. I've always said that I believe in reincarnation. Our souls get recycled until we reach perfection. At that time, we come back as house cats and have pet humans to serve our every need.

OK Ashley, fair question.

I do sympathize. My own religion is the frequent subject of attacks from zealots of other faiths as well.

I would think that, at a bare minimum, when faced with such attacks, it is vital not to sink to the same level as the attacker.

Remember, it isn't the extremists who are your audience. They've made up their minds and aren't likely to change. You audience is the largely reasonable, yet largely silent, majority of people out there. These people are already willing to dismiss the ranting of the zealot. If you engage the zealot with ridicule or similar rants, these people will simply dismiss you both.

But to be fair, it's not like atheists have a monopoly on juvenile arguments. We've seen plenty of examples from the other camp as well.

And to be clear, I did actually like Susan's post and thought she made a lot of good points. I just don't agree with some of the conclusions.

Seth R. has a good point: Religion has the capacity to be good or bad.

But what recourse does a skeptic (or believer in the "good" aspects religion offers)when faced with an angry zealot who proclaims you deserve death or banishment for not believing in their views?

For some religious people there is no room for middle ground.

That's the problem. Childish views lead to childish behaviour. (Seth sounds like a grown-up to me, btw.)

Hmmm,

It seems that once again, all the atheists can come up with in rebutting the faith is ridicule and mockery.

Susan's original post at least made an argument. Cleve's response was civil and informative. But the rest? Mostly just name-calling (however cleverly worded).

"Childish?" "Delusional?" "Tinker-bell?"

Grow up. If you're intellectually incapable of real arguments defending atheism or debunking religion, then you might at least spare us the elementary school playground routine.

Susan:
Wanted to thank you for your fabulous posts - I've been a regular visitor to the site and haven't participated in the discussion much, but believe most of your posts to be dead-on and always eloquent.

Cleve verbalized my reaction to this thread very well.

God knows if I hear my mother-in-law tell me "God wills (whatever)" one more time I'm going to strap TNT to my chest....but, for now I'd like to take the peaceful route I believe Susan and Cleve are taking...

The pen is mightier than the sword. (Which is evidently the case by all the knee-jerk respones on this site for well thought-out posts.)

Ashley

I know what hell is. At least I can imagine it.
One day a golfer died. As he left his mortal body he found himself face to face with a person in a long white gown and long white bread. Welcome said the person in white. Wow my golfer friend said, I must be in heaven. The PIW asked what he wanted now that he was dead. I like to have beautiful golf courses at my beck and call. With beautiful young ladies to attend to my every need. I want the best equipment to play with and the weather to be perfect for golf. The next thing my friend knew he was standing on the first tee of a fantastically beautiful mountain golf course with young men and women attending to his every need. I'll have a cold beer he said and get me my driver. As he stepped up to the first tee he asked where's the golf ball? Oh said the beautiful young lady we don't have golf balls here you'll have to go to heaven for that. Welcome to hell.

I don't know, Susan. It sounds as if you are trying to convince yourself, not the reader. Hmmm...

crime and punishment.
the atrocity that sadam hussien comitted all his life is way less than the atrocity that g.bush and his men in 4 years,yet, s.h was hanged up in very unhuman uncivilized manner under the supervision and survelance camerias of mankind who they brag about their justice and their human interference.yet g bush and his men not only live and enjoying life but are still the decision maker in a mighty country.
the above 2 picture illustrate the following:
1-mankind tape measure of justice is so dizzy so intoxicating so unjust.
2-crime and punishment does not only take place in this life but also take place in the here after.,is the criminal equal to the none criminal ?why mankind belive in toppleing crimes in this life by mankind,and by mankind justice system but not in the hear after by allmighty god who respite but never forget?.
3-crime and punishment is the other face of good and rewarding ,what about the victim who his blood spelled in this life ?is it going in vain ?is it going to be forgetting ?
again mankind even the most just man in the world is still short sighted, not only that but he will die sonner or later and his justice will be burried with him.
again the creator of life and death is the same creator of heaven and hell.this life is no more no less than a big huge test for all man kind criminals and victims.
the truth is one and the delusions is many ,those who do not belive in the creator lord ,let them trace and study the history and the criminal history of man kind ,and let them come up with shake and bake justice system to mankind so mankind do even need to go to neither heaven nor hell???.
4-the door of repentance is wide open by the allmercifull creator lord till the last breath till the last day,he is the allmighty and also the allmercifull .

sok7

There's a war going on that you may be
unaware of.
It's the war between reason and superstition;
between reality and magic.
Extremism is not a bad place to start,
because it shows the slippery slope
of believing in magic,and gods,and heaven.
Religious thinking might be comforting
when it tells you that you won't die.
But its the same magic that had others
believe that destroying the WTC meant
a one way ticket to Paradise and 72 virgins.
I'll bet that it's your opinion that
the muslim martyrs were deluded.
I certainly believe they were.
But no more deluded than Christians who
also think they're heaven bound after death.

Susan -

Thanks for continuing to be the voice of truth, reason and adulthood on this blog, and for your commitment to writing common sense in a forum dominated by childish fantasy.

Love ya!

Cleve,

Bravo. I'm glad I decided to refresh the page and read your post before responding to Sok7.

SOK7:
In Susan's defense, not that she needs it from me, but I've got the time... "God's Dead' is kind of silly... only a believer can make sense of that statement. To an atheist, it has no meaning.. We are not claiming that your god is 'dead' just that it doesn't exist.... And yes we are extremeists; non-belief vs. belief are antithetical beliefs, so you are to us, no less an 'extremist.' perhaps aggressive or violent extremist is what terrorists really are. Ms Jacoby isn't strapping TNT to her vest and wandering into marketplaces or encouraging others to. In fact I think Ms. Jacoby, like myself really just wish theists would keep their superstition to themselves, read their holy books amongst themselves.. We don't want to burn your bible, we're just tired of being constantly thumped by it.. Can religion be a sanctuary of hope and good works? Absolutely so can a walk in the park or a bowl of cereal.. but religions has never had, nor does it have now a monopoly on peace, love, morality and hope we atheists have merely cut out the middle men...

Cool, Susan. Thanks for the common sense approach without any doom and gloom and threats.

Susan,
The problem with every one of your rants is that you almost always use an extremist to try to make your case. By your second paragraph, you’re already citing the 9/11 Terrorists and the Crusaders of a thousand years ago.

But then you are an extremist yourself. Based on the tone and content of your writings, I imagine nothing would make you happier than if there was a Bible burning party on every street corner and the teletron on Times Square said in big, bold letters, “God’s Dead. Just get over it!”

What is it like to be an extremist who rants about the evils of extremism? Why is religion always the sanctuary of terrorists and never the hope and inspiration of great thinkers and humanitarians like Isaac Newton, Mother Theresa, or Martin Luther King Jr.

To me it sounds like your cup is never half-empty, it’s bone dry. Perhaps that is what hell is like.

And as for being a ‘Free-Thinker’, perhaps the old adage is true. You get what you pay for.

Some beliefs by religious scholars who have studied the situation: (besides the ones already articulated by the On Faith panelists who have addressed the question today).

Professor JD Crossan (an On Faith panelist) does not believe in an afterlife as noted in his book, Who is Jesus? He may have changed his mind as he progresses in years.

Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary Catholic theologian, has a different take on hell. He reasons that the Singularity does not tolerate imperfection in his spiritual realm. Therefore, any soul dying in mortal sin will simply disappear since hell the imperfect state does not exist.

Aquinas concluded that Heaven is a spirit state i.e. no bodies to include glorified bodies. From that one might conclude there were no bodily Resurrection of Jesus, no Ascension and no Assumption.

Other points of interest: Angels and devils (those demons of the demented)

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinker bell" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie talking thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Personnally, fear of punishment has it rewards so I CMAFH (Cover My A__ with Fear and Hope).

I consider myself religious. While I believe in a concept of Heaven, and in a concept of not attaining it (call it Hell if you wish), I don't find the scare tactics featuring infernos and cruel imps with pitchforks all that useful. I find love of God (or the Good if you wish) to be a far better and more solid motivation than punishment avoidance.

I also consider pure love of virtue and goodness to be a better motivation than profit (spiritual or otherwise).

But I don't think all Christians are looking toward heaven solely with a profit motive. To live where God is, you must yourself be pure and holy.

Who among us has not wished to rise above our flaws? To transcend and make the next leap? This is the hope of heaven. I think it represents the noblest of human aspirations.

Good intentions are often thwarted and twisted - by believers and non-believers alike. It's not all just crusaders and suicide bombers.

What about the radical visionaries of the 1800s who envisioned a better Europe free from oppression and greed? What of the young man who eventually joined their ranks by the name of Lenin? How much blood and horror was unleashed upon the world in the name of the socialist utopia? Ideals that many atheists still treasure.

You may say that Lenin's utopia was just an imitation of the misguided Christian heaven. Secularism imitating religion, if you will.

But such excuses ring hollow. If Lenin, Stalin, Mao and their ilk can be reduced to "just another form of misguided religion" then just about any human evil can be labeled as "religion." This essentially reduces the idea of religion to the atheist version of the boogey-man and renders the word more-or-less meaningless. Religion becomes code for: "human ideas and actions I don't like."

But if religion must bear the sins of the world, it must also bear the virtues as well. How much of human dignity, progress, and beauty has been inspired by Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and all the others?

Focusing on Christianity: what of the Sistine Chapel? The cathedrals of Europe? Even the Statue of Liberty?

What of the countless great works of art and literature? Mozart, Milton, Tolstoy, Dickens, Dostoevsky, Shakespeare? All were inspired by their religion and drew heavily from it in their writings. Religion has provided a ready framework for the great thoughts and expressions of men and women for centuries.

When you read the Exodus, what do you see?

The quest of a people to rise above slavery and establish a free and virtuous nation that would eventually transcend human sorrow? A story that has inspired people everywhere to throw off the yolk of oppression and seek a better way - from Martin Luther King, to the American revolutionaries, to the uprisings of Latin America?

Or do you see the Canaanite genocides committed in the act of founding the ancient Israelite nation?

I see both. What do you see?

Thanks again for so eloquently expressing the atheist point of view Susan.

I don't believe in hell, I know it is real. Spiritual death is also real, Jesus won the keys to both and will use them. All of humanity will be in the Kingdom of God. New heavens and a new earth are coming, but the wrath of God, the great tribulation or the chastisement of God whatever you wish to call it, because they are one and the same, are coming first which as Jesus told us, Night is coming when no man can work. Please be ready, by the way God is a searcher of hearts and minds not religious affiliations or lack thereof, a lot of people will be trying to hide behind their religion. True religion happens to be taking care of widows and orphans, which basically is everyone. You can have all of the right dogma, you can have all of the right beliefs but that doesn't necessarily add up to a bucket of snot. satan's theowannabeocracy will even appear to be the winner during the night of the sixth day but the dawning of the seventh day will usher in the Kingdom of Love or you could call it the Kingdom of God because they are one and the same because God is Pure Love. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"Fundamentalists who want to post the Ten Commandments in courthouses have everything backward: we need courthouses precisely because some people just won't obey moral commandments unless they are subjected to earthly punishment."

Excellent point. I add that half of the Ten Commandments are not about morality at all, but instead are about pleasing God. Even though the other commandments are laudable concepts for human interaction, the principle behind them is "because God said so." Meaning that humans must subvert their own own conscience and reason to an all-powerful authority whose existence cannot be empirically proven. The doctrine of heaven or hell is the ultimate expression of that idea.

Norrie-

Loved the story. My famly believes that if you live a good life this time around, the Yama Kings will let you come back as a housecat, and have owners as doting as us!

Ah yes, Limbo. My Mother was made to pray for all the unbaptised babies who could never get into heaven. An absolute fact straight from God to the infallible Pope, with babies souls absolutely going there for years ...until the Church changed its mind.

But don't worry, this "exact nature of Heaven and Hell" thing isn't just men making it up, no. It's from God. Unless God decides He's changed his mind about it tomorrow.

Susan,

My post above is to illustrate the saying:

ASK A SILLY QUESTION, GET A SILLY ANSWER!

No one knows anything about what (if anything) happens when we die.

Best wishes.

A cat dies and goes to heaven.

God meets him at the gate and says, 'You have been a good cat all these years. You can have anything you desire, all you have to do is ask.'

Well,' said the cat, 'I lived all my life on a farm and had to sleep on hardwood floors.'

'Say no more,' says God and instantly a fluffy pillow appears.

A few days later, six mice are killed in a tragic accident and they go to heaven. God meets them at the gate with the same offer he made to the cat.

'All our life,' the mice say, 'we've had to run. Cats, dogs, women with brooms have chased us. If we had roller skates, we wouldn't have to run any more.'

God says he can take care of it and, instantly, each mouse is fitted with a beautiful pair of tiny roller skates.

A week later God checks on the cat, which is asleep on its pillow. God gently nudges him awake and asks, 'How are you doing? Are you happy here?'

'Never been happier,' says the cat, stretching and yawning. 'And those meals on wheels you've been sending over are great.'

Susan

Where do suicide bombers go
when they are dead?
They believe they go straight to Heaven.
I wonder if Christians agree.
Common sense tells us they are just dust,
along with all the people they massacre.
The spell cast over them by religious
indoctrination seems impossible to penetrate,
as it is with people of other religions.
Why can't people be more like Mark Twain,
who observed that
"The quiet confidence with which I know
another man's religion to be folly,
makes me suspect that mine is also".
I wonder what Mark Twain would have said if
he had been able to see the religious lunatics
destroy the World Trade Center.
I believe he might have concluded that
all supernatural religions are criminally
irrational,and HAVE TO GO before they
destroy us all.

Very well articulated. Thank you