if there is no god, why do we need to behave morally?

to preserve social structure?

why do we need to preserve social structure & order if there is no god waiting for us following life?

move...where?

I thought america was founded by a bunch of deists...

whatever happened to seperation of church and state?

I don't get this country...

I'm an atheist socialist working in film and television, making entertainment for the heartland...

people older than twelve don't believe in santa clause, they don't believe in the easter bunny, but whoa mamma, bring up jeebus, and all hell breaks loose!

It's probably a misquote, but never underesimate the tastes of the public.

I thimk is was Nabokov who said in the fifties (when asked why he wrote 'Lolita') "there is only two taboo subjects to write about: communists living a productive fulfilling life; and that of a pederast - I chose to write about the pederast..."

uhh.. I'm the happily productive commie...

The strangest thing about this type of discourse is that Christians think they have won some battle or historical war and it is their right to determine history and who lives where. You know the old adage, the winner writes the history. It's so profoundly odd how gullible these people are. Our wondrous American child has grown up now, Martha, and it’s one stupid looking fat kid...
-tgs-

"It says 'In God We Trust'... I live here, in the U.S. and it says 'In God We Trust'"

It has said 'In God We Trust' since 1956. That's 50 whole years. So there's obviously no way to change it now.

That particular motto is divisive and exclusive, whereas the alternative is the rather beautiful 'E Pluribus Unum'. Which America would you rather live in? One which claimed to put its trust in a fiction? Or one which took the idea of inclusion and unity as its guiding light?

(Obligatory disclaimer: I'm an atheist.)

I think it's easy to make too much of a comment like this. Think about the context: the guy was responding to a hypothetical question. He probably shouldn't have gotten so frustrated, but nonetheless it was still a pretty silly question. And so, he gave a silly answer.

Maybe that's all there is to it...?

Reminds me of a comic I once saw. I saved it and reuploaded it because I thought it interesting. Take a look. Granted, I'm a lot more tolerant than that, but that basically represents the slow evolution of my beliefs. Of course, onegoodmove.org brought that sense of logic to a point. I've named myself "agnostic" for a long period of time, because while the whole premise of religion seemed flawed, I wasn't going to rule it out as a possibility. Somebody on this site put it wisely though, saying something along the lines of "If there is shown to be proof of a God, an atheist is no less likely to be convinced of it than an agnostic." Poor paraphrasing, but it means that atheism is no less logical than agnosticism. Just because it implies a firmer disbelief of deities doesn't preclude their existence. Of course, I'm not fervent enough about it that I give a damn, but I do despise hypocrisy, and many religious people are without a doubt hypocrites. I sometimes wonder if it would be hypocritical to continue calling myself agnostic just because people have less of a bias towards that label. Of course, I ramble at this point. Ending post.

I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. I can't believe the amount of people who get the two confused and I had no idea I could be setting myself up for that kind of distrust. Such is American education that so many people don't know the difference and they don't understand atheism.

I think about antitheism and I realize religion seems to cause more problems than it solves. I wonder though, would man still cause those problems and hide behind some other excuse to have wars and twist the minds of people to control them. If we didn't war over god(s) would we find some other reason to pick a fight? Antitheism may be the answer for social stability but getting society there would take... Well a lot. And if the flippin fundimentalist from Islam or Christianity saw things going that way I could see either one of them trying to take out the whole human race in a demented religious passion.

I sometimes start talking about issues brought up on this site and I find that people I thought were rational argue for things like - intelegent design being taught in schools. I look at these people - and I really can't hide my horror and disbelief at their lack of logic - and I think - if you believe in God - then God gave you a brain - try using it. It's ok it won't hurt. Really use just a little rational - I promise you will not turn into fire breathing demon spawn. Logic and a faith - any faith - are not in conflict - until a human tells you different.

These same people think that money always said "In God We Trust," and the Pledge alway read "one country, under God." (I would love to have the links to some of those articles).They don't realize those things came later and that the forefathers of the country wanted no repeat of the religious wars and prosecution they escaped from in Europe. The attempt at a separation of church and state has always irked those with any kind of religious fervor and the god fearin people of this country have always chipped away at that idea...

The worst part is you can rationalize ANYTHING - Just add a little religion and - BAM - bombing innocent civilians... no big deal. After all murder is only wrong when the child isn't born yet?!?!?! If there is a god - Please send humanity critical thinking skills- for we are sorely lacking.

Can you (onegoodmove) upload videos using one of the services like Google Videos or YouTube? It is then much easier to share these with friends.

bob wood opined: "if there is no god, why do we need to behave morally?

to preserve social structure?

why do we need to preserve social structure & order if there is no god waiting for us following life?"

I hope you aren't being serious. Because if you are serious then you are a very frightening person. If you are seriously unable to understand why people are moral regardless of the existence of gods, then this implies that the only thing keeping you from raping and torturing and gnawing at the roots of society until it collapses into ruin and disorder is your invisible friend and his ridiculous threats and promises, which happily happen to coincide (loosely) with actual morality. Congratulations! You're a psycho!

Sane people do good things to others and avoid doing bad things to others because they actually can feel empathy for others, and want other people in general to be fulfilled and happy, or at very least to be as free from harm and suffering as can be helped. The difference between sane people and you (if you're being serious) is that if God commanded them to go on a killing spree they would probably disobey him, even if he threatened horrific and eternal punishment for not doing as he commanded. You, on the other hand (if you're being serious), would be eagerly looking for your AK-47 and flame thrower.

I do hope you aren't being serious...

It's a shame fundy didn't finish his response when he said, "If you don't like it leave." Because what he wanted to say was, "If you don't like it leave. This is a Christian nation and if you don't leave we'll relocate you like Hitler 'relocated' the Jews in that Christian country."

His pastor was screaming about how the Christians were soldiers in a war. Such violent metaphors. What happens with people don't want to be converted and fight back? Those soldiers for Christ just start shooting until their land is cleansed one way or another.

I have come to labeling myself as an evangelical atheist. The evangelical is important in that it conveys a moral conviction, a desire that others change to my understanding of the world, and acts as garlic to those god fearing vampires out there. :P

Thanks! I hope for the day when there is no more "In God We Trust" on our money.

With that slogan we are telling the world Americans are foolish backward people who put their trust in figments of the imagination.

I guess athiests can move up to Canuckistan. We don't have God on our money, just pictures of the british monarchy and hockey.

J.D. I was being serious.

however, you don't get where I am coming from. I involuntarily live according to the same instinctive moral code that governs most people's lives - the google motto of 'don't be evil'.

however, there was plenty of religion in my youth, I've just drifted into atheism the more I've observed life etc. Thus perhaps it is the lessons and social norms one deeply absorbs in youth that make for a well-functioning auto-moral member of society in adulthood.

What I was opining on was, if there is to be an 'enlightened' future where the human race is comfortably confident in atheism and thus living peacefully, will it be more or less likely that after a few generations of this 'enjoy the moment' type consciousness there'll emerge a greater tendency for mercenary psychopathic behaviour where consequences of evil action are only damaging insofar as society punishes it?

For humans whose psyche hasn't been steeped in some sort of religious or spiritual doctrine over generations, nor in their formative youthful years; ultimately will they see no purpose to moral living in their lonely techie isolated megacity future?

A bit farfetched perhaps, but mainly I am just suggesting that we will always need religion, with all its flaws and conceits, so as to keep the heaving masses in line and happy in their little lives of infinitesimal inconsequence on our spinning orb.

Is the money such a big deal? I can understand some of the other things that were mentnined about being oppressed... but who cares about the money? The bill are already ugly enough as it is, but there seems to be no move to change that! Just use liquid funds if you want to get away from the Godly greenbacks, I say :-)

Morality being linked to religion has not served a purpose in society outside of the long-held belief (yes, belief, not biological fact) that humans are inherently incapable of moral behavior without religion. How else can religious leaders control their 'flock'? That is the underlying premise of organized religions, and hence the reason those who are intensely religious see atheists and agnostics as "immoral" or "amoral".

I myself am an agnositc and a scientist. Sometimes I think that it is illogical for my fellow scientists to claim they are atheists, simply because it violates the scientific method just as much as being theistic - if lack of evidence does not convince you of the existence of a god (as it does not convince me), than the idea that there is absolutly no god is just as built on belief as the idea that there is a god; in other words, we could someday prove the existence of a god, if one does exist (however unlikely the ability to prove it may or may not be), but scientifically speaking, we could never DIS-prove the existence of a god in an infinite universe. Therefore, I find myself agnostic, in that I dont believe, but dont strongly disbelieve either, given the lack of evidence either way.

Morality of behavior is not necessarily a characteristic of religion. In fact, I'd go the other way and say that religion (as a whole) is more immoral than any atheist or agnostic could ever be evident by our bloody history and religion's role in it. The major moral codes preached by prophets such as Mohammed and Jesus (tolerance, compassion, and acceptance of all people) are followed by the very VERY minority of religious groups - people like Mother Teresa, or those who live a perfectly moral life by those codes. Most people either 1) Commit the worst possible atrocities in history in the name of their religion, showing everything but compassion, tolerance, and acceptance, 2) Claim to be a follower of one of the aforementioned prophets and discriminates against anyone who is not, despite the moral actions, or 3) Don't really care how their actions reflect their religious beliefs having not ever questioned their beliefs or been willing to apply them to their lives (I would say that the 'majority of Americans' who claim to be Christians are in the latter group).

The hypothetical is indeed insipid. I doubt many athesit will see money, rip thier hair out, and say, 'enough already, I will believe in God.' The show is, however, deeper and more comlex than that. It's about empathy, attitudes, supersititions and prejudices.

Thirty days and 30 nights is an amazing show and should be required for showing in schools everywhere. But the purpose of the show isn't to prove something right or wrong (such as atheism, Islam, homosexuality ), no, it's an education that teaches contrary to popular misconceptions or generalizations. You're actually going into to expierence a people and to learn about them. It's about stereotypes and how people define others narrowly. The stereotype here is that atheist are untrustworthy (which might be because their perceived as trying to undermine society, a throwback to the age of the McCarthyism).

It's nice to see, however--from evidence of the writings, by atheists, in this thread--that Christians are not the only humans susceptable to defining the others in narrow, pigeonholed terms. Such as:

many religious people are without a doubt hypocrites

I realize religion seems to cause more problems than it solves.

Bravo...

Instead of a Mccarthy/Red Scare Era relic statement like "In God We Trust" on our currency, we should put "Life, Liberty, and the pusuit of happiness" on there in place of it. Even a good Christian shouldn't take that much of an issue with that, right?

bob wood,

I don't think you understand the real source of morality. You appear to believe that people are good primarily because they have the motto (or meme) "do good" pounded into them from childhood (an activity which you appear to think can only be accomplished by a religion). That doing good is a kind of habit, with no real foundation or rationale behind it besides sheer cognitive inertia. Moreover, you appear to say that if people did not have this habit ingrained in them then they would not rationally choose to do good and avoid doing evil, unless and only to the extent that society rewards good deeds and punishes evil deeds.

But this is patently false. For example, my attempts to do good and avoid doing evil to people are not a cultural habit like always putting the spoons with the knives when setting a table. I attempt to do good and avoid harming people because I care for others, I empathize with their desires and goals, and I place value on their wellbeing. In short, I do things which I believe will further their wellbeing for exactly the same reason that I do things which I believe will further my own wellbeing -- I place value on them as I do on myself. Hence, I would do good and avoid doing harm regardless of the punishments, rewards, and rules of society. Indeed, if the rules of society contradicted this propensity of mine, then I would press for their change and/or violate them and accept the consequences. My experience tells me that most other people are like me in those respects (i.e. in doing good because they value others).

This valuing of others is not a habit. Rather, it is the natural consequence of the ability to empathize, which is genetic and appears in most humans across all cultures and times (though seemingly not in psychopaths and other damaged individuals). Far from buttressing empathy, cultural habits (including such habits as classifying people as heretics, infidels, Untouchables, and other religious categories) often actually limit and degrade the ability of empathy to enable people to care for others. As such, sweeping such habits away would make society more moral, not less (though only if we keep other barriers from springing up in their place).

One more thing before I go. You appear to believe that atheism is equated with or produces a kind of grossly self-involved hedonism -- that an atheistic society will inevitably slide towards everyone only caring about their own personal immediate gratification and pleasure. Yet I see no reason to believe this. Could you provide some evidence to support this supposition?

This episode made both Christians and athiests look pretty silly, though I would argue that athiests look worse.

The Christians largely came off as ignorant of the world around them, but I think only to the eye of the non-believer. The preoccupation with why an athiest has morals and what they "have their hope in" is indicative of the "trap" of christianity. As a believer, the uncertainity of a world without God or absolute morality is a barrier against true open minded analysis of religious belief, even for those who ardently strive to do so.

The athiest woman came off as equally closed minded. Furthermore, by taking them to the athiest church and complaining about the "persecution" of athiests such as "In God we Trust" on money or "One Nation Under God" in the pledge seems rather silly. Athiesm was portrayed as if it were a religion. She said over and over again "Well, athiests believe this..." While certainly athiesm leads to similarity of belief among athiests, at the heart it is a disbelief. Shame on them for calling themselves free thinkers and then just buying into the freethinker system. If you don't believe in God, that does not make you part of a new club that believes different things. Instead, it leaves you with a profound struggle to understand the world without absolutes. The woman sounded rather silly saying that she lived by ¨peace, love, hugs and bunny rabbits" or whatever she said. Had she truly faced the reality of an absense of absolute meaning in the universe I think she would have been able to express her experience better rather than just trying to appeal to words like "love" and "peace" because everyone thinks those are good.

Fellow athiests, if this existence is it, I would argue that we can spend our time in better ways than trying to get "In God We Trust" taken off the dollar bill.

Marco,

1. I am an AGNOSTIC not an athiest.

2. When I wrote "I realize religion seems to cause more problems than it solves," is not narrow minded or pigon holed. Actually it's kind of wishy washy. The key word being 'seems.' I did not make a difinitive judgement because I am unsure whether or not religion is truely the cause of many of man's problems. (Again - I suggest that you actually READ my post.) The reason the statement was made was due to the number of wars and death that seem to center around religion. I don't understand how that is narrow minded. I think it is more historical fact. As we type safe in our homes I wonder how many more have died due to the chaos in the Middle east involving Isreal. Yes - I heard there is a cease fire but sometimes it takes days of suffering before the injured die.

Lets see... Wars and Death involving religion... Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the protestants and christians have been killing each other for years on the green isle, salem witch burnings... Shall I go on...

And that was just the large incidents. How about all the ideas that religion possibly stopped. Galileo almost ended up with his head on the block for looking at the truth. He had some influence though. How many great thinkers died for having ideas.

Does religion cause more problems than it solves. In my humble opinion - it seems to, but I could be wrong. If there were no religion our human race may still be desperately lost from any course of good sense. Good luck to you all - Blue Sky

True Marco, but you've taken my statement out of context. Perhaps I voiced that opinion too broadly, but the I meant that many religious people are hypocrites because they believe in their moral superiority yet don't actually follow their religious code. It is a true statement that "many religious people are without a doubt hypocrites" As "many" is a broad term it's easy to see how one would interpret it as being a wide generalization. I meant that so many of our "Christian" politicians seem to use religion as a platform to base their moral superiority on, then don't actually follow any of the tenets they profess. Pat Robertson and other televangelists also frequently fall into that category. It's a true point that everybody falls to stereotyping despite their best intentions. Nobody is truly innocent in that regard. But you did misinterpret my statement.

The bald guy makes me wonder if that whole "God made man in His own image." thing might be true. God gets pissy and snappish about a lot of stuff, too. Love him, or burn.

"'In God We Trust' since 1956"

Actually, it has been around for longer that. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

I remember this, as Mark Twain had said some things on this.

Some years ago on the gold coins we used to trust in God. It think it was in 1863 that some genious suggested that it be put on the gold and silver coins which circulated among the rich. They didn't put it on the nickels and coppers because they didn't think the poor folks had any trust in God....If I remember rightly, the President required or ordered the romoval of that sentence from the coins. Well, I didn't see that the statement ought to remain there. It wasn't true. But I think it would better read, "Within certain judicious limitations we trust in God, and if there isn't enough room on the coin for this, why enlarge the coin. - Speech, 5/14/1908

The motto stated a lie. If this nation has ever trusted in God, that time has gone by; for nearly half a century almost its entire trust has been in the Republican party and the dollar--mainly the dollar. I recognize that I am only making an assertion and furnishing no proof; I am sorry, but this is a habit of mine; sorry also that I am not alone in it; everybody seems to have this disease. - Mark Twain in Eruption

Many atheist need to remember this, as it is a good argueing point.

I find it useful to state first, that it has not always been so and just because he has been does not mean it right. Just because slavery was around for a long time, did not make it right, etc.

I think what is important to remember when having a discussion with Christians is not to be as hostile as the one atheist was on the show, form what I could see from the clip.

He might of seemed reasonble, but from many expierences (Ok, well, I am only 21) of discussing religion with a wide range of people, the way he spoke to the man started to get a bit heated.

While the rhetorical question he posed is normally pretty efficient, it is better to go along this way ....

First, tell them that it was not put on a coin till 1863. Not all coins had it till 1938, and was not put on to dollars till 1956 (which the person I quoted stated), which it was made the official motto, because of the increased fears of communism.

You can further tell them that 'under god' was not added till 1954 for the same reasons.

Further stateing that a lot of the key founding fathers where not Christians but mainly deist. Look up some quotes to help further this proof.

Remember to say that you do not wish to ban god but believe the government has no place in it.

Including the question the one atheist posed, you can also include the what if, "IN GOD(S) WE TRUST". Hey, why don't we make it equal for everyone and say, "IN GOD (OR GODDESS OR GOD(S) OR GODDESS(S) OR NO GOD0 WE TRUST".

State that it is better for the government to stay out of all religious affairs. It not only is a benefit to atheist, but more so to theist, as they will have more freedom.

Tell them to look back on every time in history that the government has not been divorced from the church.

Please don't suggest that he represents all Christians.

As a believer in God, I would have NO problem removing "In God We Trust" from our currency. I think it's ridiculous to stamp such a slogan on money.

Do ''believers'' really need dollars to remind them of God?

Please don't suggest that he represents all Christians.

As a believer in God, I would have NO problem removing "In God We Trust" from our currency. I think it's ridiculous to stamp such a slogan on money.

Do ''believers'' really need dollars to remind them of God?

Blue, you indeed claim membership to the prove-it-to-me club (Agnosticism). You have a point there, Blue.

And, your statment wishes as it washes. But it's not just the statement, but the whole paragraph. First, you postulate a wholly secular world as being as susceptable to war, and then, declare the world "might" be better off without religion. But then, you make a declarative statement where posit a theory in which you "could" envision the religious world killing all humans rather than allow for rampant Atheism.

I'm not saying you're wrong on any of these points. But, good God, man, your hypotheticals, whether they be your own making or others, exemplify my problem with the Atheist Vs. Theist. That is, this quid pro quo that's going on in the playground.

The Atheist says: absence of proof is enough not to believe. Theist says, absence of prove is enough to believe (actually they claim evidence is in the "mircles" of life). Agnostics says, absence of proof is absence of proof. I think the latter is most logical.

Marco said:

"The Atheist says: absence of proof is enough not to believe. Theist says, absence of prove is enough to believe (actually they claim evidence is in the "mircles" of life). Agnostics says, absence of proof is absence of proof. I think the latter is most logical."

My response: You may of course define the words as you see fit. But if you are hoping to validly critique the position of people who call themselves 'atheists', then you had best consider how they define the terms before making comments on the reasonableness of their position.

For example, I define theism and atheism as being positions on belief, while agnosticism is a position on knowledge. Thus, a theist is a person who believes in god(s), while an atheist is a person who does not believe in god(s). Defined in this way the two positions considered together exhaust all possible options -- you can either be a person who X or a person who not-X, and there is no third position as the Law of the Excluded Middle requires. Meanwhile, I define (soft) agnosticism as the claim that one does not know whether god(s) exist or not, and (hard) agnosticism as the claim that it is impossible to know whether god(s) exist or not.

Framed in this manner, it is entirely possible to be a theist and an agnostic (fideists probably qualify for this), and for an atheist to be an agnostic as well.

For instance, I do not personally claim to know that no god exists; and while I do not go so far as to claim that such knowledge is categorically impossible, I certainly can't see any particular way it might be acquired. Many gods appear to be purposefully defined so as to be unfalsifiable, which if they truly are such would make their nonexistence unknowable. Yet for a variety of reasons I also do not believe in any god -- belief (or the lack thereof) is distinct from the issue of knowledge. Hence, I am an atheist and a (soft) agnostic.

By the way bob wood, ten posts above this one is my response to your last posting. I had sign-in problems, and so my comment was 'Anonymous'.....

Careful, J.D., I said most logical, not incorrect.

Marco said:

"Careful, J.D., I said most logical, not incorrect."

My response: I am not sure what that means. Could you explicate? Your previous comment implied that agnosticism was a third position 'between' theism and atheism, and moreover that of all three it was the most logical / reasonable. Was my understanding of your comment incorrect?

Let me rephrase that: I said most logical, not correct.

I think you misapplied the law here. As I see it, the two opposed viewpoints is between those who are sure of something (theist and antitheist) and those who are not (agnostics).

Actually, I doubt that even betwixt the atheist and theist that one cannot take a different approach to it and not be "'betweem'".

Marco said:

"I said most logical, not correct."

My response: OK, but as I stated in my initial response, I do not see agnosticism as a third option 'between' theism and atheism. Hence I cannot agree that it is somehow "more logical" or "more reasonable" than theism or atheism.

Marco said:

"I think you misapplied the law here. As I see it, the two opposed viewpoints is between those who are sure of something (theist and antitheist) and those who are not (agnostics).

Actually, I doubt that even betwixt the atheist and theist that one cannot take a different approach to it and not be "'betweem'"."

My response: As to your first paragraph, I would classify the positions you describe as being "gnostic" (for lack of a better word to contrast with agnostic, not here meaning to refer to the Christian Gnostics of the first few centuries AD). i.e. there are 'gnostic theists' and 'gnostic atheists' -- those who believe in god(s) and claim to know that god(s) exist, and those who do not believe in god(s) and claim to know that god(s) do not exist. These positions are certainly opposed, yet they are not exhaustive -- in other words the Law of Excluded Middle does not apply to them.

But the Law of Excluded Middle does apply to the positions of theism and atheism as I define them. 'Believing in god(s)' and 'Not believing in god(s)' are in the form "X or ~X", which is the very form of the Excluded Middle law.

To illustrate, there is a button that you can either press or not press. "Have pressed the button" and "Have not pressed the button" are exhaustive options -- there is no third option that cannot be collapsed into one or the other. Wavering over the button trying to decide whether to press it or not is collapsed into "Have not pressed the button", because indeed while you are trying to decide you indeed have not (yet) pressed it. Meanwhile, pressing the buttton but then later having severe doubts about whether you should have is collapsed similarly into "Have pressed the button".

This button scenario is analogous to theism and atheism as I define them -- you can either believe or you can not believe, and there is no way you can both not believe and not not believe at the same time. (Yes, that was two "not"s -- which in logic is the same as no "not"s at all. i.e. I am saying the obvious: you cannot both not believe and believe at the same time)

Wow that is soo stone age ...

As for change. I've just been reading about the French Revolution, The Kiss of the Lamourette ... heres some exerts:

It seems incredible that an entire people could rise up and transform the conditions of everyday existance. To do so is to contradict the common working assumption that life must be fixed in the p[atterns of the common workaday world.

...

[the revolution] was a succession of events, ... so terrible that they shook mankind to its core. Out of the destruction, they created a sense of possibility ... great events make possible the social reconstruction of life.

Anonymous,

You don't think I understand the real source of morality - I know nobody who does, do you?

You verbosely condemn my proposition that 'goodness' is nurture rather than nature as being "patently false" on the basis that you don't do harm unto others because you want to succeed just as they do, and thus you don't interfere with their path to success.

Further, you suggest it is the "ability to empathize" which sets us apart from despair.

All this is soaked in your own subjectivism and analysis of the current state of the human condition, and you may be right.

In relation to your question on my assertion that the perfect future of an athiestic society is peacefully selfish - I base it on this: when we no longer need to convince others that our own philosophy is superior to theirs, then we can concentrate more on our own failings than those of others.

Anonymous, who I presume is bob wood, said: (my comments interspersed)...

"You don't think I understand the real source of morality - I know nobody who does, do you?"

My reponse: I believe I do. The source of all valuations are desires, and the source of a given person's moral valuations is the set of all desires that person empathizes with.

bob wood continues: "You verbosely condemn my proposition that 'goodness' is nurture rather than nature as being "patently false" on the basis that you don't do harm unto others because you want to succeed just as they do, and thus you don't interfere with their path to success."

My response: That is an incorrect reading of my comment. Empathy is a fact of Nature, but the extent of empathy's reach is largely a function of Nurture. As to the latter part of your sentence (everything from "on the basis"" onwards), I cannot see where you derived that from what I said. Please read my comment more carefully.

bob wood continues: "Further, you suggest it is the "ability to empathize" which sets us apart from despair."

My response: "Despair"? I don't recall using that word, nor does it capture my meaning.

bob wood continues: "All this is soaked in your own subjectivism and analysis of the current state of the human condition, and you may be right."

My response: "Subjectivism" is a much used word with many widely varying definitions. Please clarify your use of it.

bob wood continues: "In relation to your question on my assertion that the perfect future of an athiestic society is peacefully selfish - I base it on this: when we no longer need to convince others that our own philosophy is superior to theirs, then we can concentrate more on our own failings than those of others."

My response: I am not sure what that even means, much less how it is supposed to support the claim that an atheistic society will degenerate into selfish hedonism. Please clarify and expand.

A reply, for Marcos...

My hypotheticals are all over the place because man is all over the place -lol. I do believe that the turbulance that exist in water and wind that is so hard to predict or calculate also exists in the human brain. I am extreamly curious as to whether man would have the same problems if religion did not exist. Unfortunately, it is an untestable hypothesis. If I believed that ridding the world of religion would solve better than 50% of humanities problems I would whole heartedly become an antitheist. Unfortunately, I don't think it is that simple. I think the root problem that exists may be deeper. I wonder... if religion did not exist would something take its place as a means for control and picking fights.

I have been aware my whole life that I may be part of a generation that will experience a full societal crash. Now that we have a global society I am trying to explore how this world can avoid the same fate. I wish it was a simple as saying "religions are bad - rid the world of religion and everything will turn out ok." I don't think that is the answer but perhaps it would help.

As for the simple logic of x and -x that is a nice simple way to view the world but that logic does not normally exist in chaotic systems. I am of course speaking of mathematical chaos. I sit on the fence a lot with the whole god issue. In fact at this particular moment if you were to ask me my answer would be "I don't know." If you asked me 30 minutes after my son was born my answer would be yes - but that could be the endorphins :) I guess that makes me a soft agnostic. I still say my best proof for god is that man never would have made it this far without devine intervention - lol

I appologize for ranging so far off topic but this woman thought she should explain why her thoughts wander all over the place. It is only because I am following the path of humanity. My hope is to make some sense of the chaos.

I am a very strong believer in the after life - energy is not created or destroyed. But I have no idea if there is a being or gods at the rudder of this ship I ride or if I am subject to the winds of chance and fate. Such is the life of a humble mouse trapped on a strange voyage. - Blue Sky

Blue sky said:

"I am a very strong believer in the after life - energy is not created or destroyed."

My response: That is a strange comment. What do you mean by it? I do not see how the First Law of Thermodynamics implies the existence of an "after-life", except in the rather mundane sense that after our lives are ended "we" will be gone, but the energy and matter that currently constitutes us will not be gone, but will instead constitute other things.

Moreover, if the 1LoT implies an "after-life" (somehow), does it not also imply a "pre-life"?

I confess I am very new to the law of excluded middle (yet I do know false dilemmas, which is why I am not able to wrap my head around this) and wish I could continue on with the finer points of the law. So, I will conclude by saying you missed my point, Mr. D., which had nothing to do with agnositics as a third choice but logical thought. There are communities in both camps of thought that claim to know a thing, a metaphysically slippery thing. Yet those who claim that this preternatural knowledge is unprovable, the agnostics; a stance that is irrevocable more logical than that of those whose claims include knowledge of a thing yet to be proved.

Marco said:

"I confess I am very new to the law of excluded middle (yet I do know false dilemmas, which is why I am not able to wrap my head around this) and wish I could continue on with the finer points of the law. So, I will conclude by saying you missed my point, Mr. D., which had nothing to do with agnositics as a third choice but logical thought. There are communities in both camps of thought that claim to know a thing, a metaphysically slippery thing. Yet those who claim that this preternatural knowledge is unprovable, the agnostics; a stance that is irrevocable more logical than that of those whose claims include knowledge of a thing yet to be proved."

My response: You are correct -- with respect to knowledge one can either believe that you know that god(s) exist or one can not believe that you know that god(s) exist. Or, in other words, one can be a gnostic (of either the theistic or atheistic variety), or an agnostic (either theistic or atheistic). Moreover, you are correct (IMO) that agnosticism is more reasonable than gnosticism. The existence or non-existence of god(s) has not yet been proven and may well be unprovable, and so belief that one knows either one way or the other is unreasonable in the face of that fact.

You just have to remember that gnosticism and agnosticism are positions with respect to knowledge, not belief. Even if you do not believe that you know that god(s) exist or don't exist (i.e. if you are agnostic), you must still either believe they do or not believe they do (be a theist or an atheist).

// Even if you do not believe that you know that god(s) exist or don't exist (i.e. if you are agnostic), you must still either believe they do or not believe they do (be a theist or an atheist). //

There is an inherent desire in some people to get along with everyone. This is an admirable desire in terms of that person being fun to hang out with. There are those who are so serious that they feel (as i do) that such thoughts are important because they affect the decisions to go to war, or not to go to war. There are those, such as Average_Joe, who feel that his stereotypical view of 'hippies' stands in the way of not suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, instead of taking arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them.

There are times when i want to forget about such contingencies and say 'to hell with all of this shit', but these concepts are what drive people to do, or not to do...

Similar themes:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/08/teapot_atheists.html

How can we be moral without religion? For those who ask this question read this: http://www.dis.org/daver/anarchism/kropotkin/anmoral.html#IX I read it a while ago, but from what I remember, the idea is, that empathy does not exist in human beings. Rather, we do good to others because it is useful to society, ie. it is a survival instinct.

sigh

I am sorry for the negativity and ignorance of mainstream Christianity.

I watched this whole show and found it really interesting.

The woman who claimed to be a "free thinker" and who was teaching her kids to be "free thinkers" I found to be quite hypocritical myself. Especially when they showed her discussing things with her 5 year old son ... "Do you think there's some magical man in the sky who controls you?"

Also when she's talking to her daughter about the pledge. I don't really care if she says "under God" or not, but the tone of the conversation is the same tone of conversations my dad had with me when I was younger about SAYING "under God" and how it was stupid not to.

The same mocking tone my conservative Christian dad has about atheists, this lady has about Christianity.

At least that's what I saw in the show.

Don't get me wrong though, the bald dude was a frickin' idiot

"Wha ... What? There are people who don't believe in anything? I ... I'm shocked!"

SEAN

People offten confusse the word atheist with anarchist.

Bob, are you saying the only reason you act morally is you expect a personal reward for it in the afterlife?

Eastern philosophies have taught that one can be moral without religion because all of us are born with a conscience and a sense of right and wrong.

Such as the mother who instinctively protects her child in a disaster. A person who picks up a hurt animal from the road.

Where's the heavenly reward for that? Or did they do it because they feel that they should instinctively?

Morality is at work even in the absence of god and religion.

Voltair hinmself points out that without religion, people would do evil in the name of evil and good for the sake of good.

But for good people to do evil, that takes religion.

Christians in the past has murdered more people than almost any other religion, except for Islam. And many of those killed are other Christians.

Where's the morality found in their religion? I see only intolerance, bigotry and wanton slaughter.

ok if we're going to judge the religion by it's followers, we're in trouble.

just about every religion has people that are ridiculous radicals ...

if you know the Bible, you know that these atrocities committed in the name of God are not endorsed by the God of the Bible, in fact they contradict it.

The morality is there, the fact that it isn't followed is really secondary. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to minimize the toll Christianity, Islam, etc have had on humanity.

Also, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, etc were/are atheists or agnostics or whatever.

Humans deciding right and wrong for themselves doesn't have a great track record either.

SEAN

Sean, if you know the power of the Bible, you would know that it will always exert direct and indirect influence on the actions of its followers.

The Bible's lack of tolerance for other faiths feeds directly into religious hatred.

For example, the Nazis were Protestants and Catholics, who were clearly influenced by Chritianity's ancient tradition of prosecuting the Jews as the killers of Christ. Even the Christians in the Crusades slaughtered Jewish towns and settlements in the Rhineland (in modern-day Germany) en route to the Middle East.

It was only in 1965, during the Second Vatican Council, the church officially abandoned its ancient doctrines about the collective guilt of the Jewish people and the eternal divine curse upon Jewish blood.

Btw, Lenin and Stalin grew up in Christian households, if I'm not mistaken. One can also question their Christian upbringing rather than their so-called atheism when they clearly worshiped at a cult of personality based on a communism order.

Voltaire says this best.

Without religion, evil people will do evil and good people will do good. But for good people to do evil, it takes only religion.

Where's the morality found in their religion? I see only intolerance, bigotry and wanton slaughter.

Religion, like most things, is neither here nor there. It seems to me that for everything bad about religion there are good things. If--for the sake of an argument--a person with anger tendecies were prevented from hitting someone else because of a religious inclination, because of a fear of God, then that's a good result. If they were to hit someone for being of a different religion, then that's the malignant side of religion. However, if we were to take away religion, people would have secular things to hit each other about and secular reasons not to hit each other--which is to say people would still hit each other about as much, I feel.

You make a good point in your quote (above), Kes. These people are hypocrates. However, wouldn't give your pet don't-call-it-a-religion religion, Buddhism, a unmarred record. Listening to Bill Moyers talking to Pema Chrodron, you'll here a Buddhist admit that even they become susceptable to this religious fundamentalist. "We (Buddhist) still bite the hook; we still get towed under. You know, I say, we clobber people with our peace sign"--Chrodron.

Marco, nice one. But if Buddhism is my pet, I would have been a Buddhist but I'm not.

I think you miss out my post condemning Tibetan Buddhism. The Dalai Lama is out of line for condemning abortion. And the structure of Tibetan Buddhism is very much like that of the Catholic Church, which is prone to rigidity and more about form than spirit.

Tibetan Buddhism is also the only example of Buddhists inflicting pain on non-believers in its history i.e. against the followers of the native Bon religion in Tibet.

However after the Chinese intervention/invasion of Tibet in the 20th century, both religions were suppressed and were able to reconcile with each other and co-exist peacefully in Tibet.

Marco, I normally read about an issue from both sides of the fence before arriving at any conclusion.

I believe that faith should be blind and should be tempered by questioning and humility.

And real humility lies in recognising one's ignorance and blind sports and resolving to pro-actively address it.

Humble people read and read because they feel that they don't know enough and want.

Arrogant people don't read as much because they think they know everything or that they know enough and don't have to find out more.

Humility is much more than an attitude to score points with people.

It is a deliberate choice to constantly reflect on your inadequacy via a pro-active lifelong process of learning snd self-introspection.

That's Confucianism btw.

TYPO: I believe that faith should NOT be blind and should be tempered by questioning and humility.

And real humility lies in recognising one's ignorance and blind sports and resolving to pro-actively address it.

Humble people read and read because they feel that they don't know enough and want to find out more."

===

Bertrand Russell's Why I am not a Christian makes valid points against Buddhism as a religion.

I agree with him because Buddhism was originally meant to be a philosophy or way of life.

Belief in Buddhist principles does not guarantee a ticket to a better afterlife.

Only by practising such principles such as dooing good with no though of gain will give you a chance at a better afterlife.

There is no half-way when it comes to Eastern philosophies.

Like what Yoday says:

"Do or do not. There is no try."

Actually I find it odd that the think free crowd in US subscribe to the meaningless stereotypes of atheists and agnostics, which partly embraced the biases of the religious crowd.

Such as you don't believe in Jesus that means you don't believe in God.

Just think about it. A hard core believer walks down the street and God appears in front of him and accomplishes a miracle? Couldn’t he become a believer or even a practising agnostic on the spot?

I think I have mentioned before that the chaos in every life with its lack oh reason or rhyme does not automatically mean that God does not exist.

It can mean God does not intervene in your life as he expects you to use the free will he gave you.

Or that God has turned its back on man because man has turned from bad to worse through the passage of time.

Or even that God is not a personal deity that comes at the beck and call of its worshippers.

The possibilities are endless. The conclusion on God’s absence needs not be just one i.e. either the Christian view or non-believer standpoint.

In fact, being here at Norm's bog has given me more than enough anecdotes to start a comic strip about an atheist fumbling his way in the U.S. of A.

An atheist who believes in fighting in what he believes in i.e. moral values and that Elvis is King, instead of praying for what he believes in.

First instalment. Imagine a 3-frame comic strip.

The Atheist is having dinner at a Christian household.

The Christians bent their head in prayer.

The atheist thinks,

"If I get a nickel for each time Christians pray in the best of times, I'll be damned rich millionaire.

And in the worst of time, a filthy rich billionaire."

====

What's the angle here?

People often pray more often or more heartfelt in times of need as they expect God to drop by like Batman or Superman...

TYPO: A hard core ATHEIST walks down the street and God appears in front of him and accomplishes a miracle? Couldn’t he become a believer or even a practising agnostic on the spot?

And... vice versa. I had a friend who admitted he couldn't imagine what it would be like to not believe in an afterlife. What's the point of life? This attitude, I think, underlines why many continue with their faith aganist the odds. Would a theist faced with undeniable evidence of an absence of diety continue not to believe? We will likely never know.

So, then what? Is absence of religion the answer? Is it possible? I doubt it, at least for the time being. I think humans are likely to stay the religious course for a while, yet. Not by choice. We are hardwired to believe, for whatever reason--some posit that it's in our DNA. We may make a trend toward an absence of religion, but that won't be for a while.

I think the problem with religion is when it doesn't change: When it falls into believing its own schtick of infalliblity; when it doesn't accept that the world is now round; when it's reactionary.

Religion--this is another gray area religion in which religion lays--plays an important role, though. Much of which is to preserve society. It's a reactionary force, and can impede change. However, is that an entirely bad thing?

Yes and no. Religion is a sort of antibody, it seems. Invading social infrastructures, a metaphor for progressive thinking, will affect things; maybe good or maybe bad. For example, harmful cults are kept at bay because of religious reactionary beliefs. However, the negative side is when religion fights the logical, i.e. Galileo Galilei. Galileo (we're old pals, on a first name basis) discovered certain facts, which became undeniable.

While I'm not one to say disbanding church would cause moral decay, I think if we were to absolve society of religion. The thing is, we need a replacement system. But this system will only come over time. Because it's got to be something reliable, based on with more truth than religion, while playing the same function as religion.

Yikes! I wrote that? I try to keep it to a paragraph or two, I guess I was inspired by some unseen force.

Marco said // I doubt it, at least for the time being. I think humans are likely to stay the religious course //

Most Europeans have abandoned the religious course and prefer to follow enlightenment values. Why this difference between Europe and and U.S.A.?

There's a lot of variables to consider here with this question, which is a good one.

I think that secularism may not be entirely tenable in every situation. Maybe in Europe it will be. However, if you look at the rabid growth of sectarianism in the Middle East, you'll see many people disenchanted with secularism (monarchy, globalism and such) and want to see change. They are seeing religion as fulfilling tha--until someday when that fails them and they turn to secularism. You have to remember, while we Anglos and Euros were in the dark ages, the Middle East was inventing algebra.

There seems to be peaks and troughs in religous belief. Just because religion is stagnant in Europe today doesn't exclude tomorrow.

Anyway, as I have talked with people who visit Europe, they say people are Catholic, they just don't care to go. It's seems like much of it is much a complacancy in religion as a reliance of secularism.

Marco, actually you can tell your friend that there are many forms of afterlife. Heaven, Hell and Purgatory forms only 1 way.

Jo Ann: "Most Europeans have abandoned the religious course and prefer to follow enlightenment values. Why this difference between Europe and and U.S.A.?"

I think the reason is that that the Christians in Europe grew tired with Christianity.

Millions of Christians and Jews were killed as a direct and indirect result of the teachings of the Bible and Christian dogma.

The whole European continent was divided for hundreds of years between the Catholics and Protestants and blood was shed freely.

Even the IRA's fight against the British government cannot be considered purely as a political dispute for example the historical beef against the British who let the Irish starve during the potato famine (I'm not an expert in this area btw).

Many IRA fighters and supporters were also Catholics simply did not want to be governed by the Protestants that made up the majority of the United Kingdom.

While I am not saying the Christian schism is THE cause for every conflict in Europe, it has inspired many of them.

Perhaps that's why Europe has moved towards secularism and Eastern philosophies. Perhaps the call for peace was simply too hard to deny.

Eruope has indeed--at least for this generation--lost it's taste for violence. However, remember that those involved with the plot to blow up the transalantic flight were British Citizens.

Also, if you look back to, say, the Hundred's Year War, you see religion wasn't a huge factor. It was a fight for territorial rights and not a direct religious conflict. Napoleon arrived on the scene during Europe's resurgence in the Enlightenment period--which, incidentally, is during which the Hundred's Year War occurred. And don't forget the bloody French Revolution, which occured on social-economic basis, rather than religous. Europe did some of its major killing during its Age of Reason.

Well, I do believe in a God, but I'm not a Christian. If it said "there is no God" on it I might be offended, but I would not take it too seriously. I would just accept that that is their belief, even if I do not agree with it. I might be upset if they were trying to do that to force it on everyone. Forcing a belief (ANY belief, religious or secular, God or no God, etc.) on someone is wrong, in my opinion.