For those who wonder why an Athiest is on the "on Faith" panel, Jacoby adds to the discussion in that she can show another aspect of morality that had inherant meaning, but happens to be outside of the Judeo-Christian realm. As many Christians and Jews would point to a God-given morality but would still have very distict views on certain moral questions, even within their own faith (historically - Homosexuality, slavery, role of women in church, working on sabbath, capital punishment, etc), Jacoby can lend a voice to those of us who have a morality that is personal and shaped by society but are not driven by Judaic law. In fact, we may argue that the great moral laws cross all religions at their best (Christian, Buddhism, Judiasm, Islam, Hinduism) BECAUSE they are universal (give to take) human ideas of how to treat one another and create a stable society that were elivated to the ideals setforth by a higher power. Atheism, in a mature form, is not angry anarchy that lashes out at religion, but simply looking for a collective and personal moral code independant of an external god and an uneasiness with god driven framework that seems to many of us to be extranious to the equations of 1) How do yo treat each other well, 2) How do you set a common sense of morality, 3) How do you set a balance between duty, punishement, etc. Athiests are "evil" but are normal folks who want to build a moral society outside of personal religious worship and the fractionalizatoin that it may cause (your religion or mine!).

Aargh!

Okay okay, so okay… I mean how dense!

How does one penetrate an obtuse obstinate and oblivious “obo” with a fresh breath of the obvious if she is so obnoxiously obfuscated in her observations… Ewwww!

Susan Jacoby obviates transcendence with her immanent profundity and expertise and wisdom.

She writes: "...as an experience that goes beyond and defies the usual limits of nature..."

Whoa!! "USUAL" limits of nature?!!! Um, where do she get off on that bit of garnish? Won't she please define each of those pretty little words she uses wantonly? I'd like to know.

Personally I find no reason to be upset. If you can't accept that others don't have your beliefs, maybe you're the one on shaky ground. Regardless of your beliefs, the literal belief in creation is just as naive as the believe that the universe occurred from a "Puff the Magic Dragon moment". Neither positions are logical.

Do you believe in God? Yes, and here is why,I remembered the words of those angelic beings who spoke to the followers of Jesus on the first Easter morning. "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen!" (Luke 24:5-6, KJV).

Celebrate Easter with the living God from Christ who lives within us by the Spirit in the name of Jesus.

I'm an atheist, and I can't for the life of me understand why preposterous beliefs -- particularly when carried into the public, political realm -- need be protected from rational critique in the case of religion but nowhere else.

People of course are free to believe whatever they like but that doesn't mean their belief is beyond criticism or counter. They are free to hold it. That's all. Once in the public realm, their belief is in play like any other.

Take the case of laws or proposed Constitutional amendments: Hear this: I don't care what it says in the bible about this, that, or the other thing. What it says in the bible matters not at all to those who aren't believers.

"On Faith now will allow somebody who doesn't have any to take over this column twice a week. Proving once again that Quinn and Meacham could care less about your faith.

A misimpression is given by this article that the only choices are theism and atheism. Even among theists there is disagreement as to the nature of god. For example, polytheists believe in multiple gods, with, perhaps, and overarching deity, while dualists, such as Zoroastrians (today surviving as Parsees in India) and Manichaeians believe in dual deities, one of whom is good, the other malevolent. On the subject of polytheism, scripture, for example Exodus 34:13-14, seems to imply that the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not the only god: “Take care not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, or it will become a snare among you. 13You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles* 14(for you shall worship no other god, because the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).” Note that this passage does not command believers to not worship “false” gods, but not to worship “other” gods. Also this passage, as well as many others in the Old Testament, attribute what we mere mortals would consider faults and weaknesses to its supreme deity; in this case, jealousy.
Such characteristics of a supreme being would not surprise pantheists, who do not deny the existence of supreme beings, but discount them as being just that, i.e., beings, who may have super powers, but who don’t meet the description of the ultimate god, i.e., perfect, omnipresent, omniscient, etc., i.e., they are limited by their beingness and and belief in them is trivial. Pantheists believe that god or the godhead is all pervasive and exists everywhere at all times. For Buddhists and many followers of the Hindu Vedas, one may worship a supreme being on the way to uniting with the godhead, but this is just as illusory as the rest of creation; it is just a stop on the way. Buddhism is often labeled an atheistic religion, but its adherents don’t deny the existence of gods; however, they only consider them creatures as is man, and, as creatures, they have faults and imperfections. For pantheists, the godhead can not be intellectually known or objectively experienced. One can only experience merging with it, with the self dying in the process. It you can see it, touch it, and hear it, you are not there.

This is, without question, the most eloquent explanation of the values underpinning atheism that I have ever encountered.

Thank you.

Some interesting ideas about "faith" and spirituality can be found at bespiritual.info.

Atheists don't believe in God- that's fine. But, pray tell, why have them become so militant about it? Proselytizing once was the province of religious people. If atheists are certain they are correct, why not leave conversions to religions and stay home and contemplate their belief in nothingness?

While I respect everyone's right to their beliefs -- regligious, atheist, etc. -- I just don't get why an atheist view is included in "On Faith." I understand that the moniker "On Faith" may encompass having none in a 'supreme being.' Yet I'm uncomfortable that many atheists, by exalting reason and the 'limitless potential of the human mind,' seem to denigrate the views of those who admit possibilities wider than what we can prove or disprove. Another question: Human beings have had a long time to solve a lot of problems, and we have in fact plumbed the depths of many mysteries. But if reason really rules, shouldn't we have been able to -- by now -- successfully address some of the horrific and univeral problems our world continues to experience, and in many ways, seem to be getting little better? While faith in a God also has not solved these problems, it provides a basis for hope and compassionate living for millions of people. And again, it admits the possibility that there might be more to "life" and "time" that what we can see and prove.

I consider myself one of those "kind atheists" simply because I've been made aware though the study of religion and personal exposure to all sorts of believers--fanatic and otherwise--that my morals and ethics are usualy far superior to theirs.
I can say without hesitation or reservation that I have never taken advantage of anyone for any reason during my 62 years on this planet. Except for a year spent in a combat zone, I've never knowingly hurt anyone either physically or psychologically. Yet, I've known those sworn to the teachings of Jesus who've been anything but genial, likable, and reasonable human beings--yet continually use the out of being forgiven for their sins so that they may repeat them over and over again.
I've learned that religious zealotry has nothing to do with morality and usually fosters a sense of ethical superiority to those who don't see the ridiculousness in worshipping idols "made by themselves, giving the name of guardian to those they guard."

Well said, atheism is not a religion, and I would not call it merely a 'belief system'. The primary difference is that it does not rely on belief in phenomena that is impossible to substantiate. I find it most appealing as the apex of rational thought applied to the notion of the mystical/religious aspects of human experience.

If god (not one of those fakirs who claim devine mandate) went on a speaking tour and introduced 'it' self to the world and made clear 'its' will, - well, then I'd have reason to believe. The silly charade that parades around in the guise of religion is immoral, as at its base, it is a lie, and extremely corrosive and destructive to humankind and all we have accepted power over.

The fact that religious experience has played a significant role in human development does not afford religion a central role in the future. It is a false pretense because religion is not what has played a significant role, it has usurped the significance of the human minds need to explain the experience of living and existence. That native on-board curiosity and propensity to apply ones intellect to understanding ones surroundings, ones circumstances, that is what has significantly shaped humanity. Too often, that has been mistakenly invested in chasing chimeras, demons, gods and fairies. Too often, the ephemeral nature of mystical/spiritual rooted sentiment has been hijacked, used and abused by those trying to exert power over populations of people. Too often, even today, religion is falsely employed in a perversion of righteousness and compassion. Righteousness and compassion can exist without religion, depending on ones outlook, the opposite might not be true.

Today, we have better answers, more reliable and substantive answers that are backed up by empirical evidence. I have been blessed having not been born into some preset dogma. I have looked and felt into a number of flavors of religions. Some are fond of the glib line; "...stand for something, or you will fall for anything...." - how trite and foolish.

I would suggest one can stand for what can be substantiated, that which we all can bear unequivocal witness to. That which is and leave the wild fanciful speculation in the field of speculation. The fruits of imagination are many. Some are beautiful and some are monstrous. To commingle these artifacts with the 'meaning of life' by expressing them religiously is foolish and dangerous. To the point, god didn't say it, I don't believe it, and if I'm wrong - prove it, and that's that.

"why is an atheist included in a blog titled "On Faith?" ... but if you have no religious faith... What more could you possibly offer to a dialogue "On Faith" other than your personal disdain of believers?"

That's where you're wrong. Atheism is also a belief, as the existence of a God can neither be proved nor disprovedand.

I'm probably about as liberal as they come religiously, but, I'm sorry, why is an atheist included in a blog titled "On Faith?" I think there is much room to criticize what is done in the name of religion, or even particular religious beliefs or practices, but if you have no religious faith I get it. What more could you possibly offer to a dialogue "On Faith" other than your personal disdain of believers?

Is this the latest re-incarnation of the Secularist's Corner?