Steven, the image is apropos — you are indeed howling at the moon. Atheism is an excuse for atheists to do whatever they want, and rationalization (i.e., justifying one's behavior) is the most powerful force in the universe; reason just can't compete.

A rational atheist (I agree not all are rational) values life tremendously, because that's all there is. No afterlife where you can "start over and get it right this time."

Intrinsic value is not the only kind of value (and in fact, some philosophies reject the idea of intrinsic value altogether).

Also, why does atheism necessarily imply hedonism? Hedonism is anti-life, if one wants to live life as a human (i.e., rational) being.

Steve, I love a lot of your stuff, but I think you're all wrong about atheism.

Where do I start? Well, I guess to say that I am an atheist. I do not subscribe to the notion that there is a cognizant being that spoke our world in to existence. However, you make the mistake of treating atheism as a religion, which it is not. I will agree that many atheists do treat their atheism as a religion, but I am not one of them. I generally side with conservatives, I even consider myself one. I do not agree with abortion, nor 'assisted suicide'. Evolution makes more sense than any competing theory, and global warming is a hoax because there is no evidence to support the assertion. However, when I read things like you have posted it makes me angry and isolated. I respect your beliefs, so why can't you respect mine? And just for the record, Hollywood isn't full of a bunch of atheists. Hollywood is full of catholics, jews, cabalists, scientologist, to name a few, whom are not atheists. So why did you decide to vent about me? I have done nothing to offend you, too bad you can't return the favor.

Do you have proof that Hollywood is the largest gathering of practicing atheists around? And do you have figures re: the higher divorce rate and substance abuse? Unfortunately divorce and substance abuse are widespread among our country — Republicans, Democrats, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics — you can't just put the blame on Atheists.

Artboy is right! They feel horribly threatened by those of faith; most particularly the Christian faith- and are seeking
it's irrelevance, if not outright destruction…

Isn't the whole point of atheism to reject authority in favor of the judgment of one's own mind? I agree with Aristotle and Rand on these issues, FWIW, but I came to the conclusion that I didn't believe in a god, and decided I thought it was important to be ethical, on my own, before I ever heard of philosophy.

Okay, so you are your own authority, ergo a moral relativist. And you'd agree that if one atheist's personal flavor of ethics demanded you be decapitated, you'd have no rational argument against their decision?

If horses had Gods, they would look like horses !!!!

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

If you want to be sanctimonious about "life" – go ahead – however, you sound ignorant and stupid because your derivations for deciding the value of life are simply subjective and personal

If you want to dialogue and debate this, I'm happy to do so. If you want to just rant and rave about what you "think you know" then you are just like liberals who think they know how everyone else should live and want to control, manipulate and regulate behavior they have distaste and dislike for

Shared value, shared ideas are nothing more than "shared" – doesn't give it credential or authority

To impose your religious beliefs onto government is to negate the government of law and take ownership of the nation to do what? control and manipulate others

whenever you are not giving people a choice you are controlling and manipulating them.

Not to steal Amy's thunder, but as another empiricist (which I prefer to either Agnostic/Atheist) who does not believe in god, I'll throw in with her. I suppose I'm a "moral relativist," but I embrace the deep responsibility that comes from defining ethics and morals by choice, not by writ. If another person chooses that decapitating me is moral, I'm free to resist — by persuasion if possible, by force if necessary. Not all rational arguments are based in an Absolute. People all over the political spectrum (sometimes) justify policy choices by speculating about their good/bad effects, without always resorting to Absolute Principles.

Being your own authority does not mean you're a moral relativist. The only way that would be true was if you decided to go by your own arbitrary whim or emotion when deciding what you thought was "right." There are objective truths about the nature of human beings that must be heeded if one chooses to live. These truths provide an objective basis for ethics. Of course a human being could *try* to live like an animal or a plant (and many do), but they don't thrive. Sorry, but I don't have time to discuss further. I have only one life to live and I need to make the most of it I refer you to Rand's Objectivist Ethics for any of your follow-up questions.

Incidentally, I've never met an agnostic, scientist or atheist (myself, a scientist, included) who thinks that *current* science explains everything. Electricity couldn't be explained 200 years ago, it can be now. Was it evidence for god in 1809, but not 2009. Just because we haven't explained something, doesn't mean we won't.

At best, I'm agnostic – I don't know and neither does anyone else – I don't care

I don't need to live my life by some outside source from myself – nobody does anyway, say it all you want, but you don't

either you know from within NOT to kill, steal, etc. or you don't – that's either sociopath behavior or conscious understanding that we live in a world where we don't live our lives at a cost to others without their consent – we've evolved and developed as a society toward such understanding

a by-product of such understanding of personal choice, accountability (ownership of choice) and response-ability(the ability to respond to the choice) will certainly lead others to observe you as a "good person" if that is your goal

The question makes no sense. The fact that atheists do not submit to supernatural authority does not mean we do not abide by the social contract, or that we refuse to submit to real-world authority. Thus, code of law is our guideline.

"Atheists out there, am I wrong? I can’t say that I fully grasp your thought process, so feel free to slap me around here."

Try reading or looking into some arguments against your position. Its clear you haven't. I mean, i'm all for saying whatever you want, but c'mon, at least show me you're even serious about this.

"Steve, I love a lot of your stuff, but I think you're all wrong about atheism. "

Agreed.

once again sounding more agnostic- an atheist rejects the notion of any creative force- that's what makes them confrontational. Agnostics are generally passive non-believers. Don't want to tell you what you are, but we have seen confusion (much) with these modalities…

Being an atheist does not mean being a moral relativist. And it is certainly true that there is quite a bit of common ground that can be found between theists and atheists without appeal to absolutes. That is, after all, the strength of pluralist societies. In fact, I'd argue that it is easier for, say, Christians and atheists to find common ground than it would be for Christians and Muslims, both of whom have conflicting absolute value systems. Atheists can be far more flexible. Of course, this presumes that both Christians and atheists are willing to agree to disagree on first principles (there are plenty of both who won't agree to this).

It's not difficult to find atheists who would argue that "moral relativism" is merely a rhetorical creation, and that in reality, shared cultural and political institutions make true relativism impossible. We're assured a broad moral agreement in spite of our theistic commitments (or lack thereof), making appeals to divine authority virtually unnecessary. You'll find pro-life atheists as often as you'll find pro-choice religious believers, you know. It's not as though theism guarantees that life is respected in all its form.

In short, theism is not a guarantee of agreement on *any* ethical or political question. So, can someone please tell me why it's all that important?

"Am I wrong?"

Yes.

Now, if you expect to prompt an actual conversation, present a case that's something other than the usual shots from the hip. Just because your gut tells you atheists believe or behave a particular thing doesn't make it true. A place to start: Hedonism is not atheism. One denies the existence of god (Yes, small g. Go ahead and freak out if you're gonna, folks. That wasn't at typo.) and the other holds that pleasure is the ultimate good.

Beyond that, spend some of your own time looking into this stuff before asking someone else to waste their time educating you.

Atheism is merely the belief that “there's no invisible man in the sky.'' You seem to have it in your head that people who believe “there _is_ an invisible man in the sky'' somehow “value life more'', which you seem to have concluded by comparing yourself to Sean Penn. If anything you've called attention to is “retarded'', it's that.

We're scared by your attempts to legislate the Christian faith. No problem at all with its existence in and of itself.

Okay, I'll step up. I'm an atheist — but the absence of an invisible hall monitor isn't an excuse for license and self-indulgence. Why not?

Because I am a member of a society. Even if it's just a big troop of primates wearing clothes, I am still a part of it and as such I have duties as a human being and a citizen. Since I have no afterlife to look forward to, that gives me a powerful incentive to make this society as good to live in as possible, and provide for my children and all those who may preserve my memory in the future. And because I value a healthy and sane society, I recognize the value of religion even if I don't accept its premises.

The self-proclaimed atheists who live only to tear down and destroy society are simply vermin, God or no God.

Here's a counter-question: why does the existence of God necessarily provide any framework of morality? I'm serious — being good "because God says so" just brings up the question "why should we obey God?" To which the answer, apparently, is "because he'll boil you in molten sulfur for a billion years if you don't." That's a loving Creator? A human who acted that way would be called unjust and a tyrant.

I am a good person because I choose to be, not because I'm scared of an invisible tyrant.

And the thing that keeps me from trying to communicate with heathens like you is your attitude of 'religious people are just dumb morons trying to push their beliefs on me' attitude, of which you and many others are displaying here.

I don't need to live my life by some outside source from myself – nobody does anyway, say it all they want, but they don't

either you know from within NOT to kill, steal, etc. or you don't – that's either sociopath behavior or conscious understanding that we live in a world where we don't live our lives at a cost to others without their consent – we've evolved and developed as a society toward such understanding

a by-product of such understanding of personal choice, accountability (ownership of choice) and response-ability(the ability to respond to the choice) will certainly lead others to observe you as a "good person" if that is your goal

Occam's Razor. Don't multiply causes more than is neccessary. However, Kalam Cosmological Arguement, a First Cause is neccessary. The defenses against KCA are Turtles All the Way Down (illogical), or Its All a Mystery (false modesty as its not really that complicated), Its Ununderstandable (Abandoning Reason), and Just Because (A Bigger Miracle…and Illogical to boot).

Now that you're a Theist, or you've abandoned Reason, we could move on to proving that Jesus the Christ is the same Being that spoke the Universe into being..

And if an atheist had a horse, twould be a hobbyhorse.

But I bet you wholeheartedly support abortion. If you do, then it's obvious that you don't value life more than the average Christian, and are therefore painfully retarded.

Amy-

If you're not actually related to Leonard Peikoff, then you in the least, you have a very strong command of Rand's philosophy. Having just finished Atlas for a 3rd time, I can easily recognize the language and thoughts coming from your responses.

Keep fighting the good fight. It always is refreshing to see ideas applied correctly and as they were intended. Personally, I tire of seeing advocates, opponents, or even enthusiastic novices wrongly characterizing what they think they understand. Given the fact of your replies for this topic, it seems that you do as well.

You're right, Elena, you should judge everyone by the few you've met. Should we then judge all blacks by BO? Judge all women by Hillary? Judge all men by Bill O'Reilly?

come on, no one cares about your beliefs. No American would infringe on your right to have your beliefs – many dislike the legislation, courts and mob mentality behavior to infringe on others who choose a life that doesn't support your views of how others should live

it appears that you're rather a fraud; you like being victimized and at the very least you want to control other people's choices, just like liberals

Simple me…I believe that "God" is that force that gives one the knowledge to choose which is the way to be a good person beyond one's self-interest,not the other guise, ("organized" religion) which is usually tied-in to self-centered power games,etc. Where did that urge of choosing good come from?

Einstein only said that because he thought quantum physics was a bunch of BS.

I disagree with him on that — although, when you get into some of the loopier ramifications of superstring theory, I tend to sympathize. There's theorizing, and then there's random-ass blue-skying. (And I've witnessed both theists and atheists being guilty of the latter.)

Einstein said something about god, therefore god exists? are you serious? come on, this isn't even logical.

Huck Finn said that god doesn't exist – so it must be true, too.

think for yourself: does anyone know for certain the "first cause"? No – so why do religious people act, behave and speak as if they do? Which is fine, but it's not enough – they want everyone to adopt their "beliefs", as well. To the extent of limiting freedom, using the courts, using legislation, putting civil liberties of other human beings (agree or not with their choice) up for a vote. Why do religious people get to make those decisions for everyone else?

ESV Romans 1:18-25 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
3 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. Continued……

Dcase, here you are quibbling. Peikoff says she is an atheist: an agnostic is someone who is open to the possibility of a God; an atheist says that there is no God.
And, in this case, she is right and you are wrong. Atheism does not imply hedonism or liberalism or even Eudiamonism. Back when I was an atheist (I converted) I believed that there was an innate and intrinsic value in life and in reason. I believed it to be MORALLY WRONG to be unreasonable no matter how pleasant or useful unreason might appear — because pleasure nor utility was the foundation of my thought.

So be careful not to generalized. Not all atheist s are Village Idiot types like R. Dawkins who believes in infanticide.

Can you give me an instance of anyone "legislating the Christian faith" upon you in this country? I'm not talking about someone talking to you about religion. You used the word "legislate" which means to mandate, force or order. If no one has actually made it a law for you to believe in Christianity, held a gun to you or threatened you with death to force you to accept religion, then using the word legislate is an exaggeration. I've had athiests or agnostics try to give me a good reason why they think I should believe as they do, but none have forced me to believe the way they do.

Fantastic!

"We're scared by your attempts to legislate the Christian faith. "

That fear is itself an article of the atheist faith. It certainly has no basis in fact. It is like a Christian fearing the devil: part of the religion

wait a second – you hammer Elena for making snap judgments, then go on to say "no one cares…" (I do) and "No American would" (are you sure?) and "you like being victimized…" (how would you know?)

Nice to meet you pot, sez Kettle

I become an anti-theist only when theists want to force their religion on me via government (some of today's Christians), or kill me for not believing (some of today's Muslims). Otherwise, live and let live.

Part 2

Anyway, keep up the good work and just remember that there are a lot of good atheists. We’re a bit hard to find because we’re not as vocal as the loud mouths. I’m perfectly happy with “In God We Trust” in our money and other symbols that represent the heritage of the American people.

Cheers.

PS I voted for McCain and Palin in November and I think Obama is going to ruin (or is ruining) this country. Tim Robbins, Sean Penn and the rest of the Hollywood leftist pseudo-elite are a waste of energy and film. That last video you did on Torture was a riot.

I cannot find the words to describe how insanely idiotic is what you wrote. Religion is stupidity.

Real f__king diplomatic, man. Really helped our case there.

It's amusing the only "freedom" the left seems to want is the ability to freely rip a living being from your uterus. Or the ability to have porn with no restrictions, as one of the lawyers on Obama's team fought for, at the expense of our children. You put the ability to abort on demand above a person's right to religion. Thank you oh so much for your fight for freedom.
And if you want to go down THIS avenue: "Why do religious people get to make those decisions for everyone else?" Then why do the people that lack religion get to make decisions for everyone else? Why do you get to tell me I can't pray in school or public places? Why do you get to tell me when and where I can pray? Why do you get to tell me how a Catholic church should do it's finances and take away any say from them in it? Why do you get to take control of property that that Church BOUGHT? Because that's what happened in North Carolina. WHY do you get to take my hard earned money and use it to pay for abortions and condoms and birth control? Why do you get to tell me that my child is better off in public school and not at home learning because you happen think it's wrong their mother is teaching creationism and not your bs evolution? Because that's what's happening in North Carolina. Why do you take away my right to decide what lifestyles my child should and shouldn't be taught? Regardless if I agree or not, it's STILL MY child. Why do YOU think you know what's best for my child??

SO. Tell me. What makes you think you can tell me that the decisions you make are better than mine?

Who is trying to legislate faith? Christians are guided (or should be) in their political endeavors by the moral code and principals set forth by our God. The same as any other group. If you don't support a certain candidates positions, don't vote for him. Simple as that. But trying to squelch or smear a candidates position because that position may be informed by his religious beliefs is just plain wrong.

Morality cannot be legislated. Both believers and unbelievers have been guilty of falling into this worldview. When God changes hearts, and brings people to an understanding of Himself, then they can approach the world with clarity, having the proper presuppositions. I could just as easily say that liberals want to force their agenda, their belief system, their religion of postmodernism on everyone. Support for this comes right from the mainstream media, which is largely liberal. They constantly foist liberal information upon people, and hide any debilitating information about their favorites.
I am an Independent, and non-partisan. I see the weaknesses and fallacies of both political parties. I pluck the log out of my own eye, before trying to remove the speck from someone else's. Unfortunately, there is a large contingency of Americans who want to legislate morality, in the name of Conservativism. Yet, you cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. The morality which they defend at least stems from objective truth, which stems from God's own wisdom, even if they don't know God all that well either.

Another defense against the fallacical KCA is that the universe is cyclical in nature, or conventional mathematics cannot describe the nature of the universe.
In other words: PROVE the statement that "a first cause is necessary for the Universe's existence"
Secondly, you can't PROVE the universe was formed by a God any more than you can prove it was formed by some mathematical formulae we have not yet discovered. There is actually LESS proof for God since the

My favorite defense against the KCA actually utilizes its own logic against it. Ready?
1) Everything requires a first cause (unprovable, but to make the KCA work you have to posit this)
2) The universe requires a first cause
3) God is that first cause (unprovable without evidence, but I'll even allow you this one)
4) God requires a first cause….

Whoops, we've slipped into the "Turtles All the Way Down" Fallacy!

You can't apply fallacies selectively – either you're consistent with your logic, or not. I wouldn't expect logical consistency from a Theist though…

And another large contingency of Americans who want to legislate moral relativism in the name of Liberalism. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…

I have always believed in God…not the Father, not theSon, not the Holy Spirit(I was raised Catholic) but in God, the truth in all things, the presense of thought and beauty and reason. You can believe or not you can choose to be "moral" or not but you cannot deny that when you close your eyes and dream that there is something that you acknowledge to be beyond yourself. Just Sayin'

…being good "because God says so" just brings up the question "why should we obey God?"

Judeo-Christian morality isn't based on blind obedience, but upon a love for God and neighbor. The thing is, love of neighbor must be based on something. If God wants us to love our neighbor, there must be some unique and intrinsic value to human life. This is an essential part of Judeo-Christian philosophy: a divine plan, a meaning to life. If life has no meaning, if thoughts and emotions are nothing more than electrical impulses, then where is the logic behind morality?

You aren't necessarily a dumb moron (how could anyone know either way by reading a single, rather vague post on a blog?), but I would say that calling someone a heathen is akin to pushing one's religious beliefs on that person.

This article is embarrassingly bad. So wrong on so many levels, its not even funny. Everything Steven Crowder said about atheists is wrong.

But that's exactly the point. Atheism does not imply hedonism or liberalism or any other morality, in fact it doesn't require one at all. To adopt a system of morality is a choice.

And since that system is contingent entirely upon the individual and how they feel at the time then it is completely relative and thus no real system at all. If they do their best to stick to a consistent moral system to avoid this problem, well…that's a moral choice that they have made, no more valid than the guy who doesn't.

What I find so interesting is that all of these Western Atheists just happen to wind up developing moral codes that tend to go right in line with the Judeo/Christian moral code upon which their society is based. So it's not really a moral code that they developed out of whole cloth, but rather an adaptation of the one they grew up with.

In other cultures, without a Judeo/Christian background, or where that background has been totally erased, Atheists tend to come up with entirely different codes.

"Rational opponent" is an oxymoron to the militant anything.

Define: 'Value' life.

We could populate the Earth till it was full of mentally retarded, malnourished, diseased, unhappy, warlike people. But we wouldn't abort a single child…

An Atheist's definition of 'valuing' life tends to be quality over quantity, whereas a Christian's definition of life tends to be more "If they're not living life like I am, they aren't doing it right!"

Great post. Glad I read the comments before posting my own.

Because you are Pavlov's dog. Your parents, your teachers, every member of society that you've met in your life has taught you the difference between right and wrong and that the bad action has consequences. Your not feeling self-disgust because you have done wrong, your feeling self-disgust because that is what you have been trained to do in such a situation.

Yes a Xian values a zygote more than a sick child who might benefit from research done with the former.

I would say that ultimately God gave us all free will to choose His way or not as we so desired.__Those atheists who live good lives and explain their choices to do so as rational decisions that they came to on their own are, IMO, listening to God they just don't recognize it, but for me, God is the little voice that urges me to make the right decision more than he is the mechanisms of the church or any organized religion. He is the Holy Spirit or, to put it mundanely, my conscience.____Not trying to be insulting, just adding to the rationalizing.

Well when you say it like that it sounds down right silly. Kind of like: "It rained on a rock, the minerals washed into a puddle, the minerals accidentally became DNA and protiens all at once, the chemicals became cells and learned to reproduce, the cells evolved into vertebrates, the vertebrates became humans who invented God, then the humans became George who killed God, then George became God." TAAAA-DAAAAH!!!!!

I will give testimony here!

We get our morality from the bible? Really? Funny then how I lost my religion early on in life after being appalled and disgusted by bible-god. Everything he does is morally obscene. And I do mean everything. For example, due to anger management issues he not only throws Adam & Eve out of the garden, but he places the eternal Curse of Original Sin on all humanity thereafter. This curse then sets him up to be the hero who “saves” us from his wrath. This sounds a lot like the arsonist who starts a fire and then reports it in order to be admired by the public.

Can you imagine anyone today punishing someone for something done 2 or 3 thousand years ago? We would think them criminally insane. But bible-god does. Then there’s the alleged flood. It was the first holocaust. Yaye, bible-god! Then there’s the infinite punishment for finite transgressions thing. Talk about justice! In contrast humans mete out punishment commensurate with the “crime.”

I could go on with countless examples of the moral repugnance of bible-god, but I will stop with the sacrifice of his son in a gruesome blood sacrifice to himself. Was there not a better solution to the disasters in his creation than this?

Bottom line, bible-god is a hapless screw-up with a violent temper and the last deity in the universe you should turn to for moral guidance.

Let me distill the message of bible-god into one sentence: Love me or I will torture you forever.

Only those suffering from a religious version of Stockholm Syndrome are likely to respond positively to this celestial thug's protection racket.

Stupidity is someone calling religion stupidity that has "GuyWhoDoesYourMom" for a screen name.

Because we can communicate and understand one another as the bi-product of on-going 'electrical impulses', as you put it – why isn't that enough?

Because "morality" strictly in the service of the needs of human beings has no obligation. Why am I obliged to help out any other sack of fluid and tissue?

what even makes this an important question and why does only 'god' satisfy it?

Because there must be some logical reason for human beings to practice moral behavior, or else we wouldn't do it. The Judeo-Christian understanding of God satisfies it because it provides both an obligation and sanction attached to the neglect of morality, while an atheistic understanding does not.

To rely on social contract is to rely on sub-prime mortgage brokers being the moral arbiters of all that is profit driven in a global economy. In other words there is no social contract stronger then it's weakest link.

A Rousseau social contract is like the road to entropy much like what atheists are advocating when they conflate wrongness with religion. The social glue of religion breaks down into social entropy.

morals are advantageous to a social tribes and little groups.

That's true, to a certain extent. But philosophies such as Social Darwinism and triage are arguably advantageous, too. Society, however, deems these immoral.

The transcendent majesty of God touches every human being. Understanding this, even as a wisp of breeze, enables one to intuit the beauty and dignity inherent in every man, woman and child. For one's soul to be kissed by God is an honored gift of grace and an invitation to a magnificent, never-ending love relationship. This is the essence — the core — of our being.

In most places they can receive all the same legal rights and benefits that a married couple has amounting to equality under law. The only difference is the word: civil union v. marriage. Some religious affiliations will even perform the marriage ceremony for them.

It's all there now.

Wow, Crowder, you brought out the militant atheists like rats out of a sinking ship. Must have touched a nerve. Oh, yeah, you questioned their religion. Gotcha.

"If they're not living life like I am, they aren't doing it right!"

Very broad and untrue statement to make about all Christians.

"Man is that he may have joy" I would also say that my view of life is not to impede, violate or mitigate in any way any of my fellow men or women in their attempts to have JOY in this life. (Not Fun)

I have been given a commission to help my brothers and sisters in any way I can and also let them exercise their Agency (Freedom to choose) to learn more about my God or to rightly be left the heck alone.

thats all I am saying…..no biggy…..its not brain surgery….lifes pretty simple
Good things happen, crappy things happen…Its about how we react to stuff and how we treat each other.

I don't believe in Unicorns either. So is that another religion I belong to?

This would make sense if atheists believed in 'nothing'. However, a true atheist would mock nihilists equally as Christians – nihilism is as faith-based as any religion.

How does 'decency' have anything to do with global warming or politics? Being a 'decent person' to your fellow human beings is completely independent. I've met (literal) devil-worshipers who were far kinder to people in general than most of the Christians I've met – and most Wiccans I'm friends with are overly-sweet-and-nice to a fault.

P.S. – Hollywood types tend to be Kabbalah (Jewish Mysticism), Scientologist, and Jewish, as well as agnostic/atheist. Just because a few prominent celebs profess atheism doesn't mean they all are.

Yeah but burning Atheist at the stake (albeit verbally) does not really open up frank and honest conversations….:)

I would gladly throw my lot in with a conservative god-less atheist any day than with someone from my own church (Harry Reid) when it comes to this great country !!!!!!!!

This is the root of the problem: literalists like George. The Book is both allegory and history at turns, the events that transpired for the tribes of Israel as well as their most sacred beliefs regarding the human condition. The first chapters of Genesis might very well *not* be history, but rather a very powerful and memorable statement of the human experience that free will is by definition an act of disobedience that results in a fall from grace. Some have called this the "happy fall" as it accompanies a greater clarification of individual will. But something is always lost when we rebel against and disobey our parents. Innocence, for example. The awe of their (former) infallibility. That George should read into it an angry vindictive father lashing out at his children tells me much more about George than anything else.

The shallowness of your understanding of Christian theology (intentional I feel) is astounding. You sound like you went to the Paul Begala School of Communications.

l have questions of atheism that no atheist has ever adequately answered.

-On what basis is moral/ethical atheism more valid than amoral/unethical atheism?
-Why shouldn't natural selection/survival of the fittest be the core ethic for atheists? What criteria would an atheist reject that ethic and on what basis would he embrace it.
-From an atheistic perspective should the majority always rule (i.e. why would minority rights be considered at all)? Shouldn't the greatest good be paramount? On what terms would an atheist reject majority rule? How would they determine the greatest good?
-Does altruism have precedence in an atheistic society over selfishness? Is altruism a core ethic of atheism (i.e. where are the atheist charities)?
-In an atheistic system can the concepts of good and evil be anything other than social consensus? If so, how?
-Under atheism when is rebellion appropriate, when is compliance proper. What guidelines do we use to make a determination?

More questions in the subsequent post.

We also obey our parents because we love them, but it would be foolish to argue that that love is entirely unmixed with the fear of punishment.

But then, neither of us expect that God is actually in this Universe to be proved or disproved.

"You were not put on this world to 'get it', Mr. Burton."

I am curious as to how atheists come to believe that Christians in the United States are trying to legislate their faith. Obviously, there are no laws compelling belief in God or in the tenets of one or the other of the Christian or Jewish denominations.

Apparently they mean that people want their strongest ethical values to be the law. Being against murder is a strong ethical value for example. So is protecting kittens from being smashed by mallets. Some Christians and Jews, as well as some agnostics, believe that abortion is morally wrong. What is wrong with trying to get that put back into law? Religion is derived from religio, which means the way we order life and establish our values. Every atheist does the same thing when he wants his ethical values written into law. Why is an ethical system that is both traditional and derived from religious values and reason different from an ethical system derived solely from individual reason?

Radical environmentalism is a religion, and one that could destroy our economy if all the values they hold are put into legal effect. There are many other examples of values system competing in the open market for acceptance as law. Excluding Christian and Jewish religious values from the same market place that secular 'religious' values compete in is absurd. The statement "your derivations for deciding the value of life are simply subjective and personal " applies to everyone.

I have great respect for science when it confines itself to scientific questions. When they want scientific values to override moral values, they are above their pay grade. Many things are scientifically possible. This doesn't make them ethical.

If whatever someone's doing isn't consensual – it's wrong.
If the action in question is harming someone, especially 'innocents' (animals, children, weaker people) it's wrong.
Depriving people of their choices is the ultimate 'sin' of most atheist philosophies – I would argue it's even more 'outrageous' than the belief in God.

Let me say – if all Christians behaved in a manner consistent with Jesus' teachings, atheists probably wouldn't have as much of an issue. Sure we'd still be upset over stupid things like Creationism, but the world would be a better place.

Do you ever wonder why Atheists generally don't harass Buddhists? Because their religion doesn't actively pursue other people and try to get them to change their lifestyles! Buddhism is a pretty good religion as far as they go.

My point about the difference between atheism and antitheism has just been made for me.

"I don't know and neither does anyone else " How do you know that no one else knows? I most certainly know. I know God exists, I know God loves me. (and not just me). And I know my redeemer lives. I don't try to force my beliefs and knowledge onto anyone else, but I will share when asked. But after 51 years, do not tell me what I know and do not know. To my daughters…I love you Ellen & Lucy and I miss you very much. Be good, listen to Mommy, and Lucy, wear your glasses!

Go and do good for the sake of good; no need for the false premise of a reward after death.

Without the prospect of reward, what are the material advantages of doing good for the sake of good? A reputation for honesty won't take you far in today's world.

Erm… aren't you just doing exactly what you accused BL of doing? Did you even read his post? There was nothing in it that insulted your intelligence – it was solid logic.

I'm no atheist, but there's a perfectly logical explanation for that: Christianity (AND Islam, while we're at it) are both evangelical faiths: It's not enough to BE a Christian, you have to make the whole world Christian too; often in the context of passing laws that infringe on personal freedom. Most of the others you mentioned either don't do that, or don't do it HERE (Hinduism has it's own country to eff with.) Especially Judaism – it's the great sick irony of world history that the Jews are the LEAST intrusive and bothersome of the Abrahamic faiths, yet they catch by far the MOST crap from everyone else.

The first person to post a picture of Steven Crowder wearing a monocle wins a kitten!

What The Bleep would have been a much better film if some of the weirder pseudoscience had been left out.

"Because "morality" strictly in the service of the needs of human beings has no obligation. Why am I obliged to help out any other sack of fluid and tissue?"

You aren't obliged. you either do or you don't. you're simply passing judgement after the fact. we certainly tend to help out other sacks of fluid and tissue the better we know that sack.

"Because there must be some logical reason for human beings to practice moral behavior, or else we wouldn't do it. "

Is it not better, more useful for my tribe, community, or family to work together than to work against eachother? Is it reasonable to suggest that that can be learned?

"The Judeo-Christian understanding of God satisfies it because it provides both an obligation and sanction attached to the neglect of morality, while an atheistic understanding does not."

Thats just solipsism.. If i am not a christian, can i not make the same moral judgments you can? Why does this get any additional points from any other creed, faith, or discipline?

yes, in fact I have. And it was the Christians who showed me love. I was shown that it was not me that they disliked, but rather they disliked what I was doing. And they showed the patience and love to show me why what I was doing was wrong. All they ever showed me was love. All I had to do was to step away from my arrogant self-assurance that I was always right in my choices because they were choices I made for me, not subject to review by others. They loved me enough to show me that I was worth their patience and effort to help. I am a living example of "hate the sin, love the sinner."

Hey, wait.

Atheism, or agnosticism, does not by default mean a belief in nothing.

Atheists (who believe in natural individual rights and liberties) by and large embrace the mystery of the origins and perpetuation of life in this world, and with as much or more passion and fervor, than does any believer in the conventional earthly religions.

OK, does logic have a cause?

It's irrelevant because you can never explain how something came from nothing

As one who does believe in the literal truth of the Bible, let me say this; I believe God to be omnicient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Really, who would want a god that is anything else? So if I believe these things, what is beyond His power and abilities? Now I'm not saying science is bad, or un-beneficial, or unworthy of the time and effort and money spent pursuing it. But if you look at how often accepted science has been wrong-throughout history-(watch the3 british series Connections, Connections 2, and The Day the Universe Changed hosted by James Burke) I'd choose to believe what God says on a particular matter first than rely on accepted science. Short example: examine the order of creation in Genesis and compare it with what science has come to learn about it. They match nearly exactly. So how did someone 5,000 yrs. ago gain this knowledge w/o the benfit of science? Lucky guess? I believe Moses wrote down what he was told happened, by the Person who actually did it.

No God means no transcendent value of anybody or any eternal value in your being.

Know God and it means the Universe was created for you by a loving Creator that wants an eternity with you in it to share in and augment this universe or any others.

"To be an atheist, is to say that there is nothing that can’t be explained by current science"

you dont back that up. keyword being current. atheists just believe there is no god therefore things can be explained logically not by some divine intervention. they don't claim to know all the answers though.

i am an atheist that not only means i don't believe in a god, i don't believe there was ever a god. i also believe the earth is round however hundreds of years ago current science said it wasn't, still means there wasnt a god. hundreds of years from now we will have more information about the world, humans, etc but there still wont be a god.

thats the largest of many many holes in this article. i am very disapointed…not because you attacked my belief (which unlike many religious a lot of liberal minded people enjoy healthy debate) but because of how poorly it was done.

–Why does this get any additional points from any other creed, faith, or discipline?

Because God gives us evidence that Jesus Christ is our only path to redemption and eternal life with a loving God who provided one path and only one truth. The Bible is a way that God communicates with everyone providing a path to the evidence that we are all endowed by our Creator with equality and a free will choice to accept Jesus or deny Him.

If there was no doubt about the existence of God then there would be no need for faith and there would be no free will choice either.

Yes, atheists have been running the world for 2000 years starting wars.

It's this type of ignorance that stereotypes believers are ignorant about reality.

I see. Its true because its in the bible and you believe in the bible because… its true. Thats quite a loop, if you'll forgive me for pointing out the obvious.

The image of something "more cavernous than Julia Roberts cakehole" is by itself more than worth the time reading all the rest of the article.

Your right Steven, those who have no God or higher power over them, have no moral responsibility. And in today's world responsibility is a bad thing. No one wants to have responsibility over anything, look at single parents, divorce rates, abortions, law suits etc.. everywhere you look people aren't wanting to take responsibility for themselves and anything around them.

You think if more people took care of themselves we would ever heard of "stimulus package"? Of course this also takes us to the topic of evolution vs creationism (or intelligent design) either way it takes faith to believe in either one of them. By definition science – "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation". That means you observe, test and retest. Evolution can't do that.. how many scientist were around 5 million years ago to observe changes made over the years? That's just a small drop in the ocean when it comes to evolution.. but again, it takes faith to believe the world is 4.7 billions years old. There isn't enough proof and no one was there to witness. So I ask.. why is a faith based subject being taught is public schools? That also degrade human life, and we wonder why kids act like animals, that's what they are being taught from grade school to college.

Exactly. They seem to make a lot of fuss about something that they don't think exists. When they do describe their view of God they create absurdities that no person of faith believes in. If they could describe the actual God Christians really believe in and disbelieve in him, I'd have more respect for them.

So, atheists. Describe a god that Christians actually believe in if you want to be more convincing.

"trying to squelch or smear a candidates position because that position may be informed by his religious beliefs is just plain wrong."

So you're alright with voting for.. say… a Satanist, or a blood-cultist… as long as they don't have any sort of criminal record? I really hate to bring it up, but Hitler was a pretty stellar politician and public figure.

Anything, even the most materialistic atheist, beats the "might makes right" attitude of religions, fascist governments, bullies and abusive parents.

Almost every sentence in this entry is misinformed. Get yourself a dictionary, look up the entry for “atheism” and then see if you can’t rewrite this to be more accurate. While you’re at it, you might want to read through the entries at http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ and make sure that these embarrassing logical mistakes don’t appear in your future writings.

Good luck.

If you can't use logic to debate, then what's the point of debating?!
Atheists can win ANY argument with Christianity based purely on logic. You're talking like a little child playing a game with their parent – instead of learning the rules of the game, you demand Atheists play by your nonsensical and arbitrary ruleset, just so you can win.

A finely-tuned universe is NOT evidence of a creator. There is no proof that we are the only 'universe' able to uniquely contain life. There is no proof that God values humanity above anything else. There is no proof that the universe happened by 'chance'.

I value my life and the world around me greatly – even more so since all evidence indicates this is the ONLY chance I get at life. Every moment in my life is made more beautiful by the fact that it is an existentially unique snapshot of the state of the universe, which can never be repeated. I am an utterly unique individual, and my choices are completely my own – based on the influences of the entire universe since the moment of its creation rather than the arbitrary whims of a jealous and vengeful god. I never have to look over my shoulder wondering if what I'm doing is right or wrong in the eyes of an unknowable force. The only burden on my soul is whether my decisions will hurt or help my fellow man, and my moral compass is the simplest one possible – "Will the good I do outweigh the harm?"

Can you posit a better world than one where everyone believed as I do? If so, I may consider joining your faith. Until then, I'm supremely happy being an atheist – one of the happiest people I know.

Example 1: In many states, it's illegal to sell alcohol on Sunday. It's not a coincidence that Sunday is considered the Lord's Day.
Example 2: Churches get tax breaks that other business do no not. They ARE in fact businesses that generate profit. Lots of it. Yes, I know, they give back to the community. So do other businesses.
Example 3: Remaining anti-homosexual sodomy laws were invalidated by the Supreme Court just recently, in 2003. Those laws were an extension of deeply-rooted Christian homophobia, and were certainly unconstitutional.

Not one of these laws actually protects anyone from anything.

The list goes on, but you only asked for one example.

If God can exist in an eternal 'now' why can't the universe? The things you are saying are meaningless platitudes used by theists to escape the rigors of scientific proof – it's the logical equivalent of plugging your ears and going "lalalala i'm not listening".

You can, actually, have an infinite amount of finite steps. Black holes are theoretical proof of this – enough 'finite' amounts of matter have gathered to create a point of infinite density.

Good and Bad are completely subjective terms. Let me explain very briefly.
You have two concepts – "1" and "0", or "Something" and "Nothing". Whatever you want to call them.
Arbitrarily, we say "1" is "Good" and "0" is bad. The goal is to maximize the number of "1"s in the universe – just fill the universe up with 1's! Go crazy!
At some point, let's imagine the universe is filled up with 1's – there's not a 0 to be found. At this point, '1' is absolutely meaningless – since there's nothing to compare it to. There has to be at least SOME "0" in order for "1" to have relevance.

Now reverse the idea – fill the universe up with 0's. Same problem – you still have to have some "1". There's no difference between the two arbitrary concepts – they behave in exactly the same matter within the framework of your 'morality'.

Now replace '0' and '1' with "Evil" and "Good" and you're a theist's conception of God – arbitrating morality in a situation where it isn't applicable, relevant, or helpful.

If you meant 'first cause' as in 'why do we have good and evil?' I blame that all on our evolutionary roots. We're all competing for limited resources and trying to maximize our resource intake – whether it's food, attention, love, experiences, what have you.

Being a Bob Dylan fan (and Dylan is a believer in God), the time is right to recall what he said
in an interview once: "The only principles you'll find are in the Bible. The Book of Proverbs has them all."

Humans totally have meaning in an Atheistic universe. We're absolutely unique constructs that are the MOST COMPLICATED KNOWN organization of evolved, random, abiogenetically generated constructs. We're each individually the most beautiful things in the universe (at least until we encounter something more evolved? aliens?)

Life has MORE value without God than with it. Sure, plankton is 'more important to the ecosystem' but the ecosystem isn't the only point of existence.

Hypothetical situation – A giant asteroid is coming to wipe out all life on Earth. Humans build nukes and shove it out of a collison course. The earth is saved, and all the life on it. Wouldn't you say that – in this situation – Humans were more 'important to the ecosystem' than every single piece of life on Earth? Plankton didn't do anything.

I don't know a lot of sad, miserable atheists. When I do meet sad 'atheists' it only takes a few minutes of talk to determine that they're really not atheists, they're usually nihilists or some other sort of messed up philosophy/religion that requires just as much faith as any traditional religion. I can unequivocally say that on the whole, all the atheists I know are happier than an equal amount of Christians.

And it's really, really bad to not have babies with messed up physiological problems. Instead, it's better to let them grow up and live an existence of undue suffering and pain. Or in the case of overpopulated nations, it's better to continually have children and let them die of starvation due to lack of food caused by all the other people thinking the exact same way.

Richard Dawkins explains a good chunk of this in his book "The Selfish Gene". I dare you to read it… if any Christians ask why you're reading such atheist trash, just tell them it's for "research… know thy enemy".

Please write down any questions you have that aren't answered by that book. I think you'll be surprised at how few there are.

Which brings up the question, "Why should we love God?" Because he says so?
You're second-guessing God, which is something the Bible expressly forbids.

Morality evolves from the most simple of logical equations – namely, a self-destructive system cannot continue. Any life on this planet exists because of cooperation between organisms, and at a more 'meta' level, 'cooperation' between molecules that replicated themselves. This is why the universe seems so 'perfect' – anything less than perfect simply couldn't exist – it would fall apart.

You're an angry soul, George.

Why?

And again, someone doesn't understand what separation of Church and State means. Christians have equal rights and freedoms to let their beliefs influence their opinions and political policies, just as you atheists do. Separation of Church and State is restricted for government and public institutions, blocking mandatory religious practices such as prayer. It is NOT a thought-police type of system that heathens can use to force or encourage the abandonment of personal beliefs.
You can't claim "Ah-ah-ah! Separation of Church and State!". But that works great for you right? You don't have a "church" to keep separate from government, but you still push atheist legislation all the time, which I would argue comes from the "church" of atheism.

Again, I return to George, the angry soul.

You wouldn't last a minute in Hollywood, the basis of this site. One of the most sacred edicts of this town in terms of storytelling is that character is defined in moments of trauma. And, as Chaucer correctly asserts, character is destiny.

I would say that in moments of sheer terror, true nature erupts through the syncophantic falsehoods of ego. If, in an instant of terror — an earthquake, or a gun to the head — the atheist cries out, "God, please save me" if only for an instant (a nano-second for those that worship at the altar of science), then he/she is a hypocrite and narcissist for returning to the belief that there was no divine hand at hand once the terror has passed.

As far as "true believers" go, I truly believe that atheists are profoundly narcissistic.

Being "important" isn't even relevant – it just strokes your ego. I'll admit, it feels nice to be loved and considered special. But walking around actually thinking you are more "meaningful" than plankton is sad.

If there was no plant life on earth, how would you breath?

Exactly. In fact, atheists are more zealous than the Zealots were. They have no proof God doesn't exist, and yet they shout it out more loudly than any believer would. Why, you say? Because a little part of them knows they're wrong. But they're too afraid too explore it. Just as any alcoholic would deny his little problem.

I've met people from all walks of life. I've lived in jewish neighborhoods, mexican neighborhoods, super-white neighborhoods. I've been in jail (for a short time, but still…) I've worked in a morgue, as a video game programmer, with children, in a rehab, a computer lab, a halloween store, delivering flyers, as a salesperson for radio spots, a tech guy for mortgage industry software…

I've met lots of people, and it's fairly easy to tell when people believe in God and when they don't. I've come to expect a baseline standard of behavior from human beings – regardless of faith. If everyone would just stick to that baseline, the world would be GREAT.

The thing that gets me is when people go out of their way to be assholes. Most Atheists I know could care less what people believe, as long as they keep their faith to themselves and their family/friends. But Atheists get mad when any Theist tries to legislate morality to ANYONE, based on bad logic, unprovable claims, or blind faith.

If a waitress brought me extra coffee, I'd thank her no matter what faith she was. If she treated me poorly, I'd be upset, and try to get her to behave in a more helpful manner. But if she treats me poorly and then says it's because she's a Christian and I'm a godless Atheist and I'm going to hell because I don't believe the same thing she does… well then… we have a problem.

One last example – fairly recently in the news was a tale of a group of so-called 'Christians' who refused to tip their waitress because she was working on a Sunday. They ate food in a restaurant that was open, and gladly accepted her service, but refused to pay her anything above the bill. You would never… EVER… catch an Atheist doing something like that. Maybe not-tipping for bad service, or other reasons… but not for an arcane and unknowable law with no causal correlation to anything the poor waitress had ever done.

And all you had to do was "Accept Christ", right?

They got something out of helping you – another convert to their way of life. I'm glad your life is better, and I'm glad your faith helps you… but that doesn't mean it's right, or even that it makes sense.

We used to live in an unconstitutional monarchy. Good thing the revolutionaries didn't just 'Shut up and deal with it'.

Damn, that's the most fascist, oppressive thing I've read on the internet today. I'd congratulate you, but I'm too disturbed that there are people who think like you.

"If you loved me you would do it," is the classic line of a manipulator.

When "God" writes those words in flaming letters, 30 feet high, upon the face of the heavens, then I'll believe He wrote them. When I hear those words inside my head, and He speaks them to all men simultaneously, independently, then I'll believe it.

You read those words from a book, printed by men. That book was based off a copy of the book printed by other men, and so on down to Gutenberg. Before that, the book was hand-printed, before that it was hand-written, and before that it was oral tales, told by illiterates.

If "unwittingly, people get caught up in the protean reasoning that allows them to shift to whatever acceptable social norms are popular at the time" – doesn't Christianity follow this logic as well?

In short –
1) The "Word of God" was written by men, not God.
2) Creationist "research" isn't real science, in any way. It's posturing and lies by ignorant people, to distract from the truth of science.
3) "Godly Counsel" is unprovable. No two men receive the exact same words from God, or even similar answers. Meditation and prayer are simply seeking patterns within the echoes of your own mental processes – interpreting meaning from noise.

Best Theist post on this site. Keep it up man.

I'm sure I don't really have anything profound to add to the discussion but I suppose I'll add my two cents…

I went through what I guess you could call an 'atheist period' in my twenties, but I never *really* subscribed to the belief. Like any college-aged kid I was just trying to sort out my belief system separate from my parents. I wasn't raised in a particularly religious household. We were technically Catholic, but lapsed at best. College, pseudo intellectual conversations and the media had a lot to do with my disillusionment with religion though God had never done anything to offend me personally. I suppose I simply attempted to adopt atheism as a way of trying to be *enlightened*– as ironic as that is.

But as I get older I see it (atheism) as an incredible bit of hubris on my part. I know that whatever knowledge I possess is like a grain of sand to all the beaches in the world. I can't presume to know God's plan but I do believe in something far larger than myself and I take comfort in it. I won't try to convince anyone else to believe as I do. I think faith is something between oneself and God.

Oh no you didn't just quote scripture as an argument!

Is there even such a thing as a "radical Buddhist?" I know China probably thinks so, what would that even LOOK like? I guess those guys who set themselves on fire circa-Vietnam would count, and even THAT seems like the most accomodating, middle-of-the-road form of "terrorism" I can think of.

Excuse me, what? I'm a complete and utter Atheist, and the most irresponsible thing I've ever done is speed on the freeway.

God is the ultimate absolution of responsibility. If your baby dies… "Oh, it was God's plan." No matter how badly you behave in life, all you have to do is "believe in Jesus" and all your sins are magically washed away. You don't even have responsibility for your actions, since technically Omniscient, Omnipresent God either made you do what you just did, or knew you were going to do it.

I agree people don't want to take responsibility, but that's something that's common across ALL humans, and especially not 'just atheists'. I also thought "marriage' was supposed to be a holy union between two people under the auspices of God – so the increasing divorce rate indicates that Christians are becoming increasingly irresponsible.

The MASSIVE difference seperating environmentalists from being a religion is that, outside of the VERY tiny minority of "gaia worship" types environmentalism is based on science and fact. Flawed, in some cases, but tangible things based on evidence, reason and reality none the less. Religion, on the other hand, is not. If there was hard evidence to support "beliefs," they'd cease to BE beliefs – they'd be FACTS (or at least theories.)

There is NO logical, scientific or even simply evidence-based reason why it ought be illegal to abort a pre-viable fetus. There is similarly NO reason to deny equality to homosexuals. If we continue to make law based on sentimentality and/or spiritual supposition, we will only become less and less distinguishable from the barbarian (i.e. overwhelmingly religion-based) societies we now find ourselves at war with.

"Atheists out there, am I wrong?"

Yes.

Being wrong is good, as long as you learn from it. If you know something is wrong and do it anyways, that's "bad".

You measure any behavior as 'good' or 'bad' by its benefit to other people. If I take food from 100 people to eat it myself, that's "bad". If I give food to 100 people, that's "good". From a purely utilitarian perspective, 'the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people' is a goal to maximize "good".

I absolutely disagree with the idea that humans are 'depraved to the core of our nature' by any standard. What a horrible idea! What sort of sick, twisted God would 'create' humans to do things that were 'bad' simply so he could 'save' them? It's like setting an anthill on fire, then pouring water on it and claiming you 'saved' the ants.

Here's how I behave, as an Atheist. I do what I can to benefit myself, my family, and my friends. Then I do what I can to benefit everyone in general. I try to do as little as possibly that harms other people so I can benefit. If I have to take advantage of someone else so I can benefit, I do it only when absolutely necessary, and that is the ONLY time I feel guilty. I only feel bad when I'm causing harm to other people . Isn't that much simpler, happier, healthier, and sane than all that complicated nonsense about 'needing to be saved' from our own innate desires?

Humans have basic needs to be met in order for our continued survival – air, water, food, shelter, companionship, sex, etc. We try different things to obtain those necessities, and based on the success of our actions, we continue that behavior. Trying to obtain those things is ABSOLUTELY NATURAL… but the methods we use to obtain our needs are subject to the judgement of our society, our peers, and ultimately logic.

Steven, to paraphrase from that great philosopher Inigo Montoya, you keep using that word "atheism." It does not mean what you think it means.

Oh, wait. I just read your bio. You're a comic.

I get it now. You were trying to be funny.

"Today, some people kill abortionists in the name of God. Are these people unwilling pawns of religion or using religion to justify their own evil agendas?"

You need to have your facts in order Technohazard.

See the evidence: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrociti...

Understand that in the 20th century alone atheism as a cocktail mixed with political systems is responsible for approximately 107,047,000 deaths as a middle number of Democide attributed to atheistic value systems of those political systems. The removal of the idea that there is any god has been the bloodiest of consequences for the twentieth century. And my evidence provide only goes to 1987.
Regardless of how westernized atheist may view themselves it is the idea that we are morally unhinged from any Moral Law Giver that has freed mankind's inhumanity to man.

If there is no consequence or justice that can reach you after death then you are free to do as Josef Stalin did after he turned his back on God. If God does not exist then this century is free to be bloodier then the last one was. The metaphorical gun to your head will be the earthly god of political power commanding you to obedience.

Whether it's by Muslims, Christians, or Atheists, killing is generally wrong.

If you've read your Bible, the "God" of the Old Testament commands you to stone homosexuals to death. If you're not killing homosexuals, you're not following God's word. That's what "intolerance of sin" means – killing anyone who 'sins' according to the Bible. This justification was used by the tribes of Israel to murder damn near anyone who displeased them – mostly neighboring tribes or kingdoms, but also each other.

There's no such thing as Christ's blood, that's an allegorical tale handed down by ignorant shepherds for 2000+ years.

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.
When you "Sin" or do something to hurt your fellow man, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DECISION. It's not the fault of an invisible man in the sky, or a horned and hoofed devil. Your action was not 'less wrong' because you asked someone for forgiveness, and it's certainly not okay because a BOOK written by fallible men says it's okay.

How can God be "just and loving" when he condones murder, torture, genocide, slavery, and warfare, but it's totally not okay to have a loving relationship with a person of the same gender? How is it okay to declare someone the 'enemy' just because they believe in a different invisible-sky-person?

So when children submit to their parents, their parents are God?
And when people submit to their pastors, because their pastors 'read the Bible' the pastor is their God?
What about when people submit to the laws of their society, like the Constitution. Is that their god?

I'm an atheist, and an empiricist, and I believe in logic, and science, and rational thought. I'm not afraid to admit there are many things beyond my understanding, and I strive to understand those things. When I've reached the limits of what logic and science can tell us, THAT is what I might even start to consider a "God". Those unknowable things are the absolute limit of the sum total of human understanding – and they certainly don't have any relevant bearing on whether or not I work on Sunday, smoke marijuana, have sex outside of marriage, or cut my beard.

The amazing thing is, both Alex and George demonstrate the same thing: superficial knowledge used as an excuse to sneer.

And no, Alex, I'm not interested in "he started it" as a justification.

Very persuasive. You have converted me with this drivel.

No. No you are not.

(In case people were wondering, I place myself in the "agnostic" category.)

Enjoy bowing down to your Giant Invisible Man That Lives In The Sky. Just stop going around trying to force other people into worshiping your Giant Invisible Man That Lives In The Sky.

Stop trying to ban books, shows, and the Internet, just because someone said that the Giant Invisible Man That Lives In The Sky doesn't like them.

Stop trying to claim that the Giant Invisible Man That Lives In The Sky prefers a certain political party that protects the unborn and yet ignores the hunger of the already-born.

Stop trying to put open bigotry against a group of people you claim that the Giant Invisible Man That Lives In The Sky hates.

IMO, Christians are proof that there really is no Giant Invisible Man That Lives In The Sky.

–A finely-tuned universe is NOT evidence of a creator.

Ok then you have a burden of proof. I need you to provide your evidence in a way that is in keeping

It is true that we both can share a value for life and the immense complexity that is all around us. But if your are correct then there is more meaning in plankton as far as this planets fine tuned and delicate ecosystem. Science is like an opposable thumb in which to use the fingers of theology to grasp a comprehension of all the evidence there is for God. The evidence should be overwhelming but atheists have cognitive dissonance to cling to as a cherished atheistic confirmation bias blinding some to the truth.

Technohazard you can be supremely happy in your rejection of God but in three generations there will be little memory of you other then some internet archive of your postings. A godless universe means you and I are little more than a cosmic joke if you have the truth and can give me the evidence you have a burden now to provide to me.

You are SUCH a thinker. Keep up the good work brainiac! Wow.

Paul Begala School of Communications. LOL> I was going to post things on this thread, but lack of understanding of what Christianity is, has completely turned me off of this thread. I love Steven, but this is one topic I abhor. Discussing faith with non-believers? I admire those of you giving it a go, but I will have to pass.

What makes you think a good number of Christians HAVEN'T read Dawkins? You are the one making assumptions now, and painting things with a broad brush. I read "The Selfish Gene" some time back, and no, I didn't have any questions, I already knew Dawkins POV.

–Do you support the death penalty for murderers and/or rapists? Even though there is always a small percentage of innocent people wrongly convicted?

This should be up to the victims family. If I take a life then my life should be forfeited as payment for my crime. The life taken by a criminal act of murder requires that the life taker is subject to the victims family and what they decide in regard to the death penalty.

–Do you support killing people in other countries so that you remain safe in yours?

My Christian conviction is that I should be a conscientious objector. I would rather sacrifice my life in defense of my country in a non-combatant roll then be turned into a killing machine. This is my personal conviction as someone who never wants to kill or take any life. Your question as stated would mean that I do not support killing if I am to remain safe. I would rather die in service and support of the front line military action than remain a bystander. Yet I do recognize that being a conscientious objector would require my involuntary conscription into the military.

Good Job me bucko! Yar!
I have become a big fan of your stuff lately.
You are going somewhere with this.
You have all the RIGHT ideas.
Good Luck to you.

The thing about Atheism is it is NOT a set of beliefs. It is simply without belief in GOD. Therefore, it is nothing.
It does not answer anything or lead anywhere. It is not the basis for anything. It is instructive that Marxism has to crush religion in order to worship and and the state.
Atheism carries no moral or ethical values, so the atheist must have to construct them, This is why so much of modern philosophy is BS. They are constructs and Rube Goldberg contraptions.

hey steven,
i just wanted to clear a MAJOR misunderstanding you seem to have with atheism.
at least to me it seems that none of the major 3 religions embrace all life. yes, maybe the sheeps in their flocks… but other humans or even other sentient beings? don't think so.

there is no 'american', 'canadian', 'iraqi', 'iranian', 'german' etc anymore. we're all just people. and some are way more stupid than others… that's it. as i always say: "it's not nation against nation, religion against religion. there are idiots on every side. it's up to us how we treat these morons."
do you listen to rush's ramblings or do you laugh at him and switch the station?
do you listen to olberman's crazy ramps or do you cry for him and switch the station?

if i was a religious man i would pray to my space god that people open their harts and close their propaganda news channels

(ps: part of the silent revolution of truth)

Right on! Attack the belief system on the grounds that it has unpleasant implications. THAT makes a lot of sense. Lots of truths are inconvenient, but are no less true. So, one is to accept a belief in God despite indications to the contrary?. If so, WHICH of the myriad gods? The unitary god of Judaism or Islam? The Triune god of (some versions) Christianity? The multiple gods of the Romans, Greeks, Norse or Navahoes? You are pathetic.

One bit of common ground, though, between theists and atheists is natural law. Sure, Christians might think that this is law "written on the heart" by God, but atheists might argue that what we think of as "natural law" is simply evolutionary psychology written into our genetic identities. Either way, that qualifies in some sense as "knowing within"–something we "know" instinctively. For practical purposes, I don't think it matters where this knowledge comes from so long as we recognize it as somehow common to humans as a species.

I would hope that the thinking and reasoning atheists who read the article understand that the atheist world view is hard to understand. I share the sentiment that atheists don't make sense to me.

One of the more glaring defects to an atheistic world view is that it has no positive inducement or reward. Atheists seem to want to define themselves by what they don't believe rather then submit to a burden of proof for what they do believe. On of the more glaring atheist obfuscations is how they feel they have no burden of proof or that there debate tactics of evasion are in any way a substantive argumentation.

If your are a militant Atheist with more definitions on what you don't believe and make effort to some how think that being a non-believer even makes logical sense then you are not looking at the big picture of what a godless universe means.

A godless pitiless universe of naturalistic outcome makes humanity the most supreme joke ever as we are all then just meaningless instinct to find meaning an transcendent purpose from the rocks that dream of nothing. Atheism if true is the entropy that robs all the social energy from the social system. Christianity is then a meaningless attempt at social glue that atheism must act to unbind in a road to entropic perdition.

If there is no God then we are once again at the center of the solipsistic universe the old pre-Copernican dogma will be back as no transcendent meaning to the starry hosts above will be found. We will all be the solipsist gods of our domain and our eternity is however long the body lives.

–I'm still open to evidence for the bronze age Israelite war-god. Unfortunately, after 2000 plus years there is not one lick of evidence for him. NOT ONE.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

My faith in God has evidence yet like a mustard seed it stared small and had to grow and be tested. I will never find God by denying the manifest evidence that can be found all around us by deduction and inductive reasoning.

You are correct to say there is NOT ONE evidence as there is an exponential wealth of evidence for God if one is open to God and how science and the Bible can reveal an infinite God to our limited finite mind. We are not predestined because God has the knowledge all the infinite possible futures yet we are the ones who by free will choice are collapsing the quantum superpositions and fixing the state of Schrodinger's Cat.

You Sir, are a Troll! Did you just graduate out of a christian high school and this was the best topic for an article that you could come up with?

Whether it's by Muslims, Christians, or Atheists, killing is generally wrong.

Why?

To an atheist, there's nothing after this life. Relatively speaking, the world has begun with your birth and will cease to exist upon your death. So what's the worst that can happen from killing someone? Incarceration? Just keep trying to escape, go down in a blaze of glory, even to avoid capture. Now or eighty years from now, same result. Why do you even worry about the law? It's your world, your life, might as well have fun. Don't like the laws, the rules, just break them, tear it all down, watch it all burn. You're afraid someone will take your life? Kill them first! What are you really going to get out of this life? Nothing. If you play nice and stay alive, you get to be old, decrepit, unable to do anything to your benefit, maybe even so senile you'll be unable to notice you're about to cease to exist. And there's a great chance you won't even get that far, people get struck down for many reasons.

Do you deny the relative and insist on the absolute, there was a world before you that will continue after you? Do you want to be remembered? Be a bastard. Billions of decent people have passed from this earth unnoticed, forgotten. Gandhi is still historically fresh, and is being transformed into legend then myth, then discounted as impossibly inhumanly good. But we remember Genghis Khan. Will you be remembered by your works? The great masters of art are supplanted by new ones, and time destroys their creations, their relevance. Philosophers by themselves, same. Marx would be a curious historical footnote without Stalin, Mao, and their ideological descendants, his memory is upheld by the bastards he inspired. What, you want your kids to think nice about you? A passing remembrance at best, and why you'd want to inflict this harsh reality on someone else who'll suffer and gain nothing is beyond me.

There is no higher authority to answer to, you will cease to exist after death. So, live it up! Oh wait, there's that nagging "do unto others" talk. Be logical, and accept that as the absolute prescription for creating obedient, forgettable sheep who live to serve those taking advantage of them. It's your life, your one and only experience of existence. Live! Kill!

The point of any belief system shouldn't be to reflexively reject authority but to better ascertain truth.

Science itself has two significant articles of faith:
1. The universe is knowable.
2. The laws of science are appliable and consistent everywhere.

Authority can and often is, right. Given the variability in mental abilities judgment in one's own mind should not be the sole criteria in determining truth.

Be kind of neat to watch though…

radio carbon dating is exactly the type of science I was referring to in an earlier post about how, throughout history the "accepted" science of the day was wrong (see James Burke- Connections, Connections 2, and The Day the Universe Changed). Science once told us that -planets and other celestial objects moved thru space within pre-defined crystal tubes, it told us that apply leeches and other bloodletting were medicinal cures, and muc much more things like that. As for carbon dating, just look at the many scientific disputes about the Shroud of Turin. I happen not to believe it to be Jesus' burial shroud. But the carbon dating work on the shroud, most recently done, I think in the late 70's/early 80's has been scientifically disputed and called into question. Who can tell what part of accepted science will be proven to be false in 100 years? Look at global warming, already being shown, by science, to be a panic inducing fallacy.

Ahhh yes. The "leave me alone" philosophy. I guess if you were driving towards a cliff and were about to plunge over you'd prefer that I leave you alone as opposed to trying to stop you. In the end that is all we as Christians try to do: SAVE YOU.

Also, I have never met a Christian that once someone says "not interested" pressed the issue further. Unless they are related to you of course (I admit to being more adamant with my brother and sister that are living as heathens, but then I have neices and nephews to think about!). So your point about Buddhists is irrelevant.

Further, this kind of thinking ("I GET TO DECIDE THE GOOD RELIGIONS AND BAD RELIGIONS") is just the kind of thing Steven was speaking about. Atheists think they are better than the religious because they are more scholarly, which is a joke, but it causes them to think they get to decide what religions are worthy.

Steve, you need to read more. The Atheist simply states that I have read all the arguments in favor of Theism and find them unconvincing. It need make no positive claim that god does not exist. If you look at the history of the word itself you'll see that it was coined by Theists to threaten and insult Deists (like Thomas Jefferson) originally. A (meaning without) and theism (meaning the god of the Abrahamic tradition)

In regard to life having no intrinsic value without a god, that by no means follows. If there was no god would you love your mother less? I would not. In fact, it is only Theists whom I hear ask, implying that they are restraining themselves , again and again, that "if there is not god what is to stop me from running out and robbing a bank or raping a woman." To them I say if you need a god to refrain from that type of behavior you are a swine regardless if there is a god or not.

Reason is usually reasonable and when you find yourself assuming ridiculous position on behalf of a certain group (in this case Atheists) you probably need to do a little research. Try Sam Harris or Dawkins or Mackie for starters.

On the other hand, I have a friend (in LA, raised in rural Virginia) who's the nicest guy I know. He's not religious at all and I use him as an example to indicate one doesn't need religion to be good. (Don't get me wrong – I'm friends with religious people too and they're good people.) And I believe there's a difference between non-religious and anti-God. I can understand why some people take comfort in the fact that someone is watching over them. That's a good (dare I say, sacred) thing and I would never presume to know better.

As far as the value of human life. If we did come out of the swamp, then look at us now! You're telling me we have no intrinsic value because we don't have an omnipresent third party to judge us? Look at what humans have accomplished since crawling out of the muck! I'd say there's value in that whether you believe it was guided by an outside force or not.

Sorry for this nonsensical rambling.

Okay, the first part of this post appeared, then I foolishly edited it ,and it went back into moderation oblivion. Oy!

Barack Obama – "I won."

Busses in the UK ran an atheist-sponsored advert worded
something like this: “There is probably no God. So relax and enjoy life.”

A possible rejoinder might be:
“An atheist believes that if he can defraud you
for personal gain and get away with it, then
nothing really bad happens in the end.”

I think there are far less literalists than most anti-religionists, anti-Christians have painted there to be. That doesn't mean there are none, but I know a great many Christians having been raised among them, and none of them are literal interpretation folks. I personally think that at most, the Bible is an example of ancient man doing his best to explain the unexplainable in the context of his understanding. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the events of Genesis mirror a scientific description of the Big Bang in a primitive fashion if you throw out the ridiculous issues of timing.

There have been incidents of Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire before. http://www.ask.com/bar?q=Buddhist+monks+setting+t...

Again, this betrays how little you really know or understand about those you villify. And it boils your arguemtn down to "but you do it too."

I once met an atheist. I think.
If only I could carbon date, print, cap the experience.. to prove it actually happened, oh well..

Sweet, Atheism and Agnostiicsm are two entirely different kettles of fish.

But Steven wrote it himself: "Human worth is ultimately left up to societal circumstances, ".. that about covers an atheist's primary though process… (or so I see it). As I see it, society changes often enough that how can an atheist have a core value to begin with?

walker, but by that statement, if they were able to successfully debate/impel you to the point that you should be decapitated, as an Atheist, wouldn't you be "obligated" to go along with it?

Science being wrong about something doesn't invalidate it. The invalidated theory is simply discarded and you work with what evidence you have. In theory. Also, if you prove a scientific theory incorrect, it does not automatically prove an opposing viewpoint to be correct. It just means one must go back to the drawing board and try to sort out how the invalidating evidence fits into everything. The other viewpoint still has to be proven on its own.

The problem with global warming is that politics is being input into the process, leading to embracing of ideas that are not backed up and ignoring data that contradicts what the "acceptable" theory says.

Oh, and creationism? Not science. To be blunt, most of what I've seen/read about it looks like someone is just seizing whatever evidence matches their religious beliefs and ignoring the rest. Also some rather clumsy misunderstanding of what the actual scientific theories are, like, say, claiming humans evolved from today's apes… or presuming evolution in nature is a constant improvement, and so on.

Also, maybe it's my agnosticism rearing it's ugly head, but have any of you considered that maybe the Biblical stories were deliberately aimed at a Bronze Age audience and might not be quite exact in a few things? Perhaps Yahweh was focusing more on moral issues rather than quantum physics?

Are you serious?
In the name of atheism? yeah right.

Hitler thought jews were lesser humans and that it was his (god given) right to rid the world of them.
Stalin did what he did because he was a power hungry dictator. Same with the other Dictators you might want to list up here.
Not one of them said im doing this in the name of atheism or "im doing this because there is no god, so thats my duty".

Again, this is not "in the name of atheism"
All of them wanted to replace religion with their own kind of state/leader worship.
It has nothing to do with atheism. Atheists don't have an agenda or a dogma they have to follow. It merely is the rejection of a claim. Atheists don't want people to worship a state or a leader.

"I could easily argue that for every single person killed by an Atheist, Theists have killed a thousand times over."

And to this statement I'd recommend doing some research on the agricultural redevelopment programs of the Soviet Union and Red China, because they make that statement look so absurd it's ridiculous.

Christians are accountable based on a logic, and if you want to argue logic, I'll go 12 rounds with you. Or, to save us both time, you could look a man by the name of Thomas Aquinas.

Poppycock is an anglicized spelling of the Dutch for "soft poop, baby poop," which is about what I think of your sweeping but uninformed generalizations.

Amy, in my view, Ayn Rand, who championed the Stolen Concept fallacy, did a bit of stealing of her own with "rational atheism."

Rand's moral code is an elaborate outgrowth of the Ten Commandments, with heavy emphasis on Thou Shalt Not Covet. The Judaic roots of Objectivism are undeniable.

If you would be so kind as to tell everyone WHERE exactly the Old Testament says to stone homosexuals to death, that would be great. Leviticus is the book of OT law, just to give you a head start. We'll be waiting…

Techno, there is a reason we are called Christians – we follow Christ, ergo, we follow the New Testament. I know I am a Christian and I follow the New Testament. So your statement, "Christians DO NOT follow the New Testament" is a blanket assumption and therefore false.

perhaps you misunderstood our point- we've heard from quite a few atheists- what we are asserting is there is some confusion even among non-believers about what itreally is that they don't believe. Agnostics don't rule out the possibility that God exists, they jusy don't buy it. Most 'non-believers' we have encountered aren't didactic about their non-belief, but interestingly enough all feel a need to address their values as if we would believe they have none. So, the question we pose to you is this: if something is morally wrong, than it supposes that there are moral absolutes. Why, and where do they come from, and who is the arbiter? By the by, we have never mentioned hedonism or atrributed any negatives to non-believers, just a little confusion is all…

The Bing Bang Theory: First there was nothing. Then it exploded……

it's called original sin; we are all sinners who struggle every day to reject that which is inside all of us that would make us do evil… logic is compatible with this belief system. It is not a 'sick twisted God' but the fight against evil (it does exist- trust us on this) no one is born perfect in deed or act. The one thing we have seen from the reactions on this post is atheists are to a large extent knife-edge angry… why? Has not the Christian concepts which have propelled the modern world made this country the best place to live?

The KCA states…
1. Everything that BEGINS has a Cause.

God doesn't begin.

Johnyfriegas dealt nicely with this further down the post.

Cyclical in nature….
–Only about a hundred cycles are possible according to science with each cycle accumulating more entropy. An Eternal Universe is impossible due to 1) Second Law of Thermodynamics. 2) If you start infinitely into the Past, you'll never reach the Present. 3)There seems to be a relatively popular theory called, oh, the Big Splash, uh, the Big Boom, or something like that…ah…the Big Bang! Yes, that's it. So in order to defend Atheism, you're abandoning most of Establishment Science. Very brave of you.

Y'know, some of us evil awful Godless heathens are just fine with you believing whatever you want. Some of us even appreciate the trappings of religion – the beauty of the architecture, the music, the happiness, the commitment to your fellow man. Those of us who aren't all prickly about it can be moved by Handel's Hallelujah chorus – even if we don't have the faith, we can respect the expression of faith that brought it into being.

There is much about religion worth admiration and even emulation, even for the non-religious. What's wrong with "do unto others as you'd have done to you" as a rule, whether you believe it came from God or not? "Thou shalt not commit murder" and "thou shalt not commit adultery" seem like pretty good ideas regardless of the source.

Unfortunately, the most radical of us "heathens" are frequently the most vocal, and thus the most commonly cast as the de facto spokespersons for the entire mindset. The most snotty, the most self-righteous, the most condescending. And if you step back and take a look, I think you'll find this is no less true of your own flock. Or any other.

For every simpering, whiny sot who gets full-body hives and a case of the vapors over a nativity scene on public ground, there may be dozens of us who don't care, or even appreciate it as a completely inoffensive expression of a people's hope and joy.

But why do you want to do good?

Hey Phil, ease up. I don't think Jesus taught your brand of Christianity. And not with the attitude you have in your post. If I was a non-believer and I was searching for the truth and I met you and you said you me what you just said in your post, I would not want to be like you and enter the fold if that is how I had to be. You got to live it, don't condemn everyone else. Jim Jones and that dude at Waco did that and well, the rest is history.

God is the ultimate absolution of responsibility.

Heh, hardly. Do you have any idea how many of the Old Testament laws dealt with repayment and reparations? Using God to duck personal responsibility was practically impossible. Jesus, at worst, decried religious laws only as far as saying following the spirit of them mattered more than the exact letter of them, and commonsense could matter most. He was no law-breaker, at least as far as civil laws, and actually encouraged people to obey them, to take personal responsibility. He let himself be killed by the law, when he could easily have defied it. Personal responsibility all the way to death.

You don't even have responsibility for your actions, since technically Omniscient, Omnipresent God either made you do what you just did, or knew you were going to do it.

Massive Fail. We have free will, we make our choices. Then decide what responsibility we'll take. And knowing that someone is always watching and keeping score, our eternal Santa Claus for adults determining what our big gift will be, does remarkable things to encourage accepting responsibility.

I also thought "marriage' was supposed to be a holy union between two people under the auspices of God – so the increasing divorce rate indicates that Christians are becoming increasingly irresponsible.

Newsflash, there are marriages besides those done by a preacher, lots of non-religious civil ceremonies. Maybe you should try to dig up rates, see if it's the Christian and other faith-based ones which are going up faster than the non-religious ones, if at all. And quick Vegas "Minister Elvis" ceremonies don't count.

RE: Buddhists

Have you ever lived in a Buddhist country? I lived in Taiwan for a while, if your main beef with Christianity is the lack of consistency (which by the way is built into Christianity, "we are all sinners" etc., Christianity is about imperfect people striving towards an ideal. I guess Atheists have no sympathy for that.), then Buddhism would really set you off. People there are just as cruel and inconsistent in their faith as you claim Christians are. Not to say they are bad people, but rather they have the foibles of all humanity.

Buddhism is as much of a missionary faith as Christianity. Otherwise how did it spread out of India to begin with? There are Buddhist clergy here in the States seeking converts too.

And Atheists not seeking to change people? Twentieth century history tells us otherwise. Atheists have spilled more blood in the last century than any other belief group. In the countries where they, as Communists, took over, Mao killed over 30 million, and strove to change people on the most basic level.

But perhaps you are saying, "Wait, Wait! Even though Communists were Atheists, I am not a Communist, and I despise what they did!" Fair enough, yet your post, and Atheists in general (in my experience) pull a similar trick with Christianity. They point to the worst behavior of "Christians" and brand that "Christianity." I don't like that some Christians behave in an unchristian way, but that is not an indictment of Christianity, but rather a lament that people do not take the opportunity Christianity offers to better one's self.

That bit of Scripture exactly describes the current pro-gay atheist, if I'm not mistaken. Very appropriate quoting. Its almost like there are certain mental patterns that humans fall into, and that God the Creator knew those patterns and described them in a book.

Nah, thats crazy talk.

kadaka,

Your post is proven by young adults who commit school shootings whether in the 'burbs or the inner city.

Note that these shooters don't kill in the name of some deity. When's the last time you've seen a Blood gangbanger kill someone for worshipping the wrong deity? And the Columbine killers rejected the very idea of Christ being God.

No, these shooters kill because they don't believe in any Supreme Judge who will hold them accountable for their actions. So, they think it's cool to slaughter people and thus become "legendary."

In short, these shooters are atheists in deed if not in label.

I'm not saying every atheist is a future Columbine killer. However, not believing in God-and by extension His moral absolutes-makes it REALLY tempting to go down that path.

Phil, if you're going to pretend to be a Christian , try to be like real Christians and not the image you have. You have to be convincing if you're going to pretend to be something you aren't.

you missed part of the basics of God, He gave every human a choice, like technohazard jumps up and down about CHOICES. The choice is ours: God created a universe, and gave it to us (whoever the us is). He is perfect, and as a creator, it's His game, and "sin" (disobedience) was something we as humans chose for ourselves, here on earth. God saved humans for Himself, however He expects us to chose Him and His way.

How dare you make those claims about the people of Hollywood without actually knowing anything about us. You disregard so many hard working, honest people. Sure there are a fair share of not so great people, but not everybody is Paris Hilton. You have no idea what it takes to make a movie and all the hard work that goes into it. Many of us work so hard that we have no time for the hedonistic things that you describe.

You speak, but you have no idea about the things you speak about. You are ignorant and unwilling to experience and to learn. You insult a large mass of people and expect people to not insult your large mass of people (your religion). You are a disgusting hypocrite. I hope that if there is a hell that you burn there for you ignorance and your insults.

Kristen223, I'm going to share with you some hard-learned advice from the internet wars. You can't argue straight Creationism, it's anti-science and readily shot down. Science is the tool we use to explore God's creation, its magnificent vastness continually being revealed. By it, he expects me to believe that hydrogen and oxygen can combine to form water. Likewise the evidence is there for evolution, for the universe being billions of years old. He expects me to have common sense and come to simple logical conclusions, and evolution wins, too many things get too complicated otherwise. To believe everything was just dropped here, merely looking ancient by all reasonable methods yet it's not, might as well argue we're stuck in the Matrix. God becomes a deceiver, telling me that what I see is not really there, and testing my faith like that is the Devil's job.

But belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God, indeed for me it enhances it. He is eternal, thus it's vanity for me to presume he created everything on a human timescale. From the creation of the universe until now, he is there, as he always will be, tweaking things, nudging them. A small swirl in a stellar nebula, leading to a planet at just the right distance from its sun. A solar particle whose path is moved slightly, leading to a collision with a molecule, causing a mutation that leads to a desired lifeform. He is God, all powerful, he can set up dominoes better than anyone, even if it takes a million years for the last one to fall. I have been created as a rational being that should accept the best explanation for the evidence before me, and evolution is that explanation. And from that, I believe in a God far more deeper and powerful than I could find in traditional Creationism.

And I have yet to find a die-hard evolutionist who can prove that God isn't there. They will say there is no evidence, when there are many accepted scientific theories based on things assumed to exist that we can't directly verify. By their own logic, they can never positively say God is not there. They will however assert that God could not be involved since God does not exist, but since their devoted science cannot test for and conclusively prove there is no God, their statement has no backing in science, it's merely a statement of faith. Which BTW infuriates them to no end when you point that out.

we certainly did'nt call anyone 'retarded' atheist's beliefs are all over the place; some believe in spirits, some don't, and others believe that there is a destiny. The one thing we've seen from the responses is that they are an angry lot…

Muffin, I've read all over the article and comments, and I'll be damned if I can find anyone, Christian or otherwise, making the absurd suggestion that athieism, evolution, and the big bang theory are one thing. I'm non-religious myself, but I'm utterly surrounded by devout Christians day and night, and I've yet to hear even one make this claim. You'll admit, I hope, that atheists nearly universally embrace these theories? Incidentally, if you're an atheist who doesn't subscribe to those theories I'd be interested in your ideas about the formation of the earth and the current state of our biological world.

"Yet it is a good thing that the Bible is not the only evidence of God."

Fantastic, let's hear it.

I'd certainly grant you your appeal to the bible's consistency – backed by your supreme practice of circular argument, I couldn't describe this understanding as anything less.

Somehow i doubt you've considered the literature and study of biblical criticism which undermines the 'primacy and authority' of the bible. But like a bad dream, its probably best to ignore and forget it.

Ok for you highly "evolved" thinkers out there who do not believe in God, here are my three pfennigs: First I think you do believe in God, you just don't believe in HIM. Now what do I mean by that oh so smart godlings? This just because you don't believe in something that does not mean it does not exist. Its sort of like this: I don't believe in Barack Obama but he does exist. Get it. Awesome.
Secondly atheism is by in large a religion. These people protect their disbelief as much as any member of the Inquisition protected Catholicism. And most atheists I know are so unhappy. Watch they will all start screetching about how happy they are. Ok Scooter if your so darned by golly all fired up and crackling with goodness then why do you PROTEST SO MUCH? See?
Furthermore if someone is religious its not an atheists business to bug, bother or harrass them. If they have the right to be idiots and make fools of themselves by acting like the all poweful they think they are then people who have humility and know where they come from and have piety and faith have the right to be that way. Lets see in the long run who is ahead.

And you don't sound condescending in your last paragraph? Ever hear of the pot and the kettle? Mind your own business. Its not your concern if I am or anyone else believes. Look to your own safety. Leave the rest of us alone. Sounds materialistic, and shallow. And the limp defense of your "philosophy" is ridiculous.

I wonder if, like the "knife-edged angry" atheists you so enjoy labeling, you would have a similar reaction to an article stereotyping religious people (of which I am, by the way) as "retarded." To characterize any group as angry based on their response to an article obviously intended to incite a strong emotional response is, well….retarded! Seems like you prefer to point the finger and judge rather than provide a good example to persuade. What a surprise, another Christian (I'm guessing here) who totally missed the message. At least you got the "we are all sinners" part right. You might want to revisit the whole "love thy neighbor" concept.

Among the many, many egregious logical errors in this post, the one that strikes the strongest chord with me is this: Mr. Crowder seems to assume that there's an inherent choice involved with being an atheist, rather than a lack of exposure or socialization. In some cases, perhaps this is true, but I was raised with zero exposure to religion. I've never been to church in my life. Did I choose to be an atheist? Of course I didn't–I simply wasn't socialized in an environment which valued nor had any use for religion. I don't miss it, and there wasn't any agency involved in my "denial" of god–god was never real for me, and has never played a part in my life. I'm not a "practicing" atheist. I'm not even certain what that means. I certainly don't denigrate anyone else's faith (unless they use it as a political tool or as justification for violence or any number of other nefarious purposes), and I don't espouse my lack of faith as being somehow superior to those who have it. Being religious never occurred to me–why should it have?

Wow, you were doing so well, but then I read that you believe in evolution? Or did I misunderstand the "this Christian tries……yet still believes in….Darwinian evolution?
Please go to AnswersInGenesis.org. There you will find the best site dedicated to helping Christians defend the actual seven day creation account in Genesis. Please check it out and study through it, buy some books. Get up to speed on the literal seven day creation account. If you go down the slippery slope of granting evolution, then the rest of Scripture might not mean that much to you in other very important places, and you would be doing Christendom a disfavor by espousing a hugely misguided concept and worldview. I'm politely challenging you, or anyone to utilize the site. If I am still reading your reply wrong, please forgive me. Grace and Peace.

Gee, sorry. I didn't know you had it so hard to live in America.

"hmmm, see where logic aces you again?" Sorry, rev, but a series of disjointed ramblings and insults do not constitute logic. Apotheosis' well thought out posts present a face of atheism that is truly rational. Of course, I disagree with it, being a Christian, but his posts are gentlemanly, reasonable, and thoughtful.

IF you want your ideas to carry any weight whatsoever, you have to define the Christian faith in ways that people actually live it, not some absurd fever dream of unreason and fear. Your total lack of understanding of Christian thought and theology makes your argument unconvincing. The only atheist I have ever read that gave anything like an honest account of Christian thought was Nietzsche. He was wrong, too, but at least he was wrong based on an accurate understanding of what Christians actually believed.

Churches make a profit? I've been a church treasurer on and off for over forty years, and I've never seen anything resembling a profit. What on earth would you tax?

One religion course should be required each year at college.

Anyone assigned to read and discuss four books about religion over four years will come to the conclusion that
OF COURSE THERE IS A GOD!

Agnosticism and atheism (along w/ anti-clericalism) are popular because no one wants to get up and go to church on their day off!

Atheists do not have to defend themselves as part of a "dogma." It just means literally "non-belief in a supernatural being." As an atheist and a conservative I also believe that humans have an abstract, unique existence inalienable from their life, the soul, the secret fire, etc. — these things are metaphors to me. You want to claim that if I don't believe in a particular superstitious dogma (which one — the mythical god of the burning bush? the god who died and was resurrected? the god who spoke to an illiterate pedophile? the gods and goddesses of Wicca?) I must therefore believe all humans are merely meat.

I'm more frightened of deists who make this argument as, apparently, without a belief in superstitious dogma they immediately assume that humans are meaningless blobs.

Atheists, by believing in nothing, are like a rorschach prism through which dogmatic people apparently project their own dark ideas.

Of course Communism is a religion: It's a very pleasant idea for living that can't be properly applied to the real world UNLESS you're willing to destroy individuality and freedom in order to impose it and FORCE it to "work." If that doesn't describe a religion, I dunno what does

I think it's also, how can you "not believe" in something that you say isn't there? If you say God isn't there, you are admitting that there IS something there, aren't you? That's what confuses me when someone says they are an atheist.

Okay, let's take a step back here and be realistic: *Nothing* can fill up Julia Roberts' cakehole…

Well, I'm sure that SOME people WERE "spawned from puddles of gook".
The prisons are full of 'em.
So's the "guest" list of the Jerry Springer show…; – )

Better watch out. See, more of the members of our military are atheist than the general population (http://www.maaf.info/resources/PopRefBureau2004.p... so you might actually want to be careful calling us retarded, even as a joke.

Also, others have made the point, but I'll try to add my spin. If you only do something because of the authority of God, that is no different then being forced by threat of prison or prodded along by cash incentives to act in line with society's interests. There's nothing wrong with that, pragmatically, but it isn't morality.

On the other hand, if you make the decision to do what is right because you believe it is the right thing to do, that is a genuine moral judgment. Now, to be clear, I absolutely believe that religion has the capacity to call us to be moral in this way. However, just as I think not all Christians (or anyone else) are moral for following codes, I also think that, absent some divine set of codes, I can act morally as an agnostic.

My two cents.

If you click that link, take off the parenthesis and the comma at the end.
Or:
http://www.maaf.info/resources/PopRefBureau2004.p...

Dumb we most assuredly are not… changing your post name to ridicule us seems both childish and sad. You chose to participate in an intellectual debate that is always difficult, one's spiritual beleifs- or in your case lack of them- and showed a degree of anger that we have seen repeatedly from those that choose not to believe. And, as the song says even if you do not choose you still have made a choice.

So spare us the petty nonsense and next time when you delve in the intellectual field don't come unarmed…

So if I say I don't believe in leprechauns, does that mean I'm really admitting that they exist? If you say that Zeus doesn't exist, doesn't that mean that you secretly worship him?

Or maybe it's a lot simpler than this — possibly people actually don't belive in the God you believe in, no matter how painful you find that idea.

I do not define myself as an atheist. That would be ridiculous for one define ones self by what they do not believe in. That would be like a Christian defining themselves as an atheist in regard to Zeus, or as a non-atheist as opposed to a theist or whatever.

You apparently think that all these atheists arguing with you are attempting to push their belief system on you, but they aren't.

Atheists do have beliefs, they just aren't as ready to shove their beliefs in your face as many religions are. Atheists also tend to not define themselves by what they believe, but rather by who they are, what they do, how they treat others, etc, etc…

You are treating everything as black or white. You either believe in god or you believe in nothing but your narcissistic self. Atheists don't see it that way. We look at life as an experience with an infinite number of directions to go. Many of us don't believe in an afterlife, so we look at this life as our only one and we do the best we can to live a good, upbeat and happy life. We are satisfied with this. But for some reason religious people can't accept that we are happy, they tell us that we are not happy and we are evil and we are going to hell if we don't accept christ. And then we get called closed minded when that is the most close minded, black and white, mean spirited view that one can have. I'm happy that you believe in god. If that makes you happy, then spend your entire life serving god. If you believe in heaven, then I hope that one day you get there. But please respect my right to not believe in what you believe. Respect my right to hold my own personal views.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say with the majority of your second paragraph. I think there is a value to humanity that we all hold inside of us. We, as humans, should all have a value in humanity. I don't think that we are more important in the long run than many other forms of life. Once we're gone, we're gone just like the rest. But that doesn't mean that we are meat puppets. We're humans, and as humans we should band together and enjoy our existence as much as we can and work together to advance ourselves as much as we can and to gain as much knowledge as we can. I think that's what you were talking about with that second paragraph, but it wasn't very clear. Oh, and there's a difference between "then" and "than".

I think that last sentence of yours is a pretty bleak outlook. I'm certainly glad that I don't have to see things that way. We are very lucky to have consciousness like we do, we should appreciate it and not dismiss our consciousness simply because we are not the most important things in the universe under a supposed god.

Ouch, BL, you cut me to the quick. Thank you. I was hoping for a great example of Truth of Life #1 (see above) and POOF…here you are. Thank God the Lord is my shepherd, not you. You would feed me to the wolves. L:ike I said to cs, don't blame me when you get there…I warned you.

There is a special word that describes you, Miles….clueless. As the "great one" says…"ignorance is our most expensive commodity", and you are proof positive. The troubling thing is that you seem to be proud of your ignorance. Go figure.

Marriage is not about equality.

You can not marry anyone you want IE: close family members (this has always been so)
You can not marry as many people as you want
You can not marry any plants or animals
You can not marry children under a certain age

The institution of marriage is full of inequalities and restrictions.

Homosexuals are no more exiled then someone with tattoos or a bone in there nose.
Homosexuals have also been known to enjoy the counter culture allure like other groups.

The equality argumentation is a canard.

Children do not have equality
Sex offenders do not have equality
Felons and convicts do not have equality

Homosexuals have far more equality then some of the groups above and sexual orientation is not a protected class like gender, race, or religion under the civil rights amendment.

In fact there is more persecution of Mormons by the California elite then Homosexuals have ever had to suffer under the liberal counterculture of California.

Homosexuals are thriving here in Dallas Tx. and in California.

In fact for some jobs here it would be advantageous to be a homosexual.

This does not mean there is not a need for more acceptance.

http://www.cathedralofhope.com/NetCommunity/Page….

Hey Steve!

I gotta tell ya, I've always been a Believer (ever since I was born again, 4 years after the first time I was born), and have always thought of "Darwinism" as pile of horse puckey (pardon my French) worthy of smarmy derision, but then this pot-smoking immoral guy I know sent me this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracunculiasis,
which talks about something called "human-specific parasites". And that got me to thinking, why the Heck would the Lord create parasitic worms that only live and breed inside of poor Africans, literally? Anyway just so ya know, it hasn't skaken my faith, even though it does seem kinda weird. I think that maybe it's the Devil using things we don't understand to trick us into believing this evolution crud.

Why would someone claim that the Big Bang Theory was "atheistic", when it was first proposed by a Jesuit priest? Monsignor Georges Lemaître published his "primeval atom theory" in Nature Magazine in 1927.

What I would love to know is why an Atheist can bring suit for violating their religeous views citing the nonexistant seperation of church and state, and consistantly win and that not be the government recognizing a single religeous view as having greater value then all the rest. The end result is that their religeous views are being foisted off on me only I seem to not have any recourse in the courts, since only their views seem to make it to the courts and the people representing my views eem to ALWAYS have their cases dismissed with prejudice.

Choosing not to choose is still making a choice

>>Ironically, it appears that the holocaust will come from a combination of revisionist Christianity and western moral relativism, and the deeply religious beliefs of murderous primitives.<< I can picture the western moral relativism and murderous Islamic fundamentalism to which you are referring, but what specifically do you mean by "revisionist Christianity?" Are you talking about the rise of a New Right Christianity that is more ideologically vs. spiritually based, or a liberal new-agey style Christianity that is in the post modern "we are all about goodness and light" vein? And how do you see the next holocaust approaching? One giant apocalyptic war? An ongoing series of brutal skirmishes culminating in a long drawn out whimper?

Following the decision in Lawrence v Texas, there is no longer any meaningful legal distinction between the romantic/sexual relationship of a heterosexual couple and a homosexual one – they are, for most legal purposes, equivalent. The overall popular culture is heading in that direction as well, and will be "there" within a generation or two, probably less than that. In other words, the law of the United States no longer regards the sexual practices attendant to homosexuality to be "wrong," and the broader culture – and I mean "people" as well as "the media" – is less and less likely to regard said practices as "evil" (to the contrary, the culture now generally regards male-homosexuality as 'quirky' and fodder for humor, while female-homosexuality is generally regarded as, well, "awesome!")
(continued)

(continued)
Given all that, this single word "marriage" – and a handful of not-insignificant legal and language issues stemming from it – is the LAST thing that not only SEPERATES these two otherwise legally and (soon enough) culturally indistinguishable types of couples from eachother but places one "superior" to the other.

IMHO, it's time to let it go. "Traditionalists" have tried for decades to keep gays seperate, secondary and marginalized. They've fought against (as a GROUP over many, many generations I stress) gays being able to consort publically (as in dating) or copulate privately as they see fit without fear of arrest. Being able to adopt. Being able to enter marriage-like legal contracts. They (the traditionalists) have lost ALL of these battles. The main thing they were looking to halt – the "normalizing" of a lifestyle they regarded as sinful and/or socially-destructive – has all-but come to pass. It was a fine war, and many of you fought hard, but it's over. You lost. At least have some dignity about it. This can STILL end with an Appomatox, instead of a Hiroshima.

A perfect time.

I've heard of this place, I think it's called the Middle East, and Atheists there are suicide bombing the crap out of each other. Some of the atheists have nuclear weapons, and other atheists fire rockets daily at those atheists, and even more atheists are trying to obtain nuclear weapons so they can try to wipe the first group of atheists off the map. All those atheists are making that region very unstable!

If only they had some kind of religion to guide them…

Nothing like getting folksie and quoting the Bible to convince Athiests! Sarah Palin showed us how solid of a game plan that turns out to be.

4. You're right about AGW. And your point applies to Darwinism too. Lovely, lovely gov't cheese….
5. So we evolved from an earlier version of ape that is now extinct, and maybe the modern apes and we both split off from this earlier version. Its imprecise, but 'I didn't evolve from a monkey' does get the basic idea across. Stop picking nits.
6. Evolution has no driver, no point. Yup. Which makes the point that Evolution supports meaninglessness quite well. But there is a direction to Evolution, and its not up. Its down. Every generation, we accumulate more genetic errors. Some get culled, some are recessive and don't always get passed on, but over time the human race is decaying. Our ancestors, if they had modern science (a useful crutch), and good food would have been far better than we. Smarter, handsomer, healthier. We've managed to create a wonderful societal machine to sustain us, and Science is a big part of this, and I'm all for it because I like eyeglasses, but perhaps my thousand year previous ancestor didn't need eyeglasses. H.G. Wells made this point in The Time Machine.

I'm ignorant because I didn't independently come to the conclusion that there's an omniscient prime mover in the universe that has a vested interest in my choice to believe in it or not?

I can have my doubts and question my faith but it is not hard to see the analogy I am making in a way even an atheist can understand.

Remove plankton from this planet and see if it can live.
Remove humanity from this planet and things will rock along just fine.

The cold hard godless reality that for what ever Darwinian advantage humanity may have we are not necessary for the continued health of this planet.

I have a fair idea what Technohazard and you are rejecting even though there is a wealth of evidence for God.

And I am pointing out that there is no real value to humanity if God did not create this universe for us and gives us Jesus Christ as the path of salvation so that we have an eternity with God to learn and augment God's creation. I understand that rejecting God may seem rational and atheists have plenty of cognitive dissonance to overcome regarding the truth. Yet the creative spark we all have is an evidence for God and what his purpose is for His creation. The idea that you or I miss out on eternity because we where too stubborn to reach out for the wealth of evidence for God or just reject God despite the evidence is a crime against eternity.

We diminish eternity when we reject God.

This is why this article talks of a mental deficiency because to be atheist is to say there is no real value to humanity. God has made Himself as manifest as we need for anybody to believe and accept salvation in Jesus Christ yet we can all reject God. Atheist are rejecting God in order to derive a self made value in a solipsist self centered universe. All I am saying is that the cold hard reality of what atheist want with there rejection of God is to say we have no value.

No value because we are just a nuclear conflagration away from making ourselves irrelevant. This planet does not need for any chordates in order for it to rock along just fine. Atheists would rob us all of the true reason we where created if Atheist could have there way. Fortunately for Christians everywhere is that Christianity has been under attack for the last two thousand years. Two thousand years of attempts to eliminate Christianity from with in and as an outside oppression. If Christianity could have been killed then I think Rome could have done if from the outside or the Holy Roman Empires attack from inside.

To those who would dispute the findings of science versus Creationisim, let me say this about that. On just about any finding of science in the past there have been critics who do not believe the findings and therefore challenge them. Sometimes the critics are correct when later some other science comes up with a new finding because new techniques, or new equipment became available allowing further examination of the subject. Before the microscope, who would have discovered microbes, viruses, or germs? Astronomers are constantly finding new things, or changing their minds based on new discoveries found with bigger, better telescopes. At one time church leaders believed that the universe rotated around the Pope. We know different today. Well, it looked like everything rotated around the Pope back then.

I have contended that science is the study of how God put the universe together and made it work. Those who wrote the God inspired word of God in the Bible had only the knowledge of the time with which to express the ideas and you will have to agree that none of them had any knowledge of something like the Boeing 747 aircraft, or a modern electric light so they could compose the inspired word of God at night. But they did the best they could with what they had to work with at the time. What we got is the Holy Bible we so revere.

A scientist upon learning new evidence that what some earlier observation or experiment may have disclosed and being able to duplicate it as proof, can and will change his mind, thinking,
or whatever to adjust to this new information. I wonder how often a creationist might change
their mind when presented with new information. Did God really create the universe in six days and rest on the seventh day? Have we been around for just 6000 years, or has that been about
as far back as there is any writings, or other documentation. Modern science says the earth has been around for some millions of years by means of several dating schemes that all seem to be in general agreement with each other. Did any wise man of two, or more thousand years ago have any comprehension of time in terms of millions of years? Probably not except in
terms of a long long time, or back during our ancestors time, whenever that was.

What was a month, or a year back in biblical times? Did some of those people mentioned in the Bible actually live for several hundred years? If you substitute the biblical years for months instead, you come up with more, or less normal life spans. So do words always have the same meaning over thousands of years, or do they sometimes change, or get used differently? In our lifetime, the word Gay has come to mean something far different than it used to mean. What
will the word Gay mean in the year 4008? The arguement between science and religion is usually a silly one judging by the quality of many of the comments here.

I believe in God as the creator of all things. I believe in Jesus as my savior and I certainly enjoy
hearing of new scientific discoveries and I do not see any conflicts between the above. I have considered atheism at a time in my life but came to the conclusion that it also was a religion having no guidance documents and where the most important person, or being was the person professing their beliefs. Does that mean atheist are lesser people, immoral among other things? No, only that they are a little different in what they believe and as long as they do not attack me for my beliefs, adhere to accepted moral behavior standards, I will leave them alone with their own beliefs.

Its late and I can't get asleep, but it is time to end this missive.

particular belief system

Pascal's Wager…a good argument until you find yourself getting drafted into the einherjar. "Oh, it's what we do to smart-alecks who try to game the system," the Valkyrie politely explained.

(There was a work of fiction that I've been meaning to find and read some day that's supposed to have a scene like that. Can't remember if it's one of the Discworld books or similar.)

Do you believe because you truly believe or do you believe because you're afraid something bad will happen if you don't? Pascal's Wager seems to aim towards the latter.

WR1 I do find it painful that you chose not to believe, but it doesnt hurt me specifically, I would like to think that you have had the chance to truly have the gift of faith (not growing up and going to some church, somewhere) then if you rejet that faith afterwards I'd feel alot less sympathy for you, because then you would have made a logical, and an independent choice; ie no God is going to tell me what I can and can't do. Never mind that we true believers give up our control of our life to search out the will of the Father, think Mother Teresa; look at how much that woman was able to do. Give up the, " Oh she wouldn't let poor girls have abortions" abortion arguments, I am referring to the good that woman accomplished by herself and others eventually simiarily called.
Cathy I think it's because they can't submit to anything other than their own ego.

I don't see it as a religion to say that a person doesn't believe in the supernatural. For me that appadmit, however,
Unfortunately, militant atheists have given us all a bad name, which is why maybe I should refer to myself as an agnostic again, I suppose. There are people who don't believe in the supernatural, like me, who have no interest in imposing our thoughts on others and on our country. I don't care if there are 10 commandments on the courthouse wall, for example – why not? They seem to be very practical rules, and I do live my life by rules. (I add this since some Christian replies here have said that people who don't believe in the supernatural don't want to obey rules. I'm the most boring straight arrow you could possibly imagine.)

It would take too long to enumerate all the ways I'm not anti-Christian. My lack of belief in a divine being does not mean I don't share the same values, generally speaking, as many of you. I'm a conservative, after all, or I wouldn't be here, although the things that are most important to me are the issues of self-defense and economics. Protecting the Constitution so that believers and nonbelievers alike can continue to live in a free society should be all that matters right now. Having such an anti-atheist stance just scares away potentially (politically) like-minded people from voting Republican because the Dems have convinced so many that only very religious people vote right wing. If we are ever to regain a foothold in the culture, we need to be more openly diverse. As it is, I usually stay quiet IRL when religious Republicans start talking about evil atheists for much the same reason I sometimes feel intimidated and afraid to speak up as the lone right winger in a Dem crowd. I realize that by keeping quiet I allow them to think people like me don't exist, but the atmosphere is always so hateful that I've wimped out so far. I hope that participation in a site like Big Hollywood will help me learn to find my voice IRL as well as here.

Atheism, to begin with, is an absurdity. Unless you redefine the term to fit your own preference (not a big leap for a non-theist seeing that everything is necessarily relative anyway) the term Atheist means literally “No God”. If the non-theist says, “I don’t believe there is a God”, or “I don’t like your God”, then that’s OK–God is not nervous. If the Atheist says, “There IS no God”, then he is truly speaking in ignorance. Unless he has comprehensive knowledge of everything in the universe, including all possible dimensions, then it is plainly ignorant, without logic, reason and rationality to categorically declare there is no God (We could say He might be hiding on the dark side of the moon or off in another Galaxy, if we want to get really flippant about the possible existence and location of God).
Agnosticism on the other hand just says, the person is “without knowledge”. If you don’t have knowledge of something then you’re ignorant about it–Not a bad statement about an agnostic. Evidence, of course, only produces probability so the overwhelming evidence for God is thrown out by the non-theist because it doesn’t fit his worldview and presuppositions. The definitive proof for the existence of God is presuppositional. Stated simply it says this. It is impossible for God NOT to exist. And if it’s impossible for God NOT to exist, then God MUST exist. God bless.

Michou, I'm not sure it is about ego – I think it's more that people may have had some hardships in their life, and let's face it, sometimes when you get hit with a lot of things it may be hard to have faith. Also it's who surrounds you – if you are surrounded by a lot of people who don't believe in God and think it's stupid to do so, you may take on that belief too.

Wow, the pot is trying to call the kettle black? Atheism simply asks for scientific proof of this other worldy being. It's not a philosophy. You (and your fellow religious friends) have stated a positive. There is a god. Well, all atheists ask you is to prove it. We have 5 senses. Use one or more to show us that a god exists. Most anti-atheists (such as yourself and not necessarily all religious people) try to reverse that simple logical question around and tell atheists to prove there is no god. But the burden is on you. You have stated something. Atheists have stated nothing so there is nothing to prove or disprove from the atheist point of view.

As for human life having no intrinsic value? Well, you are way off. Atheists understand that this life is the only one we have. And the only people we answer to is each other. I would dare say that atheists have a much more straight morality then any religion out there.

A lot more blood has been spilled in the name of some god. And don't bring up communists or hitler because they just replace faith with a dogma of "great society" and aren't truly atheists in that sense.

"…not everyone who is Christian or Republican is anti-atheist." True enough, and not every Christian is even Republican. I know far more Christians IRL who vote Democrat because, as the ones I've asked explain it, they feel the admonition to feed the poor trumps their beliefs about abortion and gay marriage, and they see the Republican party as consisting of people who don't care about the poor.

Sorry, I got off track from your question. I realize that not every Christian or Republican is "anti-atheist," but the most vocal voices here appear to be, which leaves a somewhat skewed impression, in my opinion. It's one which implies that what Dems often say is true – only people who are worried about abortion and gay marriage for religious reasons are conservatives. (They usually use name-calling to say it, but that's the message.) What do I mean by being more openly diverse? I guess that's more on people like me to stop wimping out and start speaking up more, so the conservative movement can be seen as a broader, more inclusive coalition than they give us credit for being. There's room for all of us, I hope.

Re your other comments: I don't think an agnostic believes in something. An agnostic just says they don't know the answer. The militant, zealous atheists online have gotten on my case about that one before since they say everyone, including a believer, is an agnostic because none of us can know for sure. To them, that makes the term "agnostic" meaningless (because it applies to everyone, it says nothing about you). Agnostic seems to come with less baggage, though, and I don't really care what term I use. Besides, it's true, I don't know. You can't prove a negative.

You said to not believe in something must be "really, really lonely and depressing." I'm as happy as anyone else, but I've never tried to verbalize why or thought about how to explain it to someone on the other side of this particular issue. (Like I said, I don't talk about it IRL.) I'd have to give this some thought. What are the things that make us happy in life? Love? Family? Friends? Those things are the same no matter what one's belief about religion is, for example. Oh well, I'm sorry that I'm inept at answering that question, but I'm being too longwinded anyway.

"But are you then an agnostic or an atheist? I wasn't sure."

Sorry, I know, I started out using 'atheist' and then switched on you. Words mean different things to different people, which is why there are multiple definitions and they can even vary a bit dictionary to dictionary. To clarify, I don't believe in God, but I realize now how loaded a term 'atheist' is and don't want to use it for myself after all. It's too easily misconstrued to mean an activist type who's trying to stamp out religion. I think of an 'agnostic' as someone who is skeptical about the existence of God and that's a label I can live with easier. I don't know…in real life, I usually just say I'm not religious and leave it at that when asked.

Thanks for your comments too, Cathy.

[...] Crowder over at Big Hollywood calls atheism a mental handicap and asks atheists in the modemscape to [...]

Marie-Louise,

I enjoyed reading your frank and honest answer. I agree the first point of order is not whether the existence of God is a good thing, but is God even true? It's fun to believe in Santa Claus and perhaps culturally advantageous at certain times of the year. Doesn't mean we should honestly expect him to slide down our chimney with toys on Christmas Eve. Especially if you're like me and live in Southern California where we don't have chimneys!

I happen to be a believer myself (in God, not Santa) and agree that science is often more efficient and pragmatic than religion at times. I'm all for logical, objective and rational thinking. But one thing that troubles me is your notion that "the more you look into evidences, the more you get that God is a useless creation of the human mind. " That's a rather bold assertion. Do you have any concrete evidence to offer here, or just a sense that God can't be real because he doesn't fit with our generally accepted profile of Western scientific thought processes? If so, I would love to hear examples of God being demonstrated as a clear construct of the human mind.

As to the question of meaning, this is where the existing of God, to me, makes much more rational sense than no God. If there is no God and all is according to chance, then what is our purpose? There is none. There can be none. There is no real basis for value or virtue other than what seems acceptable and utilitarian for each individual. If you argue our purpose is to "live good lives" or "do what is best for the tribe " none of this can be quantified by science. Science, in all it's amazingness, falls under that which is observable, measurable and repeatable. It's charter is rather limited in scope. It does nothing to address the question of "why." Just as religion does not address whether or not the existence of an extra set of chromosomes will result in Down's Syndrome or how cancer cells can metastasize and spread through the body.

Is there no innate sense within you that your life has meaning or purpose? If so, where does that sense come from? Part of a vestigial afterthought that at one time allowed primitive mankind to overcome existential despair and assured survival of the species? Or does this come from some sort of inward recognition that yes, despite outward protestations to the contrary, your life actually does have intrinsic value?

Please school me in the art of epistemological divides and how we are all more alike then we are different yet are so divided on an ideological plane. You claim you are a theist then also claim not to understand so it begs the question of what flavor is your theism?

I believe atheism is so ludicrous as to demand evidence and then change the goalpost at will.
I believe atheist do not understand how humanity is devalued by a godless worldview.

These are clearly subjective opinions on my part based on my experience with militant atheists. That does not mean I can't also see this in some of my fellow theist.

My point is that with out God we are all there is. If we are all there is then we have no real transcendent value. We destroy this worlds ecosystem. We don't understand that for our every action there is a multiple of ecological reactions.

Think in terms of a secret that where to get out would be instantly harmful. Atheism is saying in its solipsistic rejection of God that we are as valueless to this planet as mosquitoes. The default idea of a godless worldview is that complete genocide of the human race could occur and there would be no consciousness left to mark of morn our passing.

So while individual atheist can have a high value to life and the human race it means nothing if there is no God out there who sent His Son here to redeem us all if we only believe in Him. I understand that any individual can hold all of humanity in the highest of value but that is all for nothing with out a Creator to give ultimate justice and reward to us all.

What you take as my refusal to engage in debate is ultimately all for naught if we all snuff it due to an asteroid or other earth obliterating catastrophe. See the point is that other then self derived anything there is no eternal or absolute with out God. Science can betray us as soon as new evidence arrives and all could be relativistic in a postmodernist sense if there is no bed rock absolute of a God who created all this and in such a way that we all evolve and grow with what is now the curse of the tree of knowledge but will be the redeeming salvation of Jesus Christ.

Deener I wonder if you see the cleverness of your own obfuscation. It is clear you wish to attack me directly or at least have me make my own claims, Instead I point to more knowledgeable sources for the wealth of evidence for God. You are not going to really fool me by professing a two way dialog is sufficient.

Many atheist claim there is no apologetic that is good enough. When I refer to
the website of Rich Deem and get your anticipated response I know you are
closed to the wealth of evidence for God

http://www.williamlanecraig.com/

Perhaps you could consider other sources for the wealth of evidence for God.

Or are you closed to evidence for God?

.

The epistemological divide is simple: theists generally do not require physical, empirical knowledge in order to believe in God, whereas atheists and agnostics generally do. For theists, it is usually enough that they have divine/transcendent experiences in order to believe. This is not enough for atheists/agnostics.

What I don't understand is your unwillingness to accept that atheists do, in fact, have reasons for valuing human life. Take natural law, for example. It matters not (in a practical way) whether we believe the source for such law is evolutionary or God-created. The reality is such that many atheists accept the role of such law for the purposes of human society. We share the reality of it even as we may disagree about its source. And it's important to note that even Christians disagree about the content of that law, even though they (ostensibly) agree on the source.

You keep talking about not having transcendent value, but for the atheist "transcendent value" is no value at all. Again, like I explained earlier, telling an atheist life has no transcendent value means nothing, as he has no evidence to believe in anything transcendent in the first place. Zarkonian dollars, remember? And it doesn't bother an atheist that we are all there is, because even so, humanity is (as far as our physical, empirical knowledge is concerned) is still a unique, important and valuable part of the universe.

I'm glad to see that you finally admit that an atheist can have a high value to life and the human race. But your following assertion that it "means nothing" without Jesus is another example of the epistemological divide. You need to explain *why* an absolute is important. To an atheist, it's simply not important. The result is not necessarily relativistic. Again, with the appeal to natural law, the commonality of the human race, a shared structure of human consciousness, society, etc. that even atheists accept because it's been observed (empirically, again) in human societies around the world. They may believe that law is an emergent phenomenon from evolutionary development, but it is, nevertheless, a kind of local absolute on which most atheists will say is enough to hang the moral structure of society.

Atheists do not care about "reward" for living their lives in accord with this law. They value survival. Life, because it is rare in the universe and worth preserving.

You wonder what variety of theist I am. I'm a traditionalist conservative Anglican.

Let me finally answer one of your original comments. Atheists do not move the goalposts. They demand physical, empirical evidence for god's existence. I think this is irrational, in the end, because religious faith is not about that. Science has, for good and ill, limited itself to materialism, dealing with the physical things of the universe. For whatever reason, God has not decided to reveal himself in that way. The evidence of God's existence in the world is not empirical. It can't be measured, only sensed. Like an answer in search of a question. You may not like that atheists demand this, but they do. And they do it for good reason.

I've spent a great deal of time trying to understand the atheist's opposition to religious claims and arguments, primarily because I want to be able to encourage them to try to open their minds to the religious experience. I see the possibility for a rational mind to long for evidence for God's existence even as it recognizes it is not forthcoming. That there is more to the universe in which we live than science can measure, without reducing the noble role of science and exploration of the universe around us.

But the key divide remains in how we know what we know. If you can recognize that most atheists have a different way of knowing than you do, you might be willing to adopt a way of arguing about these questions that is more effective in changing their minds. Their value for life may not be adequate for you. It's certainly not adequate for me. But that does not mean it doesn't exist and that they don't find it adequate for themselves. By instead convincing yourself that they have no value for life at all, you are making it impossible for yourself to understand their own perspective. Good apologetics must come from a deep understanding of the perspective of the other. You're not convincing anyone but those who already agree with you. That's been my point from the beginning. By insult and stubbornness, you've driven people further away from the truth of Christ.

I will admit that this has made me irritated and frustrated with this discussion. And profoundly disappointed.

Yeah Aim you sound so happy. Gee, I didn't realize that condescension, anger with a splash of hate was part of happy. is that what you goddlings are telling yourselves is fulfillment and happieness?
Look unless you have something to offer do not address me. I have 0 tolerance for someone who has to go out of her way to show me how happy she is. If you were just a thrillin and chillin you wouldn't even feel like replying. But here you are, defending yourself. Hmmmmmmm…….do I detect doubt in your little diatribe? Uh huh.

So few can avoid arrogance. Such elevated thots must be nearly worth our devotion eh?

and how do you know that god created a universe and instilled these choices in us? because of a book? atheists need more than that as evidence of something so monumental.

wow, the old "atheists kill people" argument. Yes, Stalin ordered millions of people to be killed and he was an atheist, gosh that must mean all atheists kill people… Nixon ordered thousands of people killed in Vietnam and he was a Quaker, does that mean all Quakers are killers? if you look at the modern world leaders who were atheists….Helen Clark, New Zealand Prime Minister, 1999 – 2008: open agnostic. Robert (Bob) James Lee Hawke, Australian Prime Minister, 1983 – 1991: open agnostic. Bill Hayden, Governor-General of Australia, 1989 – 1996: open atheist. And Winston Churchill called himself agnostic – gee, not to much material there for the "atheists are murderous killers" argument is there… people are people, good and bad, no matter what they believe in.

these were not our claims; but Mr Crowders and as we said, it was meant to start debate. We do not feel we are condescending nor do we feel superior.. just comfortable in our beliefs as you should be…

The only obfuscation thats going on here is what you're doing. I'm being clear; discuss this topic with me – meaning contributing some of your own thoughts on the matter. Why does anything Rich Deem have to say compelling? thought provoking? or why is it even evidence other than the bible (even though it makes sure to be supported by the bible)? Same thing with William Lane Craig – what are points you think of his that are important? convincing? What is it about these men and their work that you think is most relevant? You claim to know everything I might say or think when it comes to this topic, so these shouldn't be too difficult to account for.

All's i'm asking you to do is tell me what _you_ think. I'm not saying linking to other people or works isn't good enough, but i'm more interested into why it is you think that these links are even worth looking at. Have you even read any of them? How do you know that they would be worth looking into? Instead alls you've done is try to weasel your way out of a conversation while trying to frame me as someone who isn't interested in what you have to say – when thats all i've been asking of you – THATS obfuscation.

Of course, if you have no thoughts of your own on the matter, than just say so, and we'll move on – but if this is the best you can do, than this is the best you can do.

As a side – I'm glad to see you've edited your post to remove that analogy. Thats the best thinking I've seen from you thus far.

i can deny it deborah, i can.Can one deny the PERFECTION of his word through mohammad and islam? A fairytale is a fairytale, whether its tiny or huge, and there is no-one to say one morality is better than the next, the religious won't let people enjoy their one life and live likes snobs.