God, what a total jerk.

oh. my. god. Are people really that narrow minded? Are they really that ignorant to believe that this isnt a flagrant violation of the separation of church and state? If I went in there and insisted that Buddha be put on the US dollar, they'd have a fit. Even if I tried to show that it would symbolize our nation's "moral code" using the same argument this guy did.

The constant propoganda is by those same fine folks who bring you mountain top removal and coal slurry floods and death, coal plant pollution in the Grand Canyon, 60 year old nuclear messes not cleaned up yet and polluting major rivers, gigantic automobiles in the face of dwindling resources. You know the crew; the millionaires who run South America and Africa like some kind of prison labor camp, the people who care NOT ONE DOT that your healthcare is non-existant, or that your children's schools are literally falling apart. Golly, do I sound angry?

Well, sorry, but it's got me "worked up." FOX's talking head is a total dickwad who's completely ignorant of history. Norm, you've posted items on it here plenty of times, and anyone who takes a few minutes to run a Google search will find out for him/herself too: the Founding Fathers were anything but the Bible-thumping zealots who run our country today. The latest issue of Mother Jones is dedicated to this very topic of church/religion and state, and they've got plenty to say about the nation's founding (and more). Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights mentions "god." The Declaration of Independence mentions "Nature's God" and "Creator," but if you know anything about the Enlightenment that influenced our forefathers and the subsequent deism, Creator/Nature's God just doesn't add up to the white-bearded man on his throne up in the clouds the FOX crowd bows down to.

And PLEASE, once more, will these people STOP saying you have to have god in order to have a conscience or morals?! Who made them the authority all of a sudden?

Well, damnit, at least it's a 3-day week. I'll only be paying attention to this garbage for 2 more days after this. I'm cutting myself off of all news over the T-giving break.

"...maybe we'll convert you some day." What a fucktard.

Apparently for Christians like that Fox asshole, "Oppression" = "The inability to opress others", and "Tyranny of the minority" = "Any time the majority can't be the tyrant". Jebus! How hard is it to see that monopolizing the organs of government to endorse and encourage one particular religion is an abuse of power, and entirely at odds with the ideals of a pluralistic society?

Was I hearing it right? The screaming nearly hysterical man said:

“We don’t want to have tyranny of the minority in American where a handful of people tell the minority of the people they don’t have any rights.”

What was he saying? I don’t get it.

that guy is a slob.... no word play, no dancing around it, hes just a slob, he dosnt merit anything other then the direct noun SLOB

In God We Trust, which God, G_D, god, goddess, Allah, Jack-In-The-Box are we talking about here and how does having this printed o a piece of paper add a conscience to your daily life?

The separation of church and state is to prevent undue influence of religion into Government. mattomic is absolutely right regarding the framers of the Constituion.

I lived in Germany for a few years and each time I moved from one place to another, I had to register with the local government and declare my religion - and pay 10% of my income, whether I liked it or not, to one of the state accepted religions; unless I was of a faith different from Protestant or Catholic. (Subtle hint: do not declare yourself a Jew in Germany - to this day).

That to me is the antithesis of the separation of church and state that the founding fathers had in mind.

So the neo-cons (read: far-right bible-thumping cover-the-boobs-of-the-statue-of-justice neo-nazis) fear the possibility that anyone has a spiritual or non-spiritual conviction different than theirs. AND their hope for your salvation is that you may be converted someday - which to me is a VERY condecending thing to say to a woman who kept her cool far better than I would have done with this talking head.

This is not a Christian Nation - it is a nation that supports the right of religious freedom. Which includes the right to have no religious conviction. John Kasich and his gang of do-gooders can't handle that people may have a conscience without belong to the same-God club as they.

Integrity - to most people means honesty. To me, integrity is when I am in balance in my life - mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually. However that is defined by my inner core. Period. I do not need spiritual blackmail to have a personal spiritual inner relationship - and it doesn't even have to be with a "GOD".

Why do I mention integrity? Becasue I see such a lack of it in these far-righters and Bible thumpers and they are now getting their comeupances.

Thanks for the clip Norm.

I like how she is completly composed and makes concrete points, while he just sounds like an angry gym teacher with rediculous ammo like "when that frenchman came over, he was all like 'why you so religious, dawg?'"

I think it's clear that religiosity doesn't give anyone a conscience. At least, if the study that broke earlier this year has anything to say about it.

It's a clever defense, really, that's used quite often to keep an indefensible status quo: "What's the big deal, anyway?"

What a moron. Once again FOX demonstrates that when they say "fair and balanced" they mean "fair to only us and balanced to swing our way."

This gets at one of the major fallacies of the arguement for religion. The idea that it somehow provides a moral code. Of course if these people actually READ THE BIBLE they would find it condones murder, genocide, rape, drug use, and cruel punishment. These people love to quote the passage about how being gay is a sin - if they turned the page the same book in the bible talks about how you should stone to death disobedient children and drunkards.

Moral and ethics are taught by parents and teachers - not religion. I went to a Private Catholic grade school with roughly 35 other kids in my grade. If religion was the deciding factor for morals they should all be fine upstanding citizens...yeah right! One is in jail for murder, at least six are drug addicts, two have children already, and at least ten are hard drinkers. The factor the really decieded their morals? - their parents!

sigh

sigh...and the millions of FOX viewers will think he won the debate because he cut it short without making a single point. Fox news should be renamed "The ministry of the truth". (was that from 1984?)

I'm a Hindu, can we get them to change it to 'In Gods We Trust'?

Wouldn't it be more appropriate if American currency read "Don't trust anyone, buy a gun."?

Well people..I believe in GOD and I enjoy coming to this site.?? But i find it funny that people think that christians are supposed to be perfect people. Christians sin just as much if not more than Non-Christians. Anyway.. Believing in GOD is a lot bigger than a printed phrase on american currency. If the law of the land says to remove the text from the money then it should be.. plain and simple. Christainity will still be around after it's gone..

I was just creeped out by watching the guy play with his waddle near the end of the piece. Gross!

How can anyone trust a god they cant see when we cant even trust the elected leaders we can see?

Shit in one hand and pray in the other, which fill up first?

C.

As a Christian, I wanted to drop a line here as a kind of quiet reminder that not all of "us" think the way this loud-mouth, last-word bully from Fox does.

I have spent some time attempting to familiarize and educate myself on our country's history, and I understand that this nation was never particularly, necessarily, or essentially Christian. Indeed, is it even possible? Can nation-states act or believe with such singularity? From a Christian standpoint, even a brief examination of history (say, the era of Constantine and/or the twilight of the British empire) demonstrate what a catastrophe imposed religious uniformity can be. Wasn't our country designed to hopefully avoid such pitfalls?

In regards to our currency, I have sometimes thought that in such a consumer-driven, capitalistic society such as ours, perhaps it should be changed to say "In THIS God We Trust". Ironically, our man here on Fox has the nerve to challenge his opponent to stop wasting her (and his) time and go feed someone Thanksgiving dinner, when EXACTLY the same charge could be leveled against many of my fellow believers who spend too much of their time obsessing about what our money says, or if we display the Ten Commandments, or where people are sticking their tongues and penises, rather than investing their lives to alleviate hunger, poverty and disease or making positive contributions to the world we live in.

What does it profit you if you gain your motto but lose your soul?

In God we Trust doesn't conform to one god or one deity. God can be almost anything, whether it be a creator or a form of infinite virtue. In God We Trust is a slogan used to show we're united, we promote tolerance, and we value family morals. The thing we need to worry about is what's on the change that jingles around in our pockets.

I'm with Ron and David. The sad part is, so many so-called "Christians" have no idea that their push for an American theocracy goes against the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "my kingdom is not of this world" and "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's." Any attempt to allow the government to do the work of the church and the individual Christian is the work and temptation of SATAN. Hey, my own sins keep me busy 24/7!

We are a 'Christian Nation' in much the same way that we are a 'White Nation' -- i.e. not. Yet the arguments for the US being a 'Christian Nation' are the same as those for it being a 'White Nation': The Founding Fathers were all white, many of them probably intended the US to be primarily and predominantly white (and specifically Anglo-saxon), and white people are still the large majority of the population. How is not the use of religious imagery and language on our currency not like having the Confederate flag or Swastika (or something similar in meaning) on our currency?

Chei (Atheist) said:

"In God we Trust doesn't conform to one god or one deity."

-- Ah but it does. "God" with a capital letter is a proper noun, and as such is one of the names of the Abrahamic deity (and more specifically, in context it means the Christian deity). It is the equivalent of saying "In YahWeh we trust". Moreover, it excludes all the polytheists and assorted pagans that believe in and worship more than one god (not to mention all the atheists, agnostics, and various nontheists who don't 'trust' or believe in any kind of god).

"In God We Trust is a slogan used to show we're united,"

-- No, unity would be shown by "E Pluribus Unum".

"we promote tolerance,"

-- How does it promote tolerance? It instantly excludes the non-religious, the polytheists, and any other non-Christian who realizes that it isn't talking about their god.

"and we value family morals."

-- What does trusting in God have to do with family morals? The phrase was inserted in the 1950's as part of the anti (Godless) Communist movement of that era.

"The thing we need to worry about is what's on the change that jingles around in our pockets."

-- The date?

"and we value family morals."

-- What does trusting in God have to do with family morals? The phrase was inserted in the 1950's as part of the anti (Godless) Communist movement of that era.--J.D.

"

Loved your post, J.D. I've always wanted to hear the argument against the generic god...and I loved the "-- The date?" answer! The middle ground among religious people most likely will argue that removing all symbols of religion from public places (money?!) is not the intention of the first ammendment given the country's strong judeo-christian background.

Chei's family value remark probably comes from the argument that churches provide a lot of support for families in teaching morals and ethics. I think religion fails to teach ethics when it comes to gays and atheists and what have you. It fails by way of empathy and without understanding the importance of promoting unity in a diverse nation. And most important, religion is the antithesis of free thinking, a requirement of a sentient species. That's what I like about the first ammendment, it's an argument between comfort of belief and diversity of doubt. The God on coin and paper is like a squelched argument. And besides, Religious people should have the faith to not spell God on every piece of money. It is so lame to believe in something so ultra powerful and need to cheapen it with overbearing human propaganda...it's so manipulative and demeaning and discomforting to my mind. Such heavyhandedness actual moves me away from such a vain god, for I know it is just tyranny:

“I have sworn... eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson)

Correction to my earlier comment: "In God We Trust" was put on money after the Civil War rather than in the 1950's. "Under God" was inserted into the Pledge in the 1950's (1954 to be exact).

I just wanted to reiterate what RD stated.

sigh...and the millions of FOX viewers will think he won the debate because he cut it short without making a single point. Fox news should be renamed "The ministry of the truth". (was that from 1984?)

The sad part is that the viewers of FOX still believe. There is only a small group of people who will truly understand that the commentator is an asshole. In the eyes of most of the people, he will be considered a hero.

Here is what I found about "In God we trust"

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

What a DICK! Maybe he should revisit the establishment clause.

QuickTime 7 required but NO VIDEO SEEN.

The man is obviously a close-minded idiot, he couldn't make any good points. How did he make his way on this show?

Forget it Jake, it's FOX.

Spoon-fed ignorance courtesy of the Fox Network.

So why not a new slogan we can all get behind like "freedom & liberty for all" or something along those lines?

The sad part is this guy ISN'T just a talking head:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,21715,00.html

I weep for the people of Ohio...

Looked like he was the one who was raising his "tone" and getting worked up, every time she made a very valid point, he piped in "why do you get so worked up about it?" . There should be no argument here, it should be removed. She is very accurate in stating it does not reflect the views of the entire nation, as an athiest myself I agree, the same goes for swearing on a bible in court, again wrong in my opinion. North american countries, both U.S.A and Canada were founded by a vast multi-cultural "melting pot" of people, each having very different sets of belief systems, and out of respect for all it was added to the constitutions that the citizens of these countries could practice there own "individual religions", so long as they do not break any "common"(applies to all) laws. Through time, some of the more, growing and slightly more imposing religions have set themselves as majority and "imposed their beliefs into our governments, imposing not only thier propaganda through our monetary system, our tv, our radio , but many many laws are also based on religious beliefs, such as changing Hallow'een or cancelling it alltogether in some places, and numerous others, too many to mention. Religion, all religions, plain and simple, should be kept away from and hold NO influence over common law, media, or money, as the founders of our countries had planned. that is , unless each and every single religion had its equal share, input and say over every single matter concerning the entire populus. As it happens at this period of time, its a very one sided Christian road we are on, and thats unconstitutional. No persons should be forced to view something that would ofend them on a daily basis, such as our curency,.... we need it, we have to look at it, we have to use it daily. Why should we all have to look at religous propaganda? Especially if it has nothing to do with your own personal belief system. If your side is that worked up about it , hang a plaque over your fire place in your home that reads "In God We Trust", or "Use the force" or "Praise Allah", or "Buddah guide My Soul" or whatever your slogan is and worship it there, accept a new slogan reflective of the patriotism of the entire country as whole. Same goes for Creationism/Religion in schools. If you are going to look at one religous outlook on the way life began you would have to teach ALL religions versions of it , giving each an equal amount of time and study. These classes should be kept where they belong, in churches and synagogues and mosques and temples and sunday schools, where that type education was intended to be learned! ... Not in public schools where education has to be taught to a muticultural classroom full of different denominational kids . Everyone has to be more tolerant in their belief systems, remembering it was a culmination of individuals who forged these great nations as a whole, no one sect or denomination has right to lay claim on "public" education. I have an "Idea", not an imposition, it is as follows : All religions should be kept from our children, please hear me out and read before you judge, I would teach them all the common sense rules of life (without religous stigma attatched) ,let them live life free from any religious ruleset when they are young and still learning , and when they are old enough to vote, drive, drink, join an army (18-21 yrs ), they can then enroll in private "Religious School" that teaches all religion as a whole. Only after reviewing All religions,in depth, will they be ready to make an educated decision on a faith, because whos to say which one is right, or any of them is "right/true/fact", for that matter, and to be misled as a child could be harmful in later years. As decision making adults , they can make a choice on whether or not to take up a specific religion, or not!((I bet the religion of Islam would lose alot of young women to Atheism! lol! Hell, any religion looks good to them after the bull and torment they have endured for centuries.)) The right to choose for everone is very important, it signifies individualism and independance, and a sense of self confidence... regardless of the parents choice of denomination, race, gender, political affiliation etc. Acceptance and tolerance would be tested daily, thats a given. But... , If you truly love someone, You love them for who they are, not who you want them to be, or what religion the choose or not to choose to follow. Let them choose to be how they want, with a rational, non-religous biased youth. This is only an idea, it may be flawed, and in need of corrections and allowances, but its a start, and with work and perseverance it could be a mighty fine reality.

Sorry for the long post , but I felt a need to express my views, and had alot to say! Thanks Norm, for the blog,it's daily "must" read for me, always a pleasure seeing a new headline in the rss feed! :) . Keep up the great work! Communication is key!!

To the Christians:

doesn't it bother you to have any symbol of your religion (and this is clearly the Christian God we're talking about) represented on money. Doesn't it burn you to have God harnessed as the symbol of the American capitalist way? SAT question: Jesus is to dollars as [blank] is to [blank]. Look forward to what you may say.

K

God did she strap it on him! His 'reverse liberal arguments' didn't work too good on that plain shootin' babe.

Here's another Christian, like ron, david and bluegal above, who enjoys this website and is a steadfast defender of the separation of church and state. Fox News doesn't represent us. Nor does it represent Jesus.

Behold the man. He didn't lobby for political power. He didn't try to coerce people into acting a certain way. He said, this is the way and the truth, its the way I'm going, come with me. (Matthew 25) Whoever you are. Whatever you've done. Whatever people think of you. None of that matters when you choose to follow me.

And where did he lead? To political office? To the Supreme Court? To a Cable News Network? He led to healing people and feeding people and forgiving people. And who did he take to task? The powerful, the rich, the religious authorities, and anybody who abused others, who cast others out, who thought they were so much better than everyone else.

Ultimately Jesus leads to the cross, where self-sacrifice (not to be confused with morbid semi-assisted-suicide) is the ultimate value. Giving up all your power and authority for the sake of others.

When will the Religious Right come back to Jesus? When they stop using coercion and abusing politics to gain power. When they start giving all they have, all their power, all their comfort, all their trust and hope to God, and therefore to others, rather than to the US government.

He asks “Why does it bother you?” My answer is that it bothers me the same way that tagging bothers me. I love my country and love the constitution, and I want to see it without having it defaced by this gang of thugs with beliefs I don’t share, and values I don’t respect. If they feel the need to mark their territory they’re free to do that, but this country and the government is all of ours, not just theirs, so they should leave their little marks off of it.

Just because I am Christian does not mean I am against keeping church and state seperate. I just want people to be free to believe their own religious beliefs without the interference of government. To make the argument that only atheists could value that ideal or that the freedom of religion is now defined as just not having to believe in God. I think by narrowly defining this issue as Atheism vs. Religion is counterproductive. If that clause in the first amendment was just benefical to atheists and just protected that small group of people then you'd be screwed. In reality, that clause protects all of us, religion or no religion. And I hate to see such an important ideal be marginalized to just represent a small fraction of society. I see people get in these knee-jerk thinking patterns, dividing each other instead of trying to be inclusive. We can be sure to kiss freedom of religion goodbye if it gets framed as protecting secularism. Cause, like it or not, you are outnumbered in this country. And if religious people (the majority) start to see freedom of religion as "protecting atheists"....well, I'm sure you see where I am going.

Unfortunately, more and more in these kind of debates, secular people fall for the sensational Fox News frame. Those damn atheists hate religion! And then the atheists say there is no God and you can't make me! You are doing exactly what they hoped you'd do. Help narrowly define this issue and then make an argument by proxy about the existence or stupidity of God. Let's save the debates about the existance of God when arguing for freedom of religion. Cause even though I completely agree with you in spirit (on keeping religion and government seperate), when I hear talk how dumb people are to believe in God, my first knee-jerk reaction is not to want to agree with someone who calls me stupid. And I have a feeling alot of people would stop listening right there.

That guy's the biggest asshole I've ever seen. I mean, I'm sure we have many/various politicians that are worse, but damn.

And the way he sits there, all smarmy, smug, and smiling. He's like a pale imitation of O'Reiley. He's an example of the worst of what America has to offer.

Isn't that FOX commentator John Kasich, who was once a lousy asshole congressman from Ohio and the king of pandering to the angry white Jesus-lovin' mob?

Now he's a FOX commentator, how funny, how "fair and balanced." FOX News: for angry fat white stupid people who worship Jesus. I love how FOX commentators don't actually question guests; they berate them and pelt them with insults and sneering condescension. What idiot with an opposing view to Republican right-wing buffoonery would want to appear on FOX? It's like being a member of the Washington Generals, who were the perennial patsies to the Harlem Globetrotters.

"I like you."

"Well, John Kasich, I think you are a feserting zit of a man, you're a moron, and a you and FOX News pandering buffoons to the angry white fat stupid Jesus-lovin' mob. Go fuck yourself, and fuck FOX."

I think by narrowly defining this issue as Atheism vs. Religion is counterproductive. --Hannah

I think you are pigeonholing Atheism. You would find it very difficult to get folks here to agree on what it means to be an Athiest. One definition is Atheists are God's truest children. Another is a person confronted with a fundamentalist's version of god simply responds with "there is no god"-- one given to use kind of defensive mechanism when confronted by unwavering faith. But go ahead, tell me what it means to be an Athiest, Hannah....

Anyway, the talking dickhead of is one big conscientious jackass who wants to reduce the issue to tyranny of the minority and he does so with cheap repuke talk--hope it doesn't work for his audience.

I for one know that most religious folks feel unmoved by the issue of "In God We Trust". I'm areligious and know money for it's cheapness and richness is what I can live without--I don't got much and I don't need much and I'm liking reading more and more. The debate on Separation is made stronger because religious people are pushing an agenda--faith based shit, God and War, Prayer in Schools, Religious States, Fund Raising Gimmickry... you know the what's been happening. You know the whole story.

In the big cities, nobody is clamoring to tear down the crosses on every street. Religion is completely tolerated in it's diversity. People just stop these days and think a bit harder about the money they spend and wonder how much further than the slogan we have to go to appease the fundamentalist. Most of us could care less except for presense of a religious demagogue in Oval Office.

"I think you are pigeonholing Atheism."

Actually, I was trying to make the argument that by narrowly defining the issue, atheists are pigeonholing themselves and the freedom of religion clause. It isn't in the Bill of Rights to just protect atheists but to protect all of us from the tyranny of state mandated religion. (the right-wingers, I am sure are very happy to have unintended help marginalizing the freedom of religion clause.)

Perhaps, I misjudged liberal secularists in that they valued everyone's right to be free to believe their own religious beliefs without the interference of government. Here I thought we were on the same side so to speak.

"But go ahead, tell me what it means to be an Athiest, Hannah...."

How exactly was I saying what it means to be an atheist except to assume that atheists do not believe in the existence of a Creator?

Look, if you do not believe in God, fine. You are free to do so because we live in a country that tolarates many different religions. I'd like it to stay that way. I personally believe that something as personal as religious belief should not be forced. If it is forced it does not come from the heart, it comes out of fear of punishment by government.

Right-wingers succeed by dividing and marginalizing. And it drives me crazy when liberals unthinkingly use their talking points. They can then dismiss you by saying you hate God. And it works because like 95% of the country believes in God.

Instead, why not frame it as, "Everyone's free to believe their own religious beliefs without the interference of government." When you are ridiculed and demonized for being an atheist frame that as, "Aren't you commanded to proselytize to the unbelievers by appealing through their hearts and not by enforcing a false piety through government."

Just some ideas for the liberal atheists on this site. And don't forget that the other 95% of the Democrats do believe in God. Keep telling them that they are stupid for their religious beliefs and you become dead weight to the liberal cause and dropped like a hot potato.

"Actually, I was trying to make the argument that by narrowly defining the issue, atheists are pigeonholing themselves and the freedom of religion clause."--hannah

But to whom are you replying? The woman in the debate talks about unity and she is hardly making a case of just herself even though she says if it is only for herself, change the motto. It wasn't her strongest point and yet it was an exaggeration of how far we must go to keep church and state separate--a liberal talking point or a form of rhetoric? Some posters are clearly lashing out and I rarely blame them in these times--I'm one of them on occasion. Most atheists I know get along with religious folks...as I like you and your posts. My point of you pigeonholing people as atheists is actually moving the definition of atheist to include many 'religious folks'-- For instance, agnostics are often comfortable with atheists but avoid the defensive "there is no god". So are non-practicing jews--most are atheists and ethnically jew. And most secular folks understand a need for religion in the population and appreciate a need for separation with Pat Robertson in the country. I think that 95% of folks that claim to believe in god are more flexible of mind and even exhibit atheistic mechanism when confronted by rigid fundamentalism. I'm amazed to know a Republican that is for abortion, believes in creationism, thinks it's okay to be in Iraq protecting oil interests and would be comfortable with gay marriage...it's a strange mixture, but that is the nature of non-secularism. These kinds of people exist! And yet, this person would be annoyed to see the pledge altered or the coin motto changed. Another republican would not be annoyed but this person doesn't believe in creationism and settles with republican/agnostic (neocon-queer friendly) Both are real people--I struggle to understand.

You need to reply to the person you THINK is making this coin motto issue an Atheist issue. Because I agree with you except to say that I'm a defensive atheist--bring up god and I'll bring up no god. Say 95% of Americans believe in god and I'll point out that 85% are tenative in their faith and will find much religious dogma that is not common with other religious folks and will realize they have the same conscience as an American Atheist--an intuition of what is right and wrong culturally speaking. And I'm going to say it again, a person that does not have a relion or a faith can believe in G_D without defining IT or acting on IT...think they're referred to as deists. Really, deists make up most of the population in our country are and that is where you find commonality between Atheist and non-secular. Non-Secular folk pay lip-service to god for family reasons or tradition. I would say that lip-service is as common as giving head--sorry hannah, I love being vulgar; but I agree it is self-defeating to lash out spitefully and best to avoid generalizations.

Hmmm...85% are tenative in their faith? Are you pulling that figure out of the air? Maybe you are meaning more liberal and less literal? Although, even that wouldn't be true for most Americans. There is census data out there you can check for yourself regarding the religious make-up of our country and how often people go to church and so on.

The people who make the "god on money" and "god in the pledge" an issue of religion vs. atheism is BOTH the right-wingers AND atheists fault. The right-wingers come up with these little nuggets that they feed to you guys like candy. (I grew up hearing alot of that rightwing radio tirades that preserving church and state is paramount to turning from God.) And then that narrow frame defines the debate.

When the debate of the seperation of church and state morphs into either accepting or denying the existance God, you help frame the debate in favor of the right-wingers who use it to divide the Democratic base. Pretty soon you have people like my grandparents thinking to be a Democrat you have to be an atheist which would be a mistake because religious minorities are the biggest part of the Democratic base.

I guess I'm just trying to say that we need to defend religious freedom and seperation of church and state and remind people how it protects ALL of us from tyranny and do it in a way that doesn't turn that very important freedom into a pet cause of atheists.

Hannah,

What atheists have been framing the Church/State issue as mainly 'defending the rights of atheists'? Did someone say this in the comments above? Or was your comment more general? Do you have a specific citation to atheists who are falling for the "sensational Fox News frame"? Do you have a specific citation to atheists saying "we should keep Church and State separate...because belief in god(s) is stupid"?

Anon, Hannah was referring to some of the atheist liberals who post here at onegoodmove, and some of them are rather insulting towards those who believe in God. And I agree with her that "narrowly defining this issue as Atheism vs. Religion is counterproductive." I have read a lot of Hannah's posts over the past months and I find her to be a very thoughtful poster. She said what she did in order to help the liberal cause and to bring unity between the liberal atheists and the liberal christians. I feel that the responses to her posts were rather defensive and that her comments were thoughtful and respectful.

I do sometimes wonder about other's beliefs in God, but I will not say that they are stupid for holding those beliefs. I just know too many intelligent Christians to come to that conclusion and I don't want to alienate anyone. Hannah never comes down on atheists and I follow her example by trying not to come down on Christians. It is only those conservative Christian fundamentalists who don't believe in religious freedom (freedom to choose any religion or no religion at all), who mix their religion with politics, and who act holier than thou, who tick me off. When we get upset at jerks like Kasich, we should not extend our feelings toward people like him to the liberal, intellectual, thoughtful Christians, because what is to be gained by attacking those who disagree with us as to the existence of God or Jesus, but agree with us on most of the other political issues?

Anyway, some of the onegoodmove posters make me laugh and make some really good points and I admire the intelligence evident at this website. I loved the following two comments:

Jon said So why not a new slogan we can all get behind like "freedom & liberty for all" or something along those lines?

JD said We are a 'Christian Nation' in much the same way that we are a 'White Nation' -- i.e. not. Yet the arguments for the US being a 'Christian Nation' are the same as those for it being a 'White Nation': The Founding Fathers were all white, many of them probably intended the US to be primarily and predominantly white (and specifically Anglo-saxon), and white people are still the large majority of the population. How is not the use of religious imagery and language on our currency not like having the Confederate flag or Swastika (or something similar in meaning) on our currency?

That was a good point Jon made because so many Christian fundamentalists will claim that since our founding fathers were mostly Christians, that makes us a Christian nation, ergo, we are also a white male nation.

Jo Ann,

Thank you for your kind words. My aim was just to help. I understand that people are driven crazy by these rightwingers but it's not just atheists, Christians are irritated by them too. More so because those people are mucking up the Gospel. And they claim to be devout so they have no excuse!!

"That was a good point Jon made because so many Christian fundamentalists will claim that since our founding fathers were mostly Christians, that makes us a Christian nation"

Tip from a Christian: Here's a comeback to rightwingers saying this is a Christian nation (which is code for getting rid of church and state):

"If we are a Christian nation it is in name only if our actions do not align with our words. How "Christian" is our nation when we start aggressive wars, ignore Katrina victims, leave behind the poor and hungry to fend for themselves. We wouldn't have to proclaim so loudly how pious we are if our deeds matched our words. To claim we are does not make it so, it is only by our fruits that we are judged."

People like that get unnerved and off message when confronted with their hypocrisy. That rightwingers get to claim the mantle of Jesus is just so wrong. If Jesus were alive today, I guarentee He'd be a bleeding heart liberal. Amen.

Well, to both Jo Ann and Hannah, I think it was deists that founded this country...or so I like to believe. Especially since they did manage that establisment clause irregardless of the need to procreate the salt.

You know, Jo Ann, I think it's good that you defend Hannah, afterall, I said I like Hannah. I said I like her posts. I said I agree with her that we should not antagonize the religious folks as it is self-defeating. I even supposed that Hannah was replying to those angry posters that tend to lash out at religion. I guess I understand her. That I respond to a religious peron is in itself showing respect. So, do you understand me? Cuz it doesn't seem like you do.

Jon's comment may sound good, but I hear it from Bush all the time: FREEDOM! DEMOCRACY! LIBERTY! May it SPREAD! And yeah, it sounds good FOR ALL. But it's only seems to apply to one: The Prez to do what he wants without question. And we know or are getting to know what that means. Now J.D. has very good logic. I don't know what was in the founding father's religious minds when they made the constitution. I don't know what notion of god was in their minds. But they seemed to think it was important to separate state and church by evidence of the first ammendment. They were white, no doubt. Overall, separation of church and state prevailed. And I like our constitution. Eventually, it led to women having the right to vote. To civil rights of blacks. And now it is beginning to providing civil rights to gays. It's all good until 'originalists' claim to know what was really in the minds of those folks that founded the nation and added the establishment clause because they were NOT YET unerring gods and did not see the need for the first ammendment when first writing the constitution--what a fucking idiot Scalia is.

Okay. Now to those that live in the present, can you think of no reason why atheists tend to lash out at religion? Or can you think not of a thousand reasons? That it muzzles us. Binds us. Tortures us. That it lies. Fabricates. Falsely accuses. Destroys. That it is arrogant enough to speak for us without our consent? Is the antithesis of individuality. Murders in the name of a vengeful god. Claims divinity. Prays for guidance in ruling people. You think it's not Bush that we hate! What is wrong with putting a bit of salt in their own wounds they spread. Atheist or non-secular or non-fundamentalist, we all know the assholes. That is why I don't blame atheists for being angry. That is why I know non-secular folks like separation: it protects their religosity from the state. And that is why I expect Christians to put their own house in order and not worry about the minimality of atheists. Go spread the word among Fundamentalists Christians. They are the furthest from the truth. They break the first ammendment by putting god on all monies. Get it right for god's sake...if it has a sake.

Weird. Somehow the crooked cross of well-being enters the debate. But really, that was Jesus' biggest mistake, for his name has being barrowed and savaged by the tyrannical. And that is why we should give our names to friends we know and remain anon to those we don't know. Have a good thanksgiving to all. I love all the food on the table. And why the hell are we at war anyways? Is it cuz we have too much?

Anon... wow! what a perfect response! ... logical, thoughtful, respectful. I reread what you posted, and you are correct that I didn't understand what you said and I made some rather quick, knee-jerk conclusions based on some of your comments without taking into account all of the points that you made. You said to the Christians, "Go spread the word among Fundamentalists Christians."... well, that is EXACTLY what our Hannah is doing!! Bless her heart!

As for remaining anonymous, I don't, and I have never received any spam. The only private emails I have ever received were thoughtful, kindly emails. I take that risk, but it is worth it.

Also, I wanted to add that David's post gives me hope, as it was well thought out, logical and kindly.

Yes, Anon, maybe we do have too much and perhaps we are not thankful enough for it.

To all of the people suffering this evening in the world, to the citizens of Iraq, and to the soldiers stationed across the globe away from their families and in harm's way, I wish you well and hope that we can all join hands to improve our little planet.

Best wishes and warm regards to all, and to the citizens of the U.S., Happy Thanksgiving.. enjoy..

Anon,

"Now to those that live in the present, can you think of no reason why atheists tend to lash out at religion? That it muzzles us. Binds us. Tortures us. That it lies. Fabricates. Falsely accuses. Destroys. That it is arrogant enough to speak for us without our consent? Is the antithesis of individuality. Murders in the name of a vengeful god. Claims divinity. Prays for guidance in ruling people."

Yes, I can. There is a lot of hypocrisy that comes from some religious people. Unfortunately, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. (BTW, Jesus “lashed out” at the corrupt religion of His day and was crucified for it. So atheists are hardly the only ones who see hypocrisy and act out against it.)

Meanwhile there are many quiet, humble and compassionate religious people out there going about under the radar feeding homeless people, tending the sick and dying, building homes with habitat for humanity, etc. (My church is sponsoring tent city, where homeless people set up a tent community on church grounds. It’s sad how many people in the community are fearful of poor and homeless people; tent city shouldn’t be so controversial.)

You know I volunteer outside of my church and there are a lot of young liberal atheists types that volunteer, too. So I don’t think compassion only comes from religious belief. Religion is just a guide. Maybe you don’t need it like those young liberals who volunteer and walk the talk so to speak. Personally, I respect them more that people like Pat Robertson and his followers, who when push comes to shove are full of hot air.

“And that is why I expect Christians to put their own house in order and not worry about the minimality of atheists.”

I think you were misunderstanding me. I only pointed out the small minority of atheists because it seems the debate on the separation of church was narrowly focusing on atheists wanting religion to leave them alone and to have their viewpoint respected. Which is an important point but by far not the only or best argument in favor of church and state. And not one that would appeal to the majority who do believe in God. If you write off every liberal who believes in God then you will find yourself in a much smaller Democratic party. I think liberals should stop dividing themselves. (Note: Liberal Christians, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, etc are not the ones who call for assassinations and damnation on hurricane victims. We not exactly the kind of people who are going to burn you at the stake for being a heathen.)

Jo Ann and Hannah, it's something like, "In the People We Must Trust", not god. That IS government. We shouldn't trust our leaders. We must hold them accountable. And that is conscience--the ability of the people to know right and wrong and be able to change for the better.

Hannah, you mentioned the tent city. Do volunteers wear badges? Just carrying on the argument to Faith Based programs. If it is in the deed, why carry the cross? Charity is best given without recognition. I was think that when I'm feeling at my lowest, I sometimes look for help in a stranger, we carry no baggage and can be completely honest with each other. I'm always surprised by peoples capacity to help one another.

You must know that I know what you were saying, Hannah. I have a hard time defining Atheism. Sometimes I settle on people that have a childlike curiosity about the world. Sometimes they seem like The Accountants of the Religious...at least in not buying the story. Another, The Last Defenders of Humanity because people tend to pray for better weather and sports triumphs and rarely give credit where it is due. But these are too innocent and haughty and of course, subjective or not mutually exclusive among all people. So, like someone said, it's those that travel the 'rough road', we feel the bumps and take the curves and know that we are more human than religious--that in the end, we all live and die together. And it's in the argument that we thrive.

Perhaps the slogan should be "In Habit We Trust", since human perceptual habits are the real foundation of the value of the pieces of paper we call 'money'.

God-belief never stopped hyperinflation.

Why carry the cross? Because I believe Jesus is my salvation. Pretty simple.

What do you mean charity is best given without recognition? I believe in patting people on the back for the good they do and not just point out the bad they do. Besides, I believe nothing you do is without recognition from God.

About the tent city, church members are primarily the volunteers and we get to know our guests names so name tags (badges) are unneccasary. We do not require them to convert or go to church, we just help them out. Some have no one who cares about them and I think everyone needs a least one person in this world who knows them and cares about them. The tent city is such a good thing because the homeless have a chance to form a community of their own and have a chance to feel safe. The tent city is a traveling one that goes to many different churches in the area. They usually can't stay too long in one place or else other people in the community make a stink about it.

And our church doesn't get money from the federal government for faith-based programs. It's very political reasons that determine what churches get money, they're almost exclusively very conservative churchs. But even if we qualified, I can't see our pastor applying for it, especially if it meant the government would have a say in what we do in our church. : )

Knock it off. Atheism is not a philosophy. Atheism is nothing more than the idea that their isn't sufficient evidence to believe in a god. Atheists have all different kinds of beliefs. I personally subscribe to the principles outlined in the affirmations of humanism from the Council of Secular Humanists.

Anon said, "In people we trust", not God.. I agree. I do not even believe in God. I was agreeing with the points Hannah made about separation of church and state being for the benefit of both believers and non believers. I do not share her belief in God.

Hannah, that bit about Buddha is interesting and I find most Buddhists to be reasonable people. I am not searching for something, or searcing for God though. I do not now, never have, and never will believe in God. I am just curious about what makes people tick, and I sometimes hold back what I really feel so as not to offend my friends who are Christians or believers in God.

Norm, I agree that atheism is not a philosopy, but who on this thread said that it was? Did I miss something?

And I like our constitution. Eventually, it led to women having the right to vote. To civil rights of blacks. And now it is beginning to provid[e] civil rights to gays. It's all good until 'originalists' claim to know what was really in the minds of those folks that founded the nation and added the establishment clause because they were NOT YET unerring gods and did not see the need for the first ammendment when first writing the constitution-

Thank you, anon. Perfect point. Though some might say the Constitution was divinely inspired, I feel it was authored by truly amazing people because of the founding father's wisdom in anticipating a dynamic and changing world.

Thanks to all for a good discussion.

Jo Ann-

Feel free to pick my brain about anything you have questions about. I wouldn't be posting comments at this site if I was easily offended. I think alot of religious people (not just Christians) don't like being introspective about their beliefs and explaining it to unbelievers because deep down they are afraid they may be wrong. I acknowledge I may be wrong - really none of really know for sure. If I am wrong, it won't matter because I'll just be worm food, right?

I take religion a little differently than most Christians. I do not think Christainity is the only path to God, which is NOT what most Christians think.

I personally don't think God is too hung up on whether we believe He exists. I think that is actually the point - we are not supposed to know for sure. I think it only matters what we do with our lives. If we are kind to people. If we are creators instead of destroyers.

And about atheism not being a philosophy. Why would that be a bad thing? Isn't philosophy just a theory about a particular subject? So if you do not believe in God, your theory is that we and our universe exist through (happy) accident and chance and that there is no ultimate purpose to our existence? I can see that atheists do not see sufficent evidence of God therefore they do not believe in the existence of God. But that is still a belief. You do not know for absolute sure, just like religious people don't really know for sure (even if they claim they do). Please don't take my questions as offensive, I'm just honestly curious.

Hannah, "And about atheism not being a philosophy. Why would that be a bad thing? Isn't philosophy just a theory about a particular subject? So if you do not believe in God, your theory is that we and our universe exist through (happy) accident and chance and that there is no ultimate purpose to our existence? I can see that atheists do not see sufficent evidence of God therefore they do not believe in the existence of God. But that is still a belief. You do not know for absolute sure, just like religious people don't really know for sure (even if they claim they do). Please don't take my questions as offensive, I'm just honestly curious."

Actually atheism does not require that one believes the universe came about by 'happy' accident or that life has no ultimate purpose. All it requires is that one lacks the belief in gods. With respect to the beginning of the universe, one might have no idea and no particular metaphysical commitment, or one might believe it never had a beginning, or that it necessarily (rather than accidentally) came to be. With respect to 'ultimate purposes', one could believe in karma and reincarnation, or a movement of the soul towards perfection, or what have you. There is nothing in atheism that requires nonbelief in any of these things -- only in gods.

However, you are correct that a lot of atheists have a very different understanding of the word "purpose" which makes questions of "ultimate (external) purpose" and the like essentially meaningless. You are also correct that many atheists believe the universe came about by what you might call 'happy accident'. You might not have much respect for this notion, though I would point out that theism at root has a similar notion -- what is it if not a 'happy accident' that there happened to exist a God who was both willing and able to create our universe?

JD,

If you believe there is a God (unless it’s a deist “watchmaker god”) you believe that creation of the universe was directed and has a purpose.

If you do not believe in a God, how could you NOT believe that the creation of the universe was not directed and had no ultimate purpose? If there was no creator and it was not directed, then it happened by chance (luckily for us).

I suppose you could not believe in a God and also not form an opinion as to how the universe came to be. But you would think that you would at least rule out a directed creation with some ultimate purpose.

And as far as reincarnation, if your soul is moving towards perfection, why would that be if there was no purpose. What and who would you be perfecting your soul for? Whose idea was that – to progress humans souls? Progress towards what? It implies some sort of destination, an end goal of some sort.

I do not have less respect for someone who thinks the universe happened by happy accident. It is a mysterious subject, I would say none of us know for sure. I know that I could be mistaken in my beliefs. Like you, I gaze into the same star filled night and wonder how it all came to be. We have just formed different conclusions, faulty as they may be.

Hannah, I could never be offended by what you say because everything that you post is sincere and well thought out and you are incredibly articulate, as are many posters who blog here. It is obvious that you are not here just to argue and be inflammatory, but rather to exchange ideas and be a positive force. I agree with you that if one is easily offended, then they shouldn't be posting their comments at this site. Anyway, I learn more by exchanging ideas with those who disagree with me as they challenge me to evaluate how I go about arriving at any conclusions that I may draw.

What would be wrong with calling atheism a philosophy? It's not that it's a bad thing, it's just that it is not a philosophy. I don't believe anything for which there is no concrete proof, but I don't consider requiring proof to be a philosophy.

By the way, Hannah, I like your concept of God. If there was a God, then why would he be so petty as to require that people believe in him? And why does it have to be God? I never hear anyone say that they believe in Goddess. ;)

When I think about our gallaxy and all of the other gallaxies, I do not see a universe which was created just for humans. I just see humans as an evolutionary consequence of circumstances, or as you put it, a (happy) accident. However, this accident is only happy for humans. When I see what humans are doing to this Earth and to the animails with whom we share this planet, I wonder how happy an accident that it really is.

Now I have had some unusual experiences which lead me to believe that there is more to life than I understand, but I accept that these experiences are unexplainable and perhaps could be explained by coincidence. (Not anything like seeing ghosts though!)

In the Judeo-Christian Commandments there is one that for some reason has not been mentioned in this debate - communication - monologues - diatribes - etc.: Thou shalt not take the name of God, G-D in vain. Isn't placing God's name (God) or (G-D) on money (filthy lucre) taking His name in vain.

Or is that to apply in the way that if you commit to be a devotee of your ascribed God or G-D, that you do so in such a way as to not be vain about it OR that you agree to follow certain precepts and if you do not, you have taken His name upon you in vain?

And since the actions of this Administration are, to me, quite godless - murder of innocents, not caring for the wdiowed and orphaned, being warmongers as opposed to peacemakers, falsely accusing your neighbours, lusting after your neighbour's goods and property, bearing false witness in regards to your neighbour's intentions, having other idol's of worship rather than God, not keeping the Sabbath holy - which all relate to the invasion, occupation of Iraq and the business arrangements in the "new" US influenced Iraqi Constitution - then those who clainm any adherence to the name of god or any of the basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian mutual moral codes.

In regards to Christianity, specifically, you are to treat your neighbours as yourself - which may be applicable here since the USofA has the highest murder rate per capita of any nation on Earth - however, I think the teaching was indicative of a different desire by the supposed founder of your spiritual addictions. (Read The Jesus Mysteries - if you want a clear cogent frank discussion about some questionable avenues of that belief).

The framers of the Constitution were absolutley opposed to the interference of any religion in the halls of government, as has been stated here often enough.

As an athiest, I do not subscribe to any partcular form of spiritual blackmail or intimidation. Since there is no valid proof, for me as a rational scientist and clear thinking man, of the existance of any kind of God, G-D, god, goddess, Allah, Jack-In-The-Box (well, there are Jack In The Box and they do speak to me in an unseen way as I drive up) then I find it difficult to embrace any such mental masterbation - because in all of my observations of these mind/spiritual games that people prey upon others or themselves I have yet to see the reality of a worthwhile result. None.

Dig deep enough and there is always sanctimonious - better than thou attitudes, my belief is better than ours and the ultimate ultimatum of "if you don't believe then you will have to endure our religion's special form of eternal damnation" and "maybe someday, hopefully for your sake, we will be able to convert you".

How arrogant! How so not God-like. If there is a God, etc., then he, she, it, they is detached enough from the ultimate outcome that the clause of non-interference is followed to the letter.

SAT Essay question - in 10,000 words or less - why does the Universe have to have been "created"? Why is timelessness and unlimited space -time - gravity so difficult to experience without having to ascribe an anthropomorphic invisible without location super being to the mix?

Bonus points: What happened to the Universe just is - no hooks lines or sinkers? It just is. No need for an explanation. It just is.

Hannah,

"If you believe there is a God (unless it’s a deist “watchmaker god”) you believe that creation of the universe was directed and has a purpose.

If you do not believe in a God, how could you NOT believe that the creation of the universe was not directed and had no ultimate purpose? If there was no creator and it was not directed, then it happened by chance (luckily for us)."

My response: I take it from your post that you think there is a necessary dichotomy -- that either a thing is created and thus has a purpose, or that it exists due to happy accident. Do you apply this to God's existence as well? Was God created by some even more transcendent being, or did he come to be by some happy accident? If you accept neither, and instead elect some third option, then surely you must allow that others can do the same with respect to the universe itself.

Hannah continues, "I suppose you could not believe in a God and also not form an opinion as to how the universe came to be. But you would think that you would at least rule out a directed creation with some ultimate purpose."

My response: Yes, being an atheist would rule out having the belief that a god created the universe. However, it does not even necessarily strictly rule out purposive creation -- one might, for example, think that our universe is a simulation run by alien scientists who want to study consciousness or something. These scientists would not fit the definition of god by any means, being neither spirits, nor immortal, nor omniscient, nor omnipotent, nor even particularly worthy or desirous of worship.

Hannah continues, "And as far as reincarnation, if your soul is moving towards perfection, why would that be if there was no purpose. What and who would you be perfecting your soul for? Whose idea was that – to progress humans souls? Progress towards what? It implies some sort of destination, an end goal of some sort."

My response: Here you are constrained by your modern Christian worldview. An Aristotelian or a Platonist might have much to say about objects and the Ends (i.e. purposes) to which they naturally tend. There is nothing necessarily theistic about Plato's perfect end-state as full knowledge of and accordance with the Forms (and especially The Good), or Aristotle's conception of perfection as a kind of Golden Mean, and a flourishing of virtue and happiness.

I'm sorry Christians, and/or people who claim to be, are so frickin retarded.

I love Jesus.

I could care less what's on our money, or if people say the pledge, or if the Ten Commandments hang ANYWHERE.

It doesn't matter.

I'm sorry. I really am.

SEAN

Jo Ann,

This is interesting. I always thought that atheism was a philosophy.

If it isn’t a philosophy with theories, then why is it an “-ism” (atheiISM)? I guess I always assumed it was a philosophical theory that supposes creation and our existence happened without the direction of a Creator. If a God didn’t do it then thinking creation of the universe happened by chance is a theory too, right?

Alright, I just looked up philosophy and theory in the dictionary…..

Philosophy:

1. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
2. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry.
3. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs
4. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory.

Theory:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
3. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

How is not a philosophy?

As to the creation of the universe, I don't think it was made just for humans either. I think all of creation is important, I just happen to place more value on human life cause I'm human and I'm selfish. ; ) I definately agree that we should take better care of our Earth. You'd think that would be more important to people who believe in God, since we are mucking up his creation.

What unusual experiences did you have?

theism is a belief in god or gods.

the 'a' at the beginning of athesim simply means without

without a belief in god or gods.

definition

so if theism is a philosophy you could also say that atheism is without that particular philosophy namely theism.

Thanks, Norm.

Shawn, I’m not retarded.

JD, I suppose I was assuming a dichotomy. Do you have another for me to consider, that would be an interesting discussion to have. I would certainly “allow” others to have a ”third” option, if I only knew what it was. How do suppose our universe was created if not by happy accident or by direction of a creator? If our universe was created by alien scientists to study consciousness then that would be a universe created by direction and with an ultimate purpose, although a strange purpose.

Who created God, indeed! Same question I used to ask my Sunday school teacher. When I find out, I’ll let you know. ; )

I remember learning about Forms in my ethics class (yeah, I know it’s a weird place to get into philosophy) and I never got it. Isn’t it believing that everything that existed or ever could exist, exists first in our minds. Or am I totally confusing that with something else. And how does that relate to Karma and reincarnation.

Hannah replies, "JD, I suppose I was assuming a dichotomy. Do you have another for me to consider, that would be an interesting discussion to have."

My response: Well the one that leaps to mind is the option you have taken with respect to God -- i.e. the "I don't know" option. A person does not need to be committed to either believing the universe was created or that it is an accident -- one can simply claim no attachment to any particular belief at all in that respect.

Another option is believing that all logically possible universes necessarily exist (sort of like the Multiverse idea). This avoids both the need for a creator and an 'accident'. Thus, our universe exists because it had to exist.

A third option is that both 'creation' and 'accident' are spacetime dependant phenomena, that presuppose the 'stage of the universe' (as it were) on which to occur. Thus neither can explain the so-called beginning of the universe (though 'beginning' itself is another such phenomena). Instead there must be some other explanation for why the universe is here, perhaps one that the human brain (with its propensity to think in spatio-temporal terms) cannot even contemplate.

Hannah continues, "I remember learning about Forms in my ethics class (yeah, I know it’s a weird place to get into philosophy) and I never got it. Isn’t it believing that everything that existed or ever could exist, exists first in our minds. Or am I totally confusing that with something else. And how does that relate to Karma and reincarnation."

My response: I am sorry, I wasn't clear. Reincarnation was one option, perfection of the soul was another option. The discussion of Forms and Aristotle was in regards to the second option, not the first, though they are not necessarily incompatible with the first.

Actually ethics class is the perfect place to get into philosophy, in my opinion. Rather than screw things up with my own attempt to define what Plato meant by the Forms, I will instead give you a link: (and let them screw things up)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato#Metaphysics

I will also link Aristotle's Four Causes notion. In particular, look at what it says about his 'Telos' or 'Final Cause' (purpose) notion, and what the Final Cause of Man is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Aristotle.27sfourcauses

JD,

"A person does not need to be committed to either believing the universe was created or that it is an accident -- one can simply claim no attachment to any particular belief at all in that respect."

Sure but wouldn't that be agnostic rather than atheism - you know, someone who is noncommittal regarding the existence of a creator but is open to the possibility?

If you are noncommittal about the other “options” you’ve discussed but feel they could be potential possibilities to the creation of the universe, then why do you rule out the possibility of creation being directed with a purpose? You seem to be an open and curious person regarding the mystery of creation, yet you seem very sure about the lack of evidence of the existence of God. I’m curious what convinced you of that?

Or are you playing devils advocate? No pun intended. ; )

Thanks for the links about Forms, I’ll check it out so I’ll know what you were talking about.

Hannah writes, "Sure but wouldn't that be agnostic rather than atheism - you know, someone who is noncommittal regarding the existence of a creator but is open to the possibility?"

My response: No. Agnosticism is a position with respect to claims of knowledge about gods -- one claims to not know whether gods exist or not, and/or that it is impossible to know the answer. Atheism and theism are positions with respect to belief about gods -- a theist believes in a god or gods, an atheist doesn't. In that sense, there is no alternative to theism and atheism -- you are either one or the other. Yet both theists and atheists can also be agnostics; one who believes or doesn't, and who also claims to not know and/or that it is impossible to know.

So yes, I am open to the possibility of a creator or committee of creators, but I don't believe in them (and am thus an atheist). I cannot prove it is impossible that a creator started all this, so I do not claim to know that no creator exists. But at the same time I find the possibility rather unbelievable.

Similarly, I am open tto the possibility that there are in fact little grey, coincidentally human-like aliens that travel trillions of miles in ships that look remarkably like Earth-natural phenomena in order to probe the anuses of mentally unbalanced American humans. I am open to the possibility in that the right kind of evidence (and lots of it) will convince me. But at the same time I do not believe it, and think it rather unbelievable.

Hannah continues, "If you are noncommittal about the other “options” you’ve discussed but feel they could be potential possibilities to the creation of the universe, then why do you rule out the possibility of creation being directed with a purpose? You seem to be an open and curious person regarding the mystery of creation, yet you seem very sure about the lack of evidence of the existence of God. I’m curious what convinced you of that?"

Oh, many reasons. Here are a few off the top of my head: (keeping in mind I do not 'rule it out' entirely)

1) Myths and legends about gods appear to be exactly that -- myths and legends. Jehovah (or any other particular god) in that sense is no more believable than Zeus. How can you rationally believe the stories in the Bible but not the stories about Zeus?

2) Gods are rarely good explanations for anything. Almost invariably a god is going to be a bigger mystery than the mystery you are invoking the god to explain; and that is not progress at all. Moreover, the mysteries of gods do not typically lend themselves to further investigation (or falsification for that matter), so invoking the 'Godditit' explanation has a way of choking off further inquiry.

3) I am extremely wary of anything that smacks of human egocentricism. So I am wary of any story that says "Something essentially very like us (but better, according to our system of values) created all of this, and moreover it was all created for us". It may not be comforting to think that the universe is a vast, impersonal place that does not reflect our values, and that we, like platypuses and e coli bacteria, are just unintended side effects of the outworking of the brute nature of matter, confined to an insignificant corner of the universe. But then I despise wishful thinking, and refuse to let comfort affect what I believe.

To Hannah's Theory:

1. A set of statements ... especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Evolution.

1. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

It's the notion that from an inclusive assertion, a philosophy of Human Secularism can arise.

1. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

God. Beginnings. Ends. Continuity. Infinity. No God.

I would certainly “allow” others to have a ”third” option, if I only knew what it was.--Hannah

It's kind of why I never take issue with personal faith. Humans evolve and so far, we don't conceptionalize like a 4th dimension. Maybe we will.

On the Atheism is/is not a philosophy...it's better to say, philosophy arises from an assertion: The assertion of god or the assertion of no god. The assertions are not philosophy. But they can't help but lead to philosophy. One is religious in nature and the other is a way of life. If you believe in god, it's hard to not ascribe form--deist goal. If you don't believe in god, it's hard to not ascribe in what you are--human today. There is a lot of trick or treat in words--ask any modern philosopher. Ask Norm. I'm like you, Hannah, here to learn.

JD,

You bring up some very interesting points. My response to your reasons (off the top of your head) that lead you to believe there is no God:

Just because some sentient creatures residing on a planet contained within a vast and mysterious universe, can not conceive of “good reasons” for the existence of a Creator does not mean it can not be so. Understand that I am speaking of a Creator and not a particular religion, which is a particular culture trying to understand and explain God. Every Religion throughout human history could of gotten it wrong but that still does not rule out God’s existence. God’s potential existence does not depend on humans to understand it and to explain it. That said, just because we could perceive a Creator does not mean there is one either.

You say Gods are rarely good explanations for anything because the existence of God is going to be a bigger mystery than the particular mystery God is invoked to explain. But how is it that because it is a bigger mystery (Where does God come from?) that it rules it out? You could say the same thing about the big bang. That could explain the mystery of our creation but that leaves a bigger mystery- how did something come out of nothing? Equally mysterious. Because we do not know and can not explain the bigger mystery does not rule out the possibility of the big bang or a creator (or both or neither) as the explanation. To think the existence or lack of existence of God depends on our brains understanding and explaining it smacks of human egocentrism to me. Don't you think? ; )

Hannah writes, "Just because some sentient creatures residing on a planet contained within a vast and mysterious universe, can not conceive of “good reasons” for the existence of a Creator does not mean it can not be so. Understand that I am speaking of a Creator and not a particular religion, which is a particular culture trying to understand and explain God. Every Religion throughout human history could of gotten it wrong but that still does not rule out God’s existence. God’s potential existence does not depend on humans to understand it and to explain it. "

My response: You are correct, our inability to come up with good reasons for the existence of a god does not mean a god doesn't exist -- it just means there is no good reason for us to think one does. There are an infinite number of things which could perhaps be. I prefer to believe in those things for which I have good reasons.

Hannah continues, "You say Gods are rarely good explanations for anything because the existence of God is going to be a bigger mystery than the particular mystery God is invoked to explain. But how is it that because it is a bigger mystery (Where does God come from?) that it rules it out"

My response: Oh that is but the smallest part of the mystery that is the divine -- who is God? What is God? How does he do what he does? Why does he do what he does? Why didn't he do something else?

Hannah continues, "You could say the same thing about the big bang. That could explain the mystery of our creation but that leaves a bigger mystery- how did something come out of nothing? Equally mysterious."

Actually that's not really the case. The Big Bang theory shaves off a piece of the mystery of why things exist -- i.e. that mystery is slightly smaller with the BBT than without it. Why? Because the BBT is eminently describeable -- it is a mathematically framed theory, and we can say all sorts of definite things about it. That is how we knew there would (probably) be a background radiation before we ever sent up the COBE satelite to look for it: It was a consequence of the BB that the theory predicted. If the background radiation had not been found then we could say with certainty that the BBT was wrong -- it could be falsified.

Can you do as much for 'The Creator'? We don't really know anything about this hypothetical being, certainly not enough to deduce consequences of his existence (i.e. we cannot make predictions) -- it's a theory that is too vague and too full of unknowns to be falsifiable, and is not worth much in understanding the universe.

Hannah continues, "To think the existence or lack of existence of God depends on our brains understanding and explaining it smacks of human egocentrism to me. Don't you think? ; )"

My response: I don't think his existence or nonexistence depends on our ability understand it. Rather, I think if we cannot even say what God is and why he does anything that we have absolutely no business invoking him to 'explain' anything.

Well, Hannah, what you addressed to me has by now been answered by Norm, and quite thoroughly by JD.. what a discussion this has been! Very interesting to read. I really do hesitate to mention my experiences here on a public forum, but here goes. The strangest experience that I ever had was when I was a teenager. I had a girlfriend spending the night with me and we were sleeping in this mobile home next to our house up in the mountains. We were the only ones in the mobile home, as my family lived in the house and we just had the trailer house for guests. Well, we turned out the lights to go to sleep. After a while I felt something weird which I cannot explain. It is as though I sensed something was in the room. And I thought that for sure I was just psyching myself out. But this sense of something seemed to be getting closer to me, and I had this sudden sensation that it was hovering over me and I felt a heaviness in my chest. I didn't see a thing, it was just a sensation. I didn't say anything about this to her because I was certain that my mind was just playing tricks on me. Then my friend tells me that she feels something weird, but can't explain it. Well, that really got to me and I jumped up and turned on the lights! Both of us decided to go into the house to sleep as we had no desire to sleep in the trailer house with this weird feeling. How to explain this? Coincidence maybe? Maybe we were young and feeling insecure being alone in this trailer house? I have no idea. She had no idea either, but we came up with this theory that maybe someone was lurking outside and we were somehow subconsciously aware of it. I am laughing to myself now, though, cause that person who believes in ghosts will feel for sure that we had a ghost in there. :)

JD,

I agree that the big bang theory does provide an explanation to the creation of our universe but it does not explain what happened before the big bang and how something (our universe) came out of nothing (the minute before the big bang). There still is a bigger mystery created by the explanation (the big bang).

No, I definitely agree we can not “deduce the consequences of his existence (make predictions) and it’s not falsifiable. We can not hook God up to machines in a lab and study him. But how could science be able to study God. If creation happened zillions of years ago, aren’t we left with just studying the effects of creation and working backwards. Where is this rascally God that won’t even politely explain himself in a falsifiable manner, I mean really how does he expect us to scientifically verify him. ; )

I think science studies the how and God describes the why. Science studies and explains the mechanics of creation (how we came to be) but I don’t think it is equipped to tell us why. Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? Is there an ultimate purpose for the creation of the universe? Is there a purpose for consciousness and self-awareness? Are we purely physical beings or do we possess a soul? Do we have some higher consciousness?

On our consciousness: Consciousness is something completely different from other characteristics of matter such as mass, charge, structure, etc. While our consciousness seems to depend on the matter in our brains, we cannot detect anything unusual about our brains that would indicate why consciousness is attached to it. If we agree that consciousness is in the brain as a whole, is it in a single neuron? A single atom? A single electron? Assuming that nothing exists except for interacting particles, somehow within every particle there is something that provides the basis for consciousness. Is consciousness a universal property of matter? Or is matter is a property of consciousness?

JD,

(Meant to post with my last comment):

You said: “You are correct, our inability to come up with good reasons for the existence of a god does not mean a god doesn't exist -- it just means there is no good reason for us to think one does. There are an infinite number of things which could perhaps be. I prefer to believe in those things for which I have good reasons.”

So there are an infinite number of “plausible” explanations one could come up (including the idea of alien scientists studying consciousness) with regarding the creation of the universe except the idea of a Creator? That explanation doesn’t have enough good reasons to be considered among the possibilities, so it should not be believed until there are “good reasons” like with the alien scientist explanation? It seems like you are saying anything is possible except for God.

Hannah, in reference to the big bang you ask, "How could something come out of nothing?" Something didn't come out of nothing.

"About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point"" http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

I think that the question of "how did matter come to exist?" is much more interesting than the existence or non existence of God.

I also think that it is an intellectual waste to be theorizing about God when all of this thought could be put to good scientific use.

Hannah, if you found out that there was no such thing as God, would this bother you? What if we just die and that is it? What would be wrong with that?

Jo Ann,

I understood the big bang model as explaining what happened after that "point" became the big bang but not before it happened. At one point our universe didn't exist and then it did. I wonder what was before that and why it happened.

On the question of if there is no God: Well, if it is all a happy accident without a purpose and when we die that's it, there is no soul. Then I won't be too bothered because there will be no "me" to worry about it after my body dies.

I don't really see how humankind could of ruled out God scientifically without me hearing about it. But I haven't watched TV for awhile so who knows... ; )

Kidding aside, I am open to being wrong. I do not know all the answers. But I don't think anyone else does either. For me, the possibility of there being a world created with a purpose compared to it all happening by chance with no ultimate reason or purpose to our existence, I'll choose the possibility of creation with a purpose to believe. And you choose that it was all a happy accident.

It could be said I choose that cause I'm picking what is easier or it's a crutch or I'm delusional or whatever. But I don't see how it all being one big cosmic chain of accidents being a more believable option. I also have had personal experiences that lead me to believe that our consciousness is not dependent on matter (our physical body and brain). So my beliefs are filtered through that experience. And what can we know really except through our experiences.

Can I turn the question around and ask you - What if there is a God? Would it bother you if there was?

How could we put all this theorizing about God to good scientific use? That would be interesting! I don't think it's a waste of time though, as long as your having fun and are stretching your mind.

Hannah, I have had some strange experiences too which you had asked me about. I posted about one of them about five posts up which I don't think that you noticed. But I don't attribute my experience to anything supernatural.

Hannah, I read up some more on the big bang theory and you are right. I had assumed that matter and energy always existed and were contained at one point, and then for reasons unknown began to expand. No one really knows what a singularity is. But I found the following excerpt which backs up what you said. "According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we."

What I don't understand is how they concluded that matter and energy did not exist before the big bang.

I don't choose that it was a happy accident, I just don't see any evidence to conclude otherwise.

I think that it would be fabulous if there were a God. Actually I would be even more pleased if there were a Goddess. Then she could prevent war, and prevent innocent little children from harm and all kinds of great things.

And I didn't mean to imply that we are wasting our time as I really enjoy exchanging ideas. I just mean that with all of your intelligence, you could apply it better to science than theology... but that is just my opinion!

Jo Ann,

I could never do science because I hate math and statistics. But I’ve always loved science and physics. Especially talking about it philosophically or conducting little “thought experiments” with friends. But I am definitely not smart enough to be a scientist – but sometimes I wish we could be paid to spend our lives learning – like those scholars in medieval times.

You asked how they concluded that matter and energy did not exist before the big bang. Here is a link, where the Nobel Prize winning physicist Mr. Lederman gets into that a bit, but also scroll down the page a little and check out the links to “Stephen Hawking’s Universe,” which would explain it in more detail and he explores a range of possible ways it all could of happened. I don’t know if you’ve ever read any of his books like his “Brief History of Time” but they aren’t overly dense, he obviously labors to explain to non-scientists which is just one reason why I think he’s awesome. Reserving knowledge to specialties isn’t good for our country – look how many people don’t know the basics of evolution. I know people have to specialize in a field to really progress in that field but everyone should at least get the opportunity to learn the basics of all fields. But that comes from a nerd who wants to be paid to go to school for a career. ; )

You said: “I don't choose that it was a happy accident, I just don't see any evidence to conclude otherwise.”

I’m curious if you found any evidence to conclude that there isn’t a God. That I would certainly be interested to hear about!

Well, is there any evidence to conclude that unicorns don't exist? Is there any evidence to conclude that Zeuz doesn't exist. Is there any evidence to conclude that the Christians are wrong about Jesus and that the Jews are right? Is there any evidence to conclude that the Muslims are not correct about Allah and that the Great Spirit does not exist? Will the real God please stand up?

That we cannot prove that something does not exist does not seem to be much of a reason for believing it. There are many things which cannot be proven to not exist, so what is the point in selecting your favorite myth to belief? On the other hand, if something can be proven to exist, now there you have something worth your while to believe.