Alternet, why are we supposed to be fascinated with atheists? I'm not interested in them anymore than I am in those nut-case born again christians. Enough already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Part of the issue at hand is that nobody has ever been able to convince me just exactly WHERE their god is at any given moment...there seems to be no consensus...is IT here?

There? Everywhere?

And by the way, just exactly WHERE is the HERE that this god is supposed to be all the time...Where does the total entity of god's universe reside? Where is the universe, god's hangout? In relation to what else?

The whole idea of god and where IT is seems so much a non-starter nowadays that it is rarely persued in polite discussion...

...it almost seems beneath ones better nature to peer endlessly into what can only be described as an "attitude, toward living, or death" an attitude as idiosyncratic as the person one chooses to engage in conversation..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I like your list, Greta Christina. It is thoughtful and I appreciate the reasoned manner in which you addressed each point. It gets very tiresome having people constantly religion-baiting and labeling those who are in disagreement (particularly with organized religions) as going to hell, Satanic, or some other disrespectful label.

You qualified many points which are important, but religion is so tied to politics in the US that it seems inseparable. Don't you just get tired of the US always being referred to as Christian? It's like the witch hunts of yesteryear to brand anyone who isn't Christian as a heretic - does that sound familiar from a few hundred years ago. It's amazing that the Inquisition isn't still in vogue. I haven't researched it recently, but aren't those who are Wiccan still refused burial in Arlington if they are in the military. What stupidity. I was so impressed when the governor of Washington State allowed atheists their sign in the State House this past Christmas. Why shouldn't they be allowed their small measure in expressing themselves. But you're absolutely right - much of the controversy surrounding atheism is just whispered or shouted into the ears of people by the media and by those who never think for themselves - you know, the opposite of free thinkers. Thanks for the article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Greta Christina for your article. It is exactly what I think. I have had enough from the "God-fearing" people who will sermon me. I do not meddle in their affairs and they should leave me in peace. Peace which I have found without religion of any kind. I am not converting anyone and ask in return not to be converted either. Leave us alone!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The whole conversation of progressive vs. conservative, right vs. wrong, just vs. unjust ...all emanate from some generalized basis of morality. Therefor, contrary to the comment writer who questions the appropriateness of discussing atheism on AlterNet, in my opinion it is as relevant as any topic that questions the motivation of people's behavior. In what philosophical soil do the roots of racism, sexism, hatred,and intolerance feed? To understand the answer to that question is to have a starting point to finding an answer as to how to resolve these issues that cause the people of the world so much pain. Please do not be intimidated by those not comfortable with the examination of religious belief or non-belief.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here I am, once again offering myself up to Jesus.

I've read the Bible, and it failed to convince me of its truth.
So simply quoting that isn't showing me anything I haven't seen before.

Does anyone have any OTHER good reasons they'd like to share
why I should accept the Bible as Truth?

Thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm presently taking a class on moral ethics, and doing the the required reading of Aquinas, Bentham and Kant, but I can't help but believe the true answer concerning our moral codes will come from an article written by a primatologist, not the next Kant. This feeling is further confirmed by my wife, who is a pre-school teacher. There is a tremendous amount of evolved hard-wiring in our brain. My wife says she can spot the givers and takers at three years old, and while they may swerve from their path slightly due to rational thinking, it won't be far. We are social creatures that have evolved in tribes. The close knit tribal system is failing us now in the vast suburbs and we are experiencing the rise of religion in the America to fill the vacuum that city planners have created for us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the absurdity of religion, watch the tv news for yet another report of jesus or mary in the window frost, tortilla, tree stump, icicle, or kolache. fortunately for atheists/agnostics, we have no icon to interfere with our enjoyment of food items or the duty of wiping off the windows. we are excused from that humiliation, at least.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If I said I 'mostly' believed in God, what would I be? A Theist? An Agnostic? By the same token, if my wife says she loves me, am I completely certain? I could spend a lifetime getting to know her and I would still have to have 'faith' when she says she loves me.

There are three possible states of belief regarding the question of God:

Theism - [Theos=God] definite belief in the existence of God.

Agnosticism - [A=no - Gnosis=knowledge] insufficient knowledge to make a statement of certainty either way - yet open to further inquiry.

Atheism - [A=no - Theos=God] definite belief in the non-existence of God.

It seems to me that people should get their language straight. If Atheism doesn't mean certainty that God does not exist then we need another word. We can argue about whether Agnostic means we CANNOT know, or whether we just DON'T know. If it means we CANNOT know then, again, we need another word. I reserve the right to use Agnostic to mean 'I'm not absolutely certain either way'- as long as Atheists can assert that they don't need absolute certainty. I'd say it's fair. My way we need only three terms. Their way we would still need a couple of more words.

Uncivil antagonism is militant behavior. Atheists define themselves by that which they do not believe yet claim to have no belief to defend yet in the next breath will call theists morons for their belief. This is a dishonest and fallacious position. The minute the Atheist begins attacking a theist for his/her belief he/she makes a liar out of his/herself by creating undue hostility - militancy. Attacking persons rather than ideas is not rational debate practice. Inviting civil debate IS. Reason was called the highest human virtue by the great philosophers. The gospel of John begins by calling God the 'Logos' - the root of 'logic'. It is an interesting concept.

Any degree of uncertainty remains uncertainty. To answer a definite 'yes' or 'no' to the question of God is a (definite) statement of faith, since the existence or nonexistence of (any conceivable) God remains unproven. It is a religious question, and any answer is a religious answer. The only unbeliever is one who has either not been introduced to the question, or who isn't certain as to the answer. Atheists accuse Theists of irrationality, yet refuse to engage in dialog with those they disagree with.

Theists should be ready to defend these beliefs rationally. Christians (for example) are required to "Always be ready to give REASON for the (articles of)faith within you" 1 Peter 3:15 If they cannot, then I doubt their faith. The only way to have 'no belief' is to be uncertain to any degree.

If Atheists are rational they should avoid militant antagonism. To rabidly dismiss philosophic and ideological opponents, and to call theists idiots, is militancy. This is what scientific and philosophic debate practices call 'ad hominem' attacks. Do they hate Theists (people), or do they disagree with an idea? The burden is upon whoever makes the claim to RATIONALITY to understand their philosophic opponents, and to engage in dialog. Be honest. Admit to a definite belief and defend it. I see no profit in the creation of unnecessary hostility. If Atheists are so rational and seek peace then they should be honest with themselves, be the adults they believe themselves to be, and engage in civil discourse. Militant antagonism proves they are engaged in a religious and ideological war against persons, rather than appealing to and validating REASON. They are not simply people with an absence of belief. If the rational aren't engaged in discourse, they're engaged in war.

I say all of this as an Agnostic. I hate to see rational people engaging in religious warfare as they accuse theists of doing. Leave your mind open to further understanding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

look to my folks and their friends. As for atheists, I don't blame them. With a rotten economy and these reckless wars, it's getting harder to believe in GOD anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great article, shame it's necessary to explain and defend atheism in this way.

In response to the person who mentioned the interlocking of American politics and religion, I saw Randall Balmer on something the other day where he talked about his new book 'God in the White House' (probably The Daily Show, how is it that Jon Stewart can be both so entertaining and so thought-provoking...?), where he pointed out that it wasn't until after Watergate that religion started to matter in a president. That's less than four decades, so they aren't dug in that deep, these religion 'n politics types.

I've been hoping, along with many others I've met and still others I hope to meet, that Obama's religion talk is all bullshit. Funnily enough, given his openess to all comers, irrespective of denomination or creed, as well as his largely rational talk, B.O'b is coming across a lot more like an atheist than a christian.

And getting way off track, why did we pick judeo-christian myths in the West anyway? We had plenty of fine old pagan traditions, which were a lot more fun in the main than holy communion or even midnight mass. So were the Viking or Roman or Greek legends - what made us adopt some foreigners' ideas about things that happened in the Middle East thousands of years ago? Can't figure that one out...

Oh, wait.. Didn't brutality, torture and murder have something to do with it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Over the years, I have largely learned to stay away from Alternet articles dealing with either the promotion of Atheism or the denigration of Religion.

Although I don't consider myself to be particularly Religious, a certain vague Spirituality does tend to influence my day to day actions (or so I'd like to believe). When I read the typically aggressively anti-belief arguments found in many online articles & comment threads, I find it difficult to withstand the urge to defend the reality of the thoughtfulness & intelligence of some of my more Religious friends & relatives. That's where it starts, & it invariably ends with blanket attacks on those loved one's mental health, societal value, & brain power (an argument often internally disproved, if I am to go on comparative writing samples alone). & of course, blanket attacks on me, simply for pointing out that those people are smart & free-thinking humans, worthy of a basic respect.

As the author repeatedly states, people's impressions of how Atheists think & act is unfortunately mostly limited to the evidence found in anonymous internet forums. She does well to point us to any number of other heatedly debated topics (sports, politics, etc.) to make clear that online discussion allows people to behave in ways that they never would in a face to face situation. In real life, I know quite a few Atheists. I imagine I probably know many more than I realize, because it just never comes up. We are more than willing to live & let live. It matters not a bit to me whether or not the guy that works next to me believes that the idea of a Higher Power is unsupportable, or if he thinks his particular Higher Power is the only true one. What matters is that we can work side by side in tolerance & that he pulls his share of the weight.

If only we could learn to remember that those we debate in an online setting are actual people. Another good point that the author raises is that an attack on an individual's belief (or non-belief) system is often perceived as an attack on that person's very core. These values, whether instilled or learned (& so often similar) are fundamental to our personal understanding of how the world works & our place in it, so care should always be taken when approaching an argument about them. This is why I generally avoid tangling with this issue; I distrust my own ability to remain calm & thoughtful in the face of what are ultimately personal attacks.

So, kudos to Alternet for publishing this fair & reasonable pro-Atheism piece. May the trend continue, & may the debate become more civil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a boilerplate article. You could make basically the same response to any straw dog question of what ALL of any category believes. One correct point is made at the top of the article: saying that ALL of any group think the same is a basic error.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't the term Atheist a Christian term? A non-Jew isn't an Atheist. A non-muslim isn't.

But that's not really the point. Your first point is that people who don't believe in the Christian Description of God are not 100% certain. Interestingly, it's Christians (or Muslims, or Jews) who are certain. They are certain the other versions of God aren't true.

A Christian is 100% sure that an angel didn't recite the Koran to Mohammad.
Christians are 100% certain that the revisions in the old Testament are more right than the Hebrew Bible.

The difference between someone who's picked a side, and someone who hasn't is that the people who haven't simply reject one more religion than the people who have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One minor (maybe major? IDK) point, that kinda tainted the rest of the article for me, was the very first myth, that atheists are 100% certain no god exists.

If, as you're saying, they/you don't believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a god doesn't exist, but are simply waiting for more proof, would that not make them/you an agnostic and not an atheist? Or is this a flaw in my understanding of the terms, are they not mutually exclusive?

Most atheists I've encountered, including individuals in my own immediate family, have been adament that, regardless of any further research or "proof" or anything, they were 100% certain that no god or god-like entity existed; those who said, "Maybe, maybe not...no way to know for sure" always described themselves as agnostic (including myself, though I am a very spiritual person). So, from my personal subjective experiences, I'd have to say that atheism is generally a firm belief that no god or god-like entity exists (and this has always seemed very dogmatic, hubristic, and unappealing to me), and agnosticism is the more neutral, open to persuasion position that author describes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is sometimes supposed that people who don't drink coffee can't get up in the morning. Sure, some can't, but many of us are morning people. Coffee-drinkers also accuse a-coffee-ists of being health fanatics. I can personally attest that many a-coffee-ists like nothing better than a bottle of Jolt to wash down their deep fried Mars Bars...etc. etc. etc.

Do you see how empty and pointless this kind of article is? People who don't have a particular trait can't be grouped together in any meaningful way. All "atheists" are just people who don't believe in God (or a personal God, at least). They don't have anything more in common than that. They aren't an identity in any positive sense.

Sure, we can debate whether certain conceptions of God are coherent (but don't most religions say that God is ineffable and transcendent, anyway?). But lack of belief in a personal God isn't any kind of belief system in its own right. Secular humanists, existentialists, nihilists, political utopians, Anton-LeVay Satanists, UFO cultists, and others are all varieties of "atheists," and I don't think that many of them would think that they much in common with the others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... and/or atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion to be used to as a weapon to label and persecute. And we all know the purpose of weapons.

To me the term atheist dignifies what it denies. There are NO pejorative terms for people that do not believe in Zeus, Santa, or ghosts. I wonder why? Is it just another venue for the religious to express their hate for anyone that disagrees with them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After I stripped the dogma, looked honestly at the mythology, reflected on the Good that came from and can come from religious practice, I found something more in the Christian Bible than I expected.

I found a history of a people struggling to escape slavery and the bonds of imperialistic culture (Exodus and the Old Testament prophets); a people redefining the world to combat imperialistic impulses, sharing the land and resources and making divine, unbreakable (God's) laws to govern individuals and protect their rights (Leviticus); existentialism's meaning and purpose (Ecclesiastes); prophets, or truth seers, who challenged brutal imperialistic Kings (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, Jesus and others) and raised awareness of how far they had drifted from God's Laws. Jesus was not the last prophet.

Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself." This sums up what the prophets of the OT taught, says Jesus. What maxim sums up the most important lesson humanity can learn than these few words? You don't have to believe in God's Kingdom, an imaginary place called Heaven, to appreciate the depth and width of that divine charge.

However, if you think of "God's Kingdom" as a Utopian vision for a better world, then you can see that: 1) the imagination WAS reality in Jesus' day, 2) Jesus was using political language of his day to describe something antithetical to Roman imperial rule and challenge Roman brutality, greed, and oppressive behavior, 3) Jesus was empowering the poor and dispossessed of those among him who suffered mostly because they did not understand the influences of Roman imperial culture.

You don't have to believe in a God to despise imperialism and its oppressive greed and power, but it doesn't hurt. It's about being critically thoughtful enough to see a better world.

For example, I think too many public intellectuals who are atheists (Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins) lack literary imagination to understand the power of religion. Also, many Christians lack imagination--they only believe what they're told to believe. But, Christians lead many great movements in america, from abolitionists, women's suffrage, workers rights and anti-child labor laws, to civil rights. (Even Gandhi credited Jesus' teachings for his role in ousting the British imperialists) Think of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, then look at Cornell West and Jeremiah Wright. The dichotomy is natural. But, too many Christians and atheists have their blinders on when it comes to seeing the power of interchanging culture. How do we change that?

Culture is a powerful force in human social behavior. One must reach a certain amount of knowledge, understanding or "enlightenment" to see that culture can be transcended.

If we were all cultural critics, we could pick and chose what is best from all cultures, past and present, to divine the best way to live in harmony with each other and our planet. Yet, too many are caught up in their own cultures to be able to honestly look at the "Other." That, if anything, has been our downfall; because if those atheists who attack Christians would turn their attention toward the culture of greed, wealth and power, they would find they have something in common with many Christians who "Get it." I think President Obama gets it.

Obama's bipartisan desire to bring us together under the umbrella of "What works best?" is an attempt to cross cultural boundaries with reason and truth. It is a weak attempt sometimes, because he seems to bend too much in the other direction, but it's the start of something that could change america forever by uniting us all in truth, justice, compassion and Hope for a better tomorrow. You don't have to be a religious or nonreligious person to understand that.

I appreciate any comments.

Peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

when expounding upon me since he has never and WILL never meet/talk with me?

I am an atheist AND an individual.
I have my own morals, ethics, etc.
These qualities have not been shaped by talking to imaginary entities, etc.
They HAVE been shaped by my own feelings, thoughts and other aspects of who I am.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Obama administration who promised to Change things is about to loot the Treasury to the tune of around $3 billion instead of simply nationalizing Citibank, BoA, et al.

Meanwhile, atheists spend time and energy insisting that they are Very Moral, Very Good people. Who cares.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

3: Atheists are angry and unhappy, with no meaning to their lives and no hope.

So if, as atheists tend to argue, hell doesn't exist, and nobody can go there after he or she dies, then does that imply that human life lacks meaning or hope?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why?

Because atheists know that morally comes from within, from the psyche, the consciousness, experience and education, what have you.

Not from some outside thing-a-ma-bob floating round the ether of outer space.

Atheists know they are responsible for their own actions, no one and nothing else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I happen to be a Christian, but -- I hasten to add -- not one of those who uses his beliefs to denigrate anyone disagreeing with those beliefs as "evil." (I hate the way so many "religious" people attack gays, for instance, claiming they're just following "God's will." Their God, maybe. Not mine.)

I'm a left-leaning moderate who thinks religion should be less of an issue in a politician's public life than is almost always the case. I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state.

I told you all that so you wouldn't think that I'm a right-wing Christian fundamentalist who believes every word of the Bible -- I myself refer to the earliest parts of Genesis as "Judeo-Christian mythology" -- and who is automatically put on the defensive by any article that "threatens" my system of beliefs by not being in step with it.

I enjoyed this article, and I thank you for writing it..

If you want me to remain open-minded to you and your beliefs, the best way to insure that is not to attack me "first." (We've had enough of this pre-emptive war ideology, haven't we?) I've become more and more uneasy about the recent proliferation of pro-atheism articles offered by AlterNet lately, but only because so many of them insult those of us who are religious. These insults have ranged from calling us -- me -- "superstitious" to "silly" to "delusional", and have gone so far as to refer to a deity I believe in and revere as everything from a placebo to an "invisible space daddy." Slapping me in the face like that does not prompt a rational response. Instead, it inspires an answer in the form of two words... and as the saying goes, those "two words" ain't "Happy Birthday!"

To me, anything you want to believe -- or not believe -- is your own business. I'm not trying to convert you to my system of beliefs, and would appreciate it if you would extend the same courtesy to me. This article did just that. Thanks again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You cannot investigate and understand the history of thought without encountering minds which centered upon the belief in a higher power. Clearly the need to think in religious terms is not as great as it was a few thousand years ago, not to mention pre-historic thought. Truth is not exclusive property of science even though science is all about verifying truth. The bible contains much truth and is a source of great delight to some people who have a mind that bends that way. The story in Matthew for instance, where Yeshua was starving in the desert and was tempted with political power, riches, and fame, is a delightful story and instructive. One doesn't have to believe that he was "God" to appreciate the literature. Similarly, you don't have to believe that Jonah was actually eaten by a whale to appreciate his dismay when "God" spared Ninevah. The best kind of people are those who love all knowledge, and they are called "philosophers".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's some things we can do and believers can't:

We can drink beer, wine, spirits. We can eat cheeseburgers, we can eat pork, we can eat pretty much anything we want, whenever we want. We don't have to get up early on Sunday and attend a sermon, we can sleep in or watch football or do something more productive. We don't have to listen to a sermon on Saturday or Friday night. We can work on Saturday. We don't have to fast for a day or a month. We can wear whatever type of underwear we want. Atheist women don't have to wear scarves or long skirts, they can wear whatever they want or think it's appropriate. Atheist men don't have to grow facial hair or ridiculous dreadlocks. We don't have to pray 5 times/ day or anytime for that matter, we don't have to waste a minute on prayer. We can love whoever we want to, even if that person happens to be of the same sex. We can have sex in any and all positions, anytime, without it being strictly for procreation. We can have sex before after and while we're married. We are allowed to celebrate our birthdays. We can take medicine or see a doctor if we're sick. We don't mutilate our son's or daughter's genitalia. We don't brainwash or lay guilt trips on our kids. There's no need to confess, unless you really want to. We don't have to give any percentage of our income to the Church. We don't have to go to Church/Mosque/Temple to worship, but we can go to admire the architecture. We don't have to defend our faith (we have no faith, duh!).

It's a long list and I'm sure there are even more restrictions on life that are imposed by religion that I don't know about. My point is if you're an atheist you can live life on your own terms, and do whatever you want as long as you don't break the law and don't harm other human beings. Now isn't that fun?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's an example to expand this - You cited Barry Manilow as an atheist. From interviews in the past few years, I think he is into Zen Buddhism as at least an inspiration for his SPIRITUALITY, not religion.

So, for me and others into an integral developmental evolutionary (and the coupling of evolution with the hardwired body/genes/brain is typical monistic reduction). Evolution, or unfolding development of the Divine by the Divine progresses by atheists rejecting mythic plural and mono-Daddy myth God(s). They are a step up from religion, awaiting growth into Spirituality or trans-rational mysticism. They are a step up from mythic-membership religion - they are rational which has an advanced morality component - individual rights and responsibilities.

But like all steps up, they don't want to see the big picture. Integral theory says that until you've move past postmodern progressivism, you can't see and appreciate all the (healthy manifestations) of "first tier" levels. I don't know. They (Wilber et al) over at Integral Life are calling Obama the first integral president; I'm not convinced - he's not the first co-opted president, I fear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As far as I know, God loves me. It doesn't matter that I don't believe in his existence and would consider him a tyrannical a-hole if he did.

God loves all creation, including the murderers, terrorists, boy-raping priests, hypocritical christians, jews, little men from mars and yes, even me.

Which is why I consider the matter a win-win for me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no historical evidence for Jesus Period. Lao-Tzu the supposed 5th century BC contemporary to Confusious cannot be physically confirmed but may have been a collection of folk stories from dissaffected peasants in reaction to Confusious. Yahweh or Allah were the retelling of stories from Babylon and Summaria. Krishna was an ancient fiction that gained reality only through the lens of time. Buddah, though a real person, Sakiamuni Gauhtama, never exulted himself and never told the stories that became the foundation of the religion. These are all hero stories to reassure the oppressed that some sort of saviour will appear to right the wrongs done to them and send their oppressors packing. Maybe the only sensible religious figure was the native Americans belief in the Great Spirit that moves all things without giving that Great Spirit a characterization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Both can be revered for creating Us the only species on the planet able to comprehend and manage all that is here. Both wield enormous powers which we are unable to predict or control.Bothe perform 'miracles' which we can not replicate with as much accuracy or results. both create something out of what appears to be nothing.
As a recovered Catholic , ispent decades proclaiming I was an atheist. but over the last several years, thing have happened which I can not explain by any scientific method. Benficial coincidences, easily called 'blessings'.Unexplainable occurances which defy logic, but fit well with the 'Hand of God' explanation, or at least 'guardian Angels' or Benevolent ghosts.
Just as scientist have been debunked through out history (world is Not flat), I hold the claims of self anointed Religious leaders claims to being the Sole 'knowers' of Gods Will.I don't Beleive in Orgnaized religions and worship no self proclaimed 'idol' or any of their Sacred cows.I have faith in that those things I can not understand nor control are as they are meant to be and have a rhythm and rhyme which has spanned the scope of time- long before me and long beyond me.And I accept my 'Eve' chosen Respsonsiblity (and gift) to be the only Steward with the intellect and physical ablities to care for this 'Eden' we have been granted- by God or nature. I am a Faith with reverence for That which I owe my existence too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

. . .isn't that they're convinced that there's no God. As a Pagan, I'm not convinced that there is a God, either -- certainly not one as defined in the scriptures of the world's major organized religions.

Rather, I believe that God is the universe itself and everything in it; that God is life itself and that the way I feel in touch with God is through the power of love.

But I digress.

The real problem I have with athiests is that they adamantly do not believe in any existence beyond the physical realm; when we die, that's it -- pffffft! We cease to exist. But where's the proof? Can atheists prove beyond doubt that there is only the physical realm we live in? Can they prove beyond doubt there there is no other form of existence?

Not to me, they can.

Life is energy -- and energy cannot be destroyed; it only changes form. To believe otherwise, for me, is to live in numbing, paralyzing fear of my own inevitable death for the rest of my life.

Moreover, there is a growing wealth of scientific evidence by people who have had near-death experiences -- NDEs -- that there is a non-physical realm that all of us pass into at the moment of our physical death, evidence that atheists cannot disprove without having "crossed over" and come back. Interestingly, many atheists who have had an NDE ceased to be atheists afterward.

Of course, there are several other things that atheists cannot adequately explain -- most notably, the origin of the universe "Pure chance" doesn't cut it with me any more than the Book of Genesis does.

I'm not anywhere near the fundamentalists who believe in the literal creation of the universe by God in seven days. but I do accept that there was some form of "intelligent design" in the origin of the universe. Exactly who -- or what -- the designer was or is, I cannot say conclusively. But no way can I accept the atheist notion that the universe happened by pure chance or accident. The Big Bang occurred for a reason.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

get "trotted out" is because *most* atheists (and certainly ALL the atheists i know and i know MANY) blame religion for ALL the world's problems, all the wars, all the atrocities (and on the other side, NONE of the good)...stalin and mao are examples of atheists doing atrocious things, just as the crusades are examples of religious folks doing atrocious things.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First of all ACCEPT That Historical Fact

Our Children Were NOT BAPTISED

And have been subjected to NO Religious Indoctrination Whatsoever

They attained Really High Grades at School Learning About Religion

Neither are in the slightest bit prejudiced against anyone's Religion or Colour - and both have invited friends back to our home of all sorts of religions and colours

I don't think either of them believe in any kind of God. They both think religion is an interesting subject - but don't have any themselves.

They have both behaved extremely morally and have always supported their friends and done their best for them

And We are both (brought up as Roman Catholics) Extremely Proud of Our Children

I guess both My Wife and Myself believe in some form of God - but we have both expressed the desire to have Humanist Funerals - without any Religious Ceremony whatsoever

My own belief in God is Personal to Me

Miraculous things just seem to happen

Like I Pray this Economic Crisis will be Resolved Gracefully and we will advance as a Nice Race of People

The Human Race

I Have Faith in The God of The Human Race to Conquer the Devil of Evil within us

And I do not have a Problem with Praying Cos it Works

I guess I don't qualify as an Atheist.

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

James A. Swanson, Los Altos, CA
"The Bush League of Nations"
www.bushleagueofnations.com [for FREE download of entire $25.95 book]

I’m a progressive Christian who appreciates and agrees with this article by Greta Christina. Thank you, Greta!

When working on progressive causes, I find that I have much more in common with my “atheist” friends than I do with my rightwing Christian friends.

As a progressive Christian, I’m appalled at the Christian Reich’s upside-down version of Christ and Christianity—Pro-Rich, Pro-War and Anti-Science—and the GOP’s war on the U.S. Constitution, including the separation of church and state.

Thanks to America’s warmongering Christian Reich, being “a Christian” has become a negative in the eyes of much of the world, and I can empathize with the increasing number of Americans—especially our younger folk—who have no use for Christianity.

As for me, I have chosen to stay and fight to reclaim my faith from those who stole it and use it to support a rightwing imperial agenda.

Christianity remains a powerful weapon in American politics, and we abandon this weapon to the extreme right at our peril.

This and much more is discussed in, "The Bush League of Nations: The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed – the GOP’s War on Iraq and America," by James A. Swanson (2008, CreateSpace Publishing, 448 pages).

Patriots everywhere—especially atheists!—can download the entire book for FREE at www.bushleagueofnations.com.

I ask for nothing in return, except that you consider using my book to help restore and build America.

Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
”The Bush League of Nations” [for FREE download of entire $25.95 book]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guess the Guardian's cartoonist Steve Bell said it best: are you a catholic atheist or a protestant atheist?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stupid..........

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One more issue is worth mentioning: the issue of Predictability. Science gives me a tool to use to predict the future. Religion does not. I can't predict the outcome of prayer, nor faith, nor even an afterlife. Why would I bother considering something that is that useless?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1: Like they say there are no atheists in foxholes. “The arguments for God are weak and circular”, being a Christian I do not understand this statement, to us there are no arguments for God. To make an argument for God shows a lack of faith. When you see these ID people spouting off, realize this, they are actually people of little faith. I can’t figure out if they are trying to prove God exists or that God is intelligent. Either way it is a little bit insulting to GOD. God is God, believe it or not.
2: I could link to current research on the neurological/evolutionary basis of morality. The science that does not have a clue as to any physical construct of a memory in the brain, looking for a hard wired morality is a stretch of the imagination. As Christians we are specifically taught that morality is learned, ergo, suffer the little children to come unto god. Having said that we are also taught that any expression of morality is a matter of free will. “You have to acknowledge that atheists are as moral as anybody else.” Not only that, but we believe that every human being has a soul, and that God judges souls not the brain or the flush. The brain or the flush is just walking dust.
3: I have to admit that atheists are people too, and that they will fall in the normal distribution of humanity on any scale, totally indistinguishable from anyone else.
4: I have never read any Christian comment, that all atheists should be killed, since we are taught no one should be, even those we perceive as enemies, whom we are taught should be loved as we do are selves. However, I have read many times that all the Jews, Christians, and Muslims should be killed so whom ever can inherit the earth.
5: But atheists have legitimate grievances. And many of our biggest grievances aren't about how believers treat atheists. They're about how believers treat one another. Why do blame religion or God for what men do? As Christians we are taught to let God be the judge.
6: What can I say, birds of a feather flock together?
7: We care about religion as it's widely practiced in the real world. Again why do you blame God or religions for what men do? And that includes many versions of religion that are outdated, simplistic, stupid and ugly ... and richly deserving of criticism. (See # 4 and #5 above.) Most of the article shows a lack of understanding of the basic teachings of all religions.
8: You can not blame atheists for what men do, but you can blame God for what men do. Are atheists hard wired for free will?
9: Did you know that in Islam, it is your religious responsibility to learn all you can about the creation? Maybe Muslims are messengers from God for Christians? However, to most of us Christian’s science is just a tool, nothing mystical about it, just a piece of chipped rock.
10: Religion has been armored against criticism for so long, people are shocked when they hear it at all. Funny, I remember being taught that Jesus was crucified. I also remember stories about Christians being fed to lions and burned for night-lights. I sure am glad I live now and can only be criticized and wished to death.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All men have a spiritual nature. Some are"enlightened"...Light shown upon, others are of the dark and all shades in between. Our spiritual natures inform our pathways through our short life spans. Our spiritual natures create our relationships to "God" or the universe as God is also understood. As all things follow the fundamental laws of the physical universe, and were born of the big bang "Creation", we are subject to a finite existance that is also infinite. You may catagorize yourself as a "Christian", A "Jew", A "Muslim" or any other sect that demands religiosity, or you may see yourself as an "Agnostic" or an "Atheist" or have no thought about relgion at all, but the nature of your spirit will accompany you to the grave and beyond, as you take your place in the cosmic infinity. Enjoy life and be kind. You'll have a more pleasant life.

Dick Wagner
Scottsdale, Arizona

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's just one moment I take exception to....

Nobody's arguing that anti-atheist bigotry is as serious as, say, racism or sexism.

Actually, some of us are and rightly so. When your "lack" of religion deprives you of getting a job, prevents you from renting house or purchasing it it's only different from racism or sexism in the corporeal vesting of the proximate cause of the abuse by the mainstream (the vesting takes the form of belief in the case of atheism and physical morphology in the latter). True the vestment is a subtle yet profound distinction worthy of prioritization, but it doesn't affect the result: abuse is abuse, deprivation of basics for survival on the basis of one's beliefs or body is discrimination, plain and simple any way it's sliced.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To save me from the wrath of the religious right:
They're NEVER wrong
They're ALWAYS right
They'd never dream of starting a fight
Uh, wait a minute; that's Donald Duck. Never mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"If you want to criticize atheists, individually or as a movement, please do. We're not perfect, and the current incarnation of our movement is fairly young, with all the flaws of a young social movement. But don't spread lies about us. Don't foment fear about us. Don't assume that you know who we are without listening to what we have to say. And don't criticize us in ways that are just meant to shut us up. Thanks."

So, get you Sam Harrises and all your other blathering heads to quit assuming all persons of faith of any kind are the bad guys.

We're trying to STOP our bigots, not making literary and cultural heroes out of them. I'd say to try to get somebody that Harris or Dawkins or whoever respects to talk to them, but Harris?? Only respects and listens to himself. Dawkins, I suspect, is a little bit smarter. (Chris Hitchens is just a moron, and I think anybody from either side of the faith line would realize that if they'd read his articles closely.)

You WANT respect? Give it back to those opposite you who deserve it, don't come at us with the same scorched earth thought processes that our extremists do. Remember, for every Harris, there are 1500 "me-too-ers' out there discrediting every sensible thing you, or I, or any other non-pushy person tries to say. (Same with our side, except we also get burdened with the likes of Fred Phelps and his band of looneys, who are as much Christians as maggots are pelicans or peacocks.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would like to add to Greta’s 10, and that is that too many of the “organized religions” do not believe that religion should be personal, it should also be political so that their beliefs can be forced on all. This is what really jerks my chain!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You do realize those can be simulated *both* via simply reducing blood flow to the brain, as in the centrifuge type training things the military used, "as well as", through various drugs and/or electrical manipulations of the brain right? No, of course not. That would require reading the science behind NDEs, instead of the endless number of books written by people that "heard about them", and either didn't understand the science, lied about it to sell a book, or read a headline, but not the article.

New Age stuff is what the FDA was made to combat, back when every nut case in the US could put any quack theory into practice, claim it cured everything from hang nails to limb amputation, and get by with it. Now, 100% of New Age stuff is the same quackery, only every label very carefully spells out it being a "food supplement", or "toy", or whatever, even when it does no such thing, but is relatively harmless if ingested/used, and that it "may not do any of the stuff it claims to". I.e., its snake oil for gullible people, just like the old days, but the governments own rules prevent them stopping it, unless they can prove direct fraud, like the Enzyte and Airborne, people, who they proved did "no research", at a "non-existent" lab, and refused to give back people's money, and/or re-ordered the stuff for them, without permission, then kept billing them.

Congratulations. You don't understand the science behind NDE, or most of the New Age stuff you are into, and someone who now have 3 houses, a limo and a private jet, no doubt just made another million off of you and 500 other people like you, for boxes full of rocks. On one hand, I pity you, but on the other, if the millions of people like you ever actually learned anything, scam artists ranging from New Age quacks selling rocks, to televangelists on the other end of the spectrum, would all be out of business, and the billions of dollars they rob people of every year could go to, I don't know... paying people for real work at real jobs, which might drag the country out of its economic crisis?

But, nah.. Buying the latest magnetic, blessed, incense burner and healing crystal gadget from someone that spent $2 to make it in China, and is charging you $500, with a free $1 moonstone "spirit charging" necklace, is so what we need...

BTW, next time you wander into a "alternative medicine/health food" store, you might ask them if they have "extract of violet", just for laughs. See, its been used since the time of Galen, which is like.. almost 2,000 years, to treat heart conditions, and its "active" ingredient is "gasp" actually the #1 drug used for certain heart conditions in the "materialist" science based doctors offices. Yet, 99% of the so called "herb" experts in the US have never heard of it, don't carry it, won't indicate it as a treatment in any of their "herb books", **but**, will quite happily tell you to use something that either a) has been proven to have no effect, b) has a detrimental effect, or c) they only claim has any effect, but have nothing but claims, often false, of "ancient wisdom", that it was ever used for that condition.

The problem isn't that atheists reject the non-material, and just to be clear, I have run across a few "altie medicine" believing atheists, so you are dead wrong to start with, its that no one claiming to have any evidence of said non-material has ever actually presented "believable" evidence, instead of evidence better explained (or already explained) by something else, or which wasn't so blindingly obviously made up, and defended by, "Well, if you witnessed it, you would believe too!", that it constitutes "no" evidence at all. Some of us, you see, read the work of the debunkers, not just the advocates, and understand how they got it wrong, or faked the result. Which, makes it kind of hard to be "open" to "supernatural" explanations. So far, there are none "period".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Nobody's arguing that anti-atheist bigotry is as serious as, say, racism or sexism."

Why not-?

People get their "asses 'kicked for christ'" quite often.

Losing jobs, family, friends, not 'qualifying' for various endevours. etc.

It may SEEM not as serious, but, only because it goes mostly unreported.

Is it illegal to discriminate on the basis of NO religion-?

To whom would one report it-?

A church-?,....

The Labor Board-?

Your elected official/s-?

It's 'invisible'-discrimination for the most part. IMPO

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Atheism is too vague because it lacks context. I'll try and restrict myself to a this prototypical case : take someone who grew in a religious environment, say a catholic. Then have this person deny the existence and authority of this central God figure.
The next step is then that the rest of the beliefs are shaken because the authoritative source is gone. The situation can settle along different ways, to name a few

- the God figure remains central and a belief in not-God part of one's identity. One could become a truth warrior then, and this fills the vacuum left by the damaged moral framework. The 'upstart' type of atheism so to say.

- because the trust in the framework relied too much on the central figure the framework is too damaged and you end up in a vacuum. A search for an alternative framework starts with varying success. For example one can end up with for example humanism which isn't all that different from some interpretations of christianity. Or one can end up a buddhist which is eh, different.

- most of the moral and social framework stay intact. It turns out that the authoritative source wasn't an essential part. Stealing still is bad so to say. This can happen when God is less central, or when the idea of 'existing' is taken less literally. If the concept of God is sufficiently abstract then 'existence' becomes a nonissue. Then it would even become possible to accept that, like 'honesty' , 'God' can be a valuable organizing concept.

The distinction between agnosticism and atheism I never could fathom. Agnosticism is so bloody politically correct. Why bother being agnostic about the flying spaghetti monster? The difference is absolutely useless. Doubters are something else. They're just a bit foggy because their belief has atrophied, but there's not much behind it. They'll conclude that 'there must be something' and leave it at that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nice enough article, but I'm still a big fan of fellow neuroscientist Sam Harris. I recently read his "Letter to a Christian Nation" and urge anyone curious about atheism, or religion for that matter, to look it over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My only problem of belief is believing in the existence of good Christians.

The "10 Myths" seem to be nothing more than a bunch of ad hominem smears. They'd might as well say atheists have big noses!

I say this as a non-atheist and a non-Christian--and I was being hyperbolic about the existence of good Christians.

But even I know that anyone who talks that way about atheists, or about anyone else, is not the slightest bit Christian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One very common idea not on the list is that all atheists are on a recruiting mission - they can't be trusted around children because they may corrupt young minds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Believers and non believers end up in the same place, in separation and in isolation. Believers remain separate from their idea or object of desire by definition, meaning, i believe ,therefore, i have not found. Non believers remain isolated from the wholeness of life through conscious rejection. Arguing about who is more adept at escaping the unity and wholeness of this moment is like bragging about who's method of separation is more valid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I really liked this article, especially its tone, and am forwarding it to other members of my Christian family - just to show them a different view.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For me, it isn't about religion v atheism, but fundamentalist, ideological thinking v reason and compassion. You can find both types of people in both camps. Let's address that human tendency to want to reduce things to their most black and white and then we're getting somewhere. For the record, I'm a person of faith whose friends are primarily agnostic and atheists, and our beliefs are simply that--our own personal beliefs.

As far as science doing away with the need for religion--to me, that is like saying that science does away with the need for art. For that is the purpose religion/spirituality serves in my life--a filling of the soul and mind of the mystery of life. As well as a questioning of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author states: "Science is a method for perceiving the world that relies, not on authority and intuition, but on rigorous examination of evidence and a willingness to question any theory."

What is wrong with intuition? Otherwise known as 'gut reaction'. What's wrong with intuition?

Most of us have a feeling (gut reaction) that something is not right (for us) in a given situation. And that 'gut reaction' has a lot to do with our previous (but subconscious) experience of our immediate childhood environment / experience, which we now (ONCE AGAIN) find ourselves in as adults.

In other words, we can "smell" a sense of danger in the air - and that's because we have been there before - but (as helpless dependent children) we couldn't do anything about it.

Now we can, as adults. But - only if we are psychologcally mature adults now - who can see through the 'bravado' of those who try to control and dominate us with their cocky, ego-driven false sense of security, which they are desperate to 'sell' to us, and anyone else who is as afraid of LIFE as they are!

The so-called civilized West is dominated by infantilized adults, who are shit-scared to live an honest fulfilling life. They only have their own brainwashed parents to thank!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two comments.

I'm a non-denominational pagan, and I like it that way. The Divine (no, NOT god!), in my personal view, exists in all people, places, and things. As encapsulated in the concept of "namaste," I honor the Divine in you - and in you, and you, and me.

Second, and I can't give proper attribution, since I saw this somewhere, sometime in the last 50-some years, and liked it so much I had to keep it (if anyone knows the source, please let me know so I can say "thanks!"), "Religion is for people who are scared to death of hell. Spirituality is for those of us who have been there."

OK, there's a third comment insisting on coming out. Belief - or nonbelief - is a personal thing. So where did all the organized religions come from, anyway? Somebody human - not Divine - decided it sounded like a pretty good get-rich-quick scheme? What's the benefit to the believer, to have to depend on some guy wearing a funny dress to "mediate" between the believer and the deity? Why can't I just talk to the Divine myself, in private, the way I talk to myself? After all (see above), the Divine is within, not without. And, quoting an established paganist, "if that which you seek, you find not within yourself, you will never find it without" (Doreen Valiente, Charge of the Goddess).

Look within, learn to live with and by what you say you believe - or don't believe. There is nothing without (that is, outside of) the self. But, for the sake of that which some call god, keep it to yourself, because that's the way it's meant to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look it is not your job, Alternet, to teach people about religion. Whether you are for it or against it, enlightenment can come from many sources both within or without, from science, spirituality, or both. It does not have to be a choice. Belief or atheism should not be used as a fashion statement, which is what I think you are trying to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

red herrings. every anti-clerical, anti-religious argument makes the frankly false accusation that all or most conflict is about religion. in the 20th century, it is a matter of fact that most humanitarian catastrophes have been committed in the name of atheism and or secularism. the point is not the moral deficiency of atheism per se, obviously. the point is that all ideologies engender intolerance. for example, wars are fought over football. no ism is moral.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To an ancient Egyptian who worshiped his/her gods everyone alive today is an athiest to them. Likewise the Greeks, Romans, etc. there were thousands of gods who were responsible for all the good and bad in their lives. Not a whole lot different now with just a half dozen or so gods depending in which country you were born in and brain washed from birth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yours was largly the finest discourse I've seen on this subject. But There is one point we diverge slightly. I see no reason to concern myself about the existance of deities, devils or other mythalogical mumbo jumbo. To give serious credence to these arguments is to do at least half your opponents work in your conversion.If other people wish to believe, why should I care. On the other hand those who try to convert me to whatever, Generaly learn what one version of their hell can be. If they dont burn a cross on my lawn, I wont burn a question mark on theirs. J.C, Whithout the Boys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The most basic issue is that Atheists are people, like any other people. The same goes for Christians, Muslims, Jews, Neo-Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. This seems to be the fact that is so often forgotten. People - all people - have strengths and weaknesses. Some people behave in ways that are more ethical and moral, and some don't. It is impossible to correlate the level of morality with a particular belief system.

Myth #8 - To be fair, when I've seen these sorts of statements about Stalin or Hitler killing millions of people as indictments for atheism, it has been in e-discussion groups in response to an atheist making similar accusations about religion - that religion is the fault of most of the world's violence. The reality is that greed and power are easily the greatest reasons for violence and war.

I am a convinced Christian with a progressive political point of view. I don't expect to convince atheists that "Jesus is the Way", neither to I expect to be convinced that he isn't. I'm very willing to live with that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks Greta,

I agree 100% with all you say.

So well expressed.

(Ron from Downunder)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Priests got amalgamated into the roman church.
Temples turned into Chapells and Churches. Most ancient sacred places got a church on top.
Sampe people do religion as business throughout the aeons. Multitheism or Monotheism does not matter. The worshippers money is what counts...
It`s a vehicle turning singsong into cash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1.Religious people are 100% convinced that there is a God. (Some are. Some aren't.)
2.Religious people are angry and unhappy so they take it out on atheists. (Some do. Others love and appreciate atheists because their religion is bigger than a search for certainty.)
3.Religious people are disrespectful, intolerant, and mean. (I respectfully and kindly apologize for that.)
4.Religious people are whiny. (I am sure you are getting the point by now. Don't make me cry!)
5.Religious people are just being infantile. (Like the infantile Gandhi and MLK jr.?)
6.Religious people are arguing with straw men, they criticise the ugliest, stupedist, most outdated versions of atheism and ignore the thoughtful, complex forms of serious modern secular humanism. (Many atheists are thoughtful yet must deal with numerous stupid fundamentalist confrontations and cliche's. Thoughtful religious persons also often find atheists who after finding God is dead have never bothered to go through her pockets to see if there is anything good there. And religious persons then get treated to their smug empiricist reductionist certainties. Sadly such is the frequent level of online discourse.)
8.Religious people are responsible for the worst crimes in history...inquisition, witch hunts, holocaust. (Um. sorry about that. Please remember the persecuted ones and critics were often religious too.)
9.Religious people think Theology belongs to them. They treat theology as their religion. (finger pointing at the moon)
10.Religious people think they are superior. (Only because we feel inferior!)
...My argument is that there is wholesome and unwholesome religion, and atheism. And that wholesome religious people and atheists need to work together to resist those things that destroy us. We should be partners not adversaries for a better world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Personally, as an Atheist, if a "god" did appear, I wouldn't be any more likely to worship it.

Why the need to waffle?

So, as far as I'm concerned, I'm 100% disbelieving in gods because I would never acknowledge one anyways. Why is there this need to leave that 1% or whatever free to interpretation? Gods are a human concept. If one appears and humans insist that we worship it as a god,that doesn't make the being any more credible as a god, in my opinion. I don't feel the need to worship anything. Frankly, the whole concept of gods is bothersome - which is why I am an Atheist! Isn't that the whole point?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lets back up one step. I mean, atheism isn't a "religion", even if some peoples adherence resembles faith, we are mostly people who will change our views based on new evidence.

So... lets talk about "systems of belief". There, that's better. You have yours and I have mine. Now, if your system of belief includes a supreme being, here in the United States you can have a large meeting place and have people give you money to make it into an extravagant temple, all TAX FREE. Then too, you might have the bush administration give you tax money for your good works.

Now, if your system of beliefs does not include a supreme being. You can expect to be called unamerican by Bush 1 and many others. You can expect to be required in school to recite an oath daily to someone elses system of beliefs. Having an office dinner? Expect to sit through rituals to a supreme being.

Yeah, I want us brought up. I want my system of beliefs to get as much air time as any other. I want us all to get along and learn to respect each others beliefs and learn to exchange ideas in a civil manner.

It's not easy though. Religions almost all take their beliefs on faith. That is, it should stand no test of logic or reason.
So just by implying "there is no supreme being" we level an unintended insult. Sorry, no disrespect intended. We are from different systems of belief. It's good to understand each other.

Agnostics and athiests structure their system of beliefs on logic and reason. I like to dig to the bottom, to the suppositions, evidence, theories and hypothesis and tear them apart. Then try to construct something. I think it's very important though, for me anyway, to be able to say "I don't know". Not to quote Rumsfeld, but there are some things you can know for sure, others... not so much.

As for morality, I take each situation and decide. It's messy, but life is messy. There are consequences and risks to actions taken. This leads to some different conclusions for me than religious people. I'm a lot more understanding of homosexuals for example. I know from experience growing up with gay friends that they are who they are.

As for death, and an afterlife. No, it's not easy to live life with the assumption that death is final. So no, I don't take this lightly. If it is final, then my time is the same after I die as it was before I was born. I'm not there to regret or enjoy. Humanity. I take a stake in that as with all life and since I don't "believe" that some supreme being has the whole world in his hands, I believe we ARE responsible for stewardship of the earth and how we affect our neighbors etc.
I am not forgiven for the harm I do. So, I try to do no harm.

I hope you'll take all that as an attempt to share insight into my system of beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A question was asked "where is god?". A believers answer would be "Everywhere" My question is, does it matter if there is a god or not? If there is one, it doesn't seem to care much one way or the other about what we do here on earth anyway. The evildoers get away with hurting people even getting rich from doing it. Are they going to hell? We'll never know. Sure doesn't seem like the threat of hell does much to stop them.

So what does it matter if there is a god or not?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Halleujah!
I consider myself not
an AMORAL atheist, but
a MORAL atheist.
Too often I have observed/experienced the "bigotry" of ostentationally "Christian" persons. Walk away from the fight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, boys and girls, we are simply here, and no Big Fat Nothing is going to help us out. I am one of the author's rare people, who are 100% non-believers. Heck, I typically don't get involved, anymore, in discussions of gods. Good grief. It's ridiculous. Call me what you like. I don't have a dog in this hunt, because there is no hunt! There's nothing to hunt. If you do believe or even question whether there might be a Big Fat Nothing, I worry about you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I imagine for the same reason others show up here. Good place to rant, thinking liberals won't hassle you too much. Why not try to convince the real people who give you a hard time, the other fundamentalists? Mostly, they are not here on alternet.

Read The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James. We all need more open minds. Including atheists.

On NPR the other night, an atheist was talking about fundamentalist atheists. You do exist. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary gives the second definition of fundamentalism as:

"a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"

It absolutely seems to fit atheists as well as many believers. Strict and literal adherance to a set of basic principles? Tell me it does NOT fit.

But who cares anyway? Why on earth do atheists care what believers or agnostics think of them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Atheists find no evidence of a god, therefore have no reason to believe there is one. If anyone can provide evidence, in the way that science does even if it is similarly provisional, then I would give it a reconsideration.

While I have seen some good that is done through some religions, I have seen more that is destructive, hypocritical, murderous, imperious, and greedy. Some local religions actually have vaults and armed guards to guard the money they take in and patrol the ministry grounds. They funnel some of it out to the designated charities but not most of it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That is a brilliant, concise and up to date definition of Atheism. Thank you so very much for your piece. I have copied it and I will use some, or the whole of it whenever I am challenged to stand up for what I and countless others believe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All I know is that if there is a God and he stands for what we've all been told he stands for then he must be pretty darned bummed out at what he see's going on here on this planet and the people he supposedly created.!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thus atheist's believe there is no god.
Those who have some type of religion believe there is a god.
Agnostics don't know.
If you are going to be perfectly logical, the Agnostic's win hands down.
Both other categories rely on belief...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not only do I have atheist and agnostic friends, I have a great deal of respect for many atheist thinkers and had a great deal of my personal ethics shaped by atheist writers like Isaac Asimov, Joss Whedon and J. Michael Straczynski. Thank you for clearing up these common misconceptions!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

_______________
video converter for mac

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]