Hear, hear!!!

Speaking of living life under a weighty burden of superstition, did you see the NY Times article today about the rural Chinese arranging marriages between dead people?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/world/asia/05china.html?em&ex=1160193600&en=488494696d618bcc&ei=5087%0A

Becoming an atheist has soooooo changed my life for the better-- I have never felt more free, purposeful, and able to breathe easily since I decided that shroud of fear was, literally, all in my head. But I have always feared, and continue to fear, the fervent Believers.

If there is a god, the one thing he is communicating clearly is that he is not about to get involved, and it is up to us to determine what sort of world we want to live in...

Oh no! I want to do unto others as I would have them do unto me! I want to have more charity, love, and hope! Fear me! I want to be more self-less, caring, and honest! Be very afraid!

Seriously, it's entertaining when atheists say they fear religious people when most of them just want to live better lives and not be interfered with in the practice of their religion. Yes, there's always a few loud and pushy Christians, but I could say the same about some atheists. The real religious people to fear are the ones that want to convert us at the point of a blade.

What does my life mean? It means that I am one of God's children in a world full of his children and I should treat them accordingly. It means that all the pain and suffering that I have been through is not for nothing, but makes me a stronger person. It means I have a calling to make the world a better place in my sphere of influence. It means that I am an eternal being that will continue to exist after this life, continuing to grow and progress in knowledge and wisdom. It means that life is more than just what we observe with our 5 senses.

You may not agree with my views and dismiss them as irrational, but I'm not squirming and I'm certainly not a danger to you. Don't infringe on my beliefs and I'll give you the same respect.

At best, atheists are annoying. Atheists don't want to pass laws to stop you from believing in unproven crap. Religious nutters affect everything from the sexual freedom to the medical care available to the rest of us. What I don't understand is why somebody who believes there are green men after him is institutionalized, while somebody who believes there's a big guy in the sky watching out for him is not. Oh...could it be that people really understand, deep down, there's no god? I mean, I have a hard time believing that any intelligent person I know actually believes, without proof, in god. I think what Daniel Dennett said is probably right: Most believe in the belief in god.

So can anyone give their life meaning by fiat as well, or are their certain standards that must apply? Could someone who doesn't try to help out when he can also give his life meaning?

My meaning may not be your meaning. You could never do a nice thing for another person and your life could still have meaning.

If your life can mean anything, how is that any different than saying it means nothing? How do you choose your meaning? Is there some rational basis for it, or do you just pick something at random?

"Oh no! I want to do unto others as I would have them do unto me! I want to have more charity, love, and hope! Fear me! I want to be more self-less, caring, and honest! Be very afraid! Seriously, it's entertaining when atheists say they fear religious people when most of them just want to live better lives and not be interfered with in the practice of their religion."

Drflykilla, if only it were the case that this is the true focus of most professed Believers' beliefs. Down here in the Bible Belt, I can attest that it's way scarier than that. I'm glad you find meaning in your faith. I find meaning in my life without faith in a god. Your live-and-let-live approach is fine with me, but the practical reality of life in the American South is that it is downright dangerous to be called a non-Christian, much less an atheist. Sorry if atheists have harassed you about your faith, but in my experience, the reverse is true 99 times out of 100.

Besides, swap the references to atheism and religion with one another in your passage that I've quoted above, and that exactly describes how I feel. One needn't be religious to aspire to those virtues you cited.

Don't make me break out Immanuel Kant. For the love of all goodness, don't make me do it!!! ;)

Humans are very greedy egotistical creatures. Isn't it enough that you are alive, that you actually exist?

What kind of hope does religion give people anyway? That they won't die? I think that's called living in denial. Everyone dies, and if you accept that, you will make the most of the time that you do have. The ones that live in the fantasy of going to heaven squander their time on Earth because they think it's not good enough for them. It also gives them an excuse to destroy the environment, and look down on anyone who doesn't believe the same thing as they do. What kind of meaning does that give to their concept of their lives?

I'm personally tired of being judged by religious people and their ridiculous and dangerous attitude towards sex.

It's true that intolerant Christians (and others) have harmed others in the name of their "faith." I'm a Mormon and my ancestors suffered much because of that type of bigotry in the U.S. I still see that bigotry frequently, especially down here in the Bible belt. But it's not really that different from bigotry practiced by those of any religion, including atheists.

Amy, you say at worst atheists are only annoying. But I think Christians in the former Soviet Union and China would disagree. Christians and those of other religions were heavily persecuted in those countries by the Communists (who were also atheists). Atheists group in the U.S. are constantly sueing to remove crosses and any mention of Christmas or God. That's tyranny of the minority, so it's more than just annoying.

I don't think any one group can claim the moral high ground because there is plenty of blame to go around. It's best to not rely on stereotypes because they are usually based on incomplete or incorrect information. I don't know how many times I've had to explain to people that I'm not a polygamist and that it hasn't been practiced in my church for over 120 years.

In my church there's always a few intolerant people (who I refer to as nazi-Mormons), but the main points of theology work for me and my family. I understand why people become disillusioned with organized religion--people can be jerks and hypocrites. But that doesn't mean we should dismiss the goodness that is found in most religions.

And just because I'm religious doesn't mean I'm a uneducated redneck--a common stereotype. I've got a Ph.D. in biophysics and I've loved science since I was a kid. I've never found science to be incompatible with belief in God, and I know plenty of other well-educated religious people.

But please, don't break out the Kant. I save stuff like that for boughts of insomnia.

drflykilla, for your information, the removal of religion from the state is based on the separation of church and state, which the founding fathers wanted to ensure for the United States. This means that God and crosses are being removed from schools and government buildings, which are the 'state'. Explain how this is tyranny.

Whether it's meaningful to me and whether it's meaningful for other people -- those are two different questions. I would venture, since my goal is making a positive difference in the world, and people write me to tell me I've helped them ease their suffering, live more happily, etc., that my life has significance in more than the personal sense.

And Dr. Fly Killa, the nonbelief in god doesn't tie people together as a group. Saying so is like grouping people who like red together. God-believers, however, are, by nature, irrational. Since there's no evidence there's a god, it's fair to say all god believers are irrational. It's also fair to say god believers often try to legislate their irrationally based beliefs on others. The fact that some corrupt communists (communism itself being irrational) who don't believe in god behave unethically -- maybe those people also like to eat potatoes, but you can't logically condemn all potato eaters because of it.

I'm not surprised this bit of logic escapes you. The sequestered rationality that allows you to believe in god lets all sorts of mental lint fly!

Why should it be meaningful to you but not to others? If your meaning is rational, shouldn't it be meaningful to others?

I don't believe that drflykilla was trying to condemn all atheists with her remark about religious persecution in the former Soviet Union and China. She was merely addressing your claim that at best atheists were annoying. And the atheists that were persecuting religious people in the Soviet Union were certainly more than annoying.

Mr. Grouchypants, your questions are interesting, but maybe you can answer: Why should (my) life be meaningful to others? Don't they already have their own lives for that? Maybe I decide that for my life to have meaning it has to have purpose, and my purpose is to find as many ways to have fun (without harming others) as I can before I die. That's probably not going to mean much to others, aside from the people who profit from the money I spend having fun, but it's not irrational.

Pirate Jo,
How do you convince yourself that your life is meaningful, if you can't convince someone else? If your "meaning" is rational, shouldn't others find it rational as well?

No, not necessarily. The same things that are important to me might not be important to others. I might decide that the thing that gives my life meaning is rescuing dogs from puppy mills and finding homes for them. Someone else might think that's a waste of time, that I should be taking care of orphan children before I spend any time worrying about the dogs. I alone decide whether my choice of action makes my life meaningful, and I alone decide how much time to spend answering that question - or whether, in fact, I even want to bother asking it.

What do YOU think? You seem to have thought about this before.

Chris, I disagree with your notion that lack of religion equals caring more about life. Atheists can easily fall victim to the nihilistic "nothing matters if/when I no longer exist" excuse. Why we care about life is another set of irrational emotions that are only slightly related to our views, or lack thereof in the alleged divine. And let's not forget the big three religions give holy brownie points for living a "good" life (what good means is up to debate).

The problem I have with the notion that you create your own meaning for your life is that there don't appear to be any sort of standards by which to choose the meaning. And something that can mean anything actually means nothing. I can understand the urge people have to give their lives meaning. But if you don't have a rational basis for you belief that your life is meaningful, how is that belief any different than an irrational belief in God?

I believe that the meaning of my life is to murder as many of these foul disgusting Christians as I can get my hands on. Give the f__kers a taste of their own medicine.

Oh, I'll bite.
It's true, my belief in God is not rational in your sense of the word.

By the same token, it is not rational to use the word "love" to mean anything more than "you provide sex and other things I want and I don't want you to stop."
It is not rational to spend large amounts of money on babies with birth defects, unless they can be enabled to live what self-sufficient lives. Ditto old people in nursing homes who provide no value to society.
It is not rational to endanger myself to rescue another person who is in harm's way.
It is not rational to sacrifice my life to combat nazis, especially without knowing that my sacrifice will be on the winning side.
It is not rational to do something simply because I promised to, when the benefits of welching would be be grater than the negative consequences.
It is not rational to tell the truth when a lie would not be caught and would get better results.

Sorry for the double post.

I'm sorry to say that although this topic has lots of posts, it won't change anyone's mind about anything.

"I believe that the meaning of my life is to murder as many of these foul disgusting Christians as I can get my hands on. Give the f__kers a taste of their own medicine."

You really should attribute your quote when using the words of Joe Stalin.

Well, the spiritual "meaning" of my life ensues from the fact that God is the sum total of everything that exists, one big, creative, ever-renewing, ever-synthesizing Whole that would seem to be engaged in an ongoing act of Creation, and that I am naturally a part of the process. I am not so vain as to think I am "giving my life meaning", but merely acknowledging a Reality larger than myself and then choosing to go along with the program.

By the way, Amy, you are a preening, ignorant ass.

Meaning is neither rational or irrational. It's subjective. If you take the meaning of meaning to be, say, "significance," then the question is, "Does my existence have significance?" Even Adolph Hitler's had significance -- in fact, a great deal of significance. If meaning is a form of emotional satisfaction, on a personal and on a more public level, I can say my life has meaning. If you're responding here, clearly I'm significant in some way to you. I'm of great significance to Will. If I weren't, he wouldn't take the time and energy to type the words "Amy, you are a preening, ignorant ass."

As far as "God is the sum total of everything that exists," it's clear you're just "going along with the program" (yet another monkey-see-monkey-do "thinker"), but what the hell does the first part mean, and how do you know?

Personally, I see no evidence there is a god, just as I see no evidence, as I believe I posted elsewhere, that there's a giant purple vagina hovering over my house. Until there's proof of either Hover Pussy or God, I'll go on my merry way, writing, blogging, and preening...until I'm worm kibble.

"By the way, Amy, you are a preening, ignorant ass."

So I'm guessing How to Win Friends and Influence People isn't part of the program.

By the same token, it is not rational to use the word "love" to mean anything more than "you provide sex and other things I want and I don't want you to stop."

Well, being a girl, I can pretty much get sex on demand, and I have a low tolerance for stupidity and dull people, so I'm a shitty sell-out. I'm with my boyfriend because, I find him extremely exciting as a human being (okay, and hot, too), and if I have an hour to spend with somebody, I can't think of anyone I'd rather spend it with. If that should change, we'll break up. I've never wanted to get married because I never needed or wanted anyone to support me. (If you're living off somebody else's dime, and their dime is much bigger than yours or your dime alone, that's incentive to stay way past the sell-by date, and that's ugly.) I think prostitution is a much more ethical arrangement.

Here's a definition of love I like, from Ayn Rand:

"Love is a response to values. It is with a person's sense of life that one falls in love -- with that essential sum, that fundamental stand or way of facing existence, which is the essence of a personality. One falls in love with the embodiment of the values that formed a person's character, which are reflected in his widest goals or smallest gestures, which create the style of his soul -- the individual style of a unique, unrepeatable, irreplaceable consciousness."

Heinlein had another good one I quoted in a column:

"That condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own."

True friendship is similar. Nobody's going to be altogether altruistic, and many aspects of a relationship are selfish, and that's not wrong. Either it gives enough on both ends to be worth it, or you get out.

I don't have time to respond to the entire litany you posted, but as for why people make sacrifices, even sacrificing their lives, I suggest you read up on reciprocal altruism, and get a copy of Dawkins' book, "The Selfish Gene." Howard Blume, a friend of mine, also writes about group selection in "The Lucifer Principle" and "The Global Brain."

You know, Mr. Grouchypants, for the first half of my life, I wanted nothing more than to be liked. For much of that time, I had no friends, or few friends, and my dad had to go to the junior high school principal to get him to make a bunch of bully girls stop throwing chairs at me in the halls. But, wanting to be liked turns you into a human suckup, and only when you stop operating according to a desire for popularity do you start acting with integrity and being a person of integrity.

PS One of my great accomplishments in life is overcoming that need to be liked. Clearly, I'm a great success at it.

But what if someone wants to be liked and is able to secure the admiration of lots of people? Lots of performers desire the acceptance and admiration of people. And some of them become quite successful at it. Why would that prevent them from being a person of integrity? And if meaning is purely subjective, they could get as much meaning from being liked as you could get from overcoming the need to be liked.

Really, Amy, it didn't take a lot of time and energy to type "Amy by the way, you are a preening, ignorant ass".

You are assuming of course that just because you see no evidence of a Deity, or that because you are lacking the perception that would allow you to do so, then nobody possibly could or ever has. Wonderfully open mind there. Love the vagina analogy, by the way. Classy.

And no, Grouchypants, I don't bother trying to win friends the likes of which tell me I've got inclinations toward jackbooted fascism.

Amy, so many of the comments seem written by folks engaging in a form of Pascal's wager--plenty of doubts but better to "believe" just in case.

Mr. G, that reminds me of the e-mails I get from young girls who want to be famous. "Famous...for what?" I ask them. I find a goal of being liked alone pretty empty. NASCAR doesn't float my boat either. If it works for you, go for it. I'm not legislating meaning for others; simply saying what works for me.

Will, the fact that you're here and type my name at all - now, for a second time - says I have significance in your life.

Will, I could, perhaps, with the right amount of LSD, hallucinate a deity. That, however, is not the same thing as having evidence of one.

Suggestion: As a human, you have the capacity for rational thought. Why not use it?

Will, regarding your remark about my purple vagina imagery:

"Classy"

What is it about a vagina that you find problematic? Do you, personally, have issues with vaginas, or do you take your direction from religion? Religion definitely has problems with vaginas. It likes to keep them locked up until marriage, and even then, the idea that they're sometimes taken for a ride or two...horrors. Only for procreative purposes, right?

Do you know why there's a prohibition from these antique religions, against premarital sex?

Money, honey. Daddy didn't want to have to pay for kiddies after the daughter got knocked up in the fields. So, they made premarital sex a bad, bad thing. These days, however, we have birth control. Well, "we" being those of us who don't believe primitive, ignorant, scientifically invalid religious teachings that it's a "sin." The thinking members of society, that is.

Another of my favorite idiocies from religion: The idea of original sin. You're only a two-year-old, yet you're a black sinner just like the rest of us -- for crimes you didn't even commit. Yes, that's like saying Lindsay Lohan is guilty because four men robbed a bank today and got away. Well, if we don't have them, gotta blame somebody...why not her?!

Come on, isn't religion sounding a wee bit stupid to you now, Will?

"Meaning" is for gays. You people who take shit so seriously ruin it for everyone.

Amy, it's my observation that most folks pick, and choose what to believe. The rest to a individual/sect is "mistranslation," "not relevant to the real message," or heck a simple "just doesn't feel right." Pointing out odd parts of a text is silly. After all it is faith people can, and do beleive whatever they want.

Seriously, it's entertaining when atheists say they fear religious people when most of them just want to live better lives and not be interfered with in the practice of their religion.

No, they don't. They live lives in fear of punishment, and ironically, often with little real love. Plenty of guilt, though. Isn't that called extortion? So much for God's love. And drop the persecution complex. You're in the majority for Christ's sake (blasphemous pun intended). Stop trying to interfere with my government and my schools. Nobody's interfering with you practicing your religion. I won't think in your church if you don't preach in my school.

The real religious people to fear are the ones that want to convert us at the point of a blade.

Wrong. The real religious people to fear are the ones who don't have the balls to do the dirty work, but are perfectly willing to let the extremists do it for them and then reap the benefits. There will always be extremists. This goes for Muslims and Christians. If you're not actively speaking out against them and trying to stop them, you are guilty of doing nothing. At least you can count on Atheists to call a spade a spade, and to actively fight against the tyranny of the deluded.

What does my life mean? It means that I am one of God's children in a world full of his children and I should treat them accordingly. It means that all the pain and suffering that I have been through is not for nothing, but makes me a stronger person. It means I have a calling to make the world a better place in my sphere of influence. It means that I am an eternal being that will continue to exist after this life, continuing to grow and progress in knowledge and wisdom. It means that life is more than just what we observe with our 5 senses.

In the first place, simply stating your beliefs is not an acceptable answer. That was the whole point I was raising. Explain how belief gives your life meaning. Explain what, exactly, your life means. The existence of an afterlife does not give your life meaning. The existence of hell means that God is an extortionist.

Pain and suffering do make you stronger, and there is value in being stronger. But it doesn't mean anything. Your pain or mine doesn't mean any more than the pain of a gazelle taken down by a cheetah. It is for nothing--accept it. Everything you are saying is why mythology always exists: to explain the unknown. An interviewer once asked the famous mythologist Jospeph Campbell what his definition of mythology was. His answer? "Other people's religion." If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be a Muslim and you would beleive in Islam just as fervently. So much for truth. Case fucking closed.

Making the world a better place requires no gods. In fact, that may be the only way it will ever happen sustainably, because religion is exclusive and always leads to the elimination or subjugation of the "other." Talk peace all you want. History says otherwise.

Don't infringe on my beliefs and I'll give you the same respect.

Again, nobody's infringing on your beliefs. Believe any stupid thing you want. I have no respect for people who believe in something that is patently insane, a lie, a myth. I don't want your respect. I want you to fucking think. You have not explained how your life has meaning, nor what it means.

Sure, Amy, the way you state it, religion sounds stupid to me. Of course, you and your co-anti-religionists are forever telling us what we belive, how we believe it - setting up a straw religon, in effect - then knocking it down. As far as my perspective goes - you're not even in shouting distance. Nor would your comic book appraisal apply to most people of genuine spiritual awareness.

I shoud mention that it hasn't escaped my notice that while you've devoted considerable space to my comments, you passed right over that psycho who threatened to kill Christians. Now, OK, maybe the guy was goofing - on the other hand, is generally good to err on the side of caution. Now, going on the assumption that he really is a psycho, the guy was probably a psycho to begin with. Still, had I posted a comment to the effect that, oh, in the 20th century, atheists and the atheistic agenda killed more innocent people than the Christian religious wars and the Inquisitions combined - a fact, by the way - and some commentor responded by threatening to kill all those effing declared atheists out there, I would feel some responsibility, however slighty deserved, to reprove the commentor in no uncertain terms. After all, those were my words that provided the trigger point. Evidently, you don't feel responsibility. While you're cleaning up the camp site, Amy, don't forget your basic home priorities.

Re: the vagina - there you go again, projecting. Obviously - and I think you know this - I wasn't objecting to the V per se, but to your classless use of the word.

"Sure, Amy, the way you state it, religion sounds stupid to me"

What I'm doing is stating what it is -- without the gloss on it -- and of course it looks stupid.

Dark Sided stated it so well above.

Then there's you, writing about "People of genuine spiritual awareness." Um, awareness? How about sound-asleepness?

Who are these people of "genuine spiritual awareness" and what the fuck would that be? You talk in these empty words and sentences -- do what Dark Sided asked at the top -- explain in concrete terms what you believe and why? Why there's reason to believe what you believe. And "because the bible and my preacher said so" don't count as evidence. "Because it's mysterious and I don't have another answer" isn't proof.

"Atheistic agenda"? There is no such thing. Again, people who don't believe in god are no more unified than people who drink coffee or who don't like the color green. Atheists are simply those people who have an evidence-oriented approach to what they believe in. I did get a laugh out of your attempts to float a conspiracy theory above, but we atheists are not plotting, as a group, to take over the world. We aren't a group at all. But, you're a member of a group -- a group whose thinking falls apart the moment one applies logic and reason to that...which is why religious people get so up in arms when anyone does such a thing. In essence, what you, in your willful jello-headedness, are knocking is the "logical agenda." The evidence-based agenda. How can that possibly make sense?

When you go to the doctor with a big tumor, do you want evidence-based medicine (ie, medicine proven to work) or would you let the doctor wave a big pink rock over you, click his ruby slippers together, and say abracadabra six times?

Christians are the majority, and although I'm post-Jewish, I spent much of my childhood being chased around and called "dirty Jew," and I assure you, it wasn't by atheists.

I suspect that, like many people who believe in things without engaging their reason, you don't know how to think very well, which is why you think you can lump all non-god-believers together as if it makes sense.

Again, put simply, since you're not accustomed to rational thought: There is no such thing as an "atheistic agenda." There are only a varied number of people -- too small a number considering it's 2006 -- who refuse to believe in unproven crap.

What you don't do in these silly rants you post here is ever offer evidence for god's existence...because there is none. Why don't you believe in Zeus or Mohammed? Dark Sided has the answer for you: Because you were born in a place where Christianity is the chosen irrational belief, not Islam or belief in Greek gods. There's some Muslim guy across the pond who's just as convinced you're wrong, wrong, wrong. And for what reason? No reason at all.

And here, via Dark Sided's blog (http://dark-sided.blogspot.com/), is why the church is the most successful multi-national corporation ever:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-holyatm28sep28,0,6671307,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Tell me something...why can't you just be a good person? Why does it take Crystal Cathedrals and all that? Whatta racket!

Again Amy, if meaning is subjective, then the desire to be popular is just as meaningful as any meaning you have in your life. Why can't the girls that email you create meaning in their life by pursuing popularity? If it gives them pleasure and provides them meaning, why exactly is it empty?

It's empty for me, which is why it isn't my goal. Please work on the reading comprehension.

I think old people are a pretty good guide for what works and what doesn't in life. My favorite little old ladies I see on the weekends at a cafe I go to were women I met when one said, "Every day I'm still alive is a pleashuh!" I venture you won't find any or many people who find great pleasure in pursuing popularity. It's a road on which you end up without a self.

I suspect you're playing devil's advocate, but perhaps you could pick a more interesting topic. This is a rather flimsy straw man you're floating.

'"Meaning" is for gays.'

Lick my shaved butt crack, Crid. Elitist artistic culture and lean muscle mass are for gays. Agonizingly meaningful depression and church on Sunday are for straights. But it's never to late to hop the fence, baby.

If you wish to maintain that it simply doesn't work for you fine. But why can't it work for others? You keep saying that you are only talking about what works for you, but then you make broad claims like "It's a road on which you end up without a self." Why not just say, "It is a road on which I would end up without a self"?

Amy, I did explain my belief in concrete terms - it's not so much that you choose not to comprehend it, it's that you simply are unable to comprehend it. In fact, it's not even a matter of "belief" or a set of emotions, it depends on mode of consciousness - if you don't have it, it's going to seem like gibberish to you. It would be like trying to explain the color blue to somebody who's been blind since birth.

Yes,yes, I know, this has no meaning for you. I don't object to your lack of perception. I do object to your implication that Christian religionists in general have some natural tropism toward fascism, a fashionable fantasy that spurs on nutballs like that psycho commentor who threatened to kill Christians. Oh yeah, I noticed that you skipped right over that one again. If there's truly been a serious issue brought up in this space today, it would be the matter of one of your fellow-travellers threatening mayhem. And nary a peep from you. Speaks volumes.

As for the "atheistic agenda" - you know exactly what I mean. When the most murderous states in history - the USSR, N Korea, the Peoples Repub of China - just happen to proclaim themselves atheistic entities, one really has to have one's head buried in the dust not to draw some kind of link between their official non-religious religion and the body count.

Briefly, to entertain you, here's a small explanation for the existence of a god, though this would say nothing regarding the nature of that god: linear time can't go back infinitely in time - if it did we wouldn't exist, nay? Time and space as we know it had to have a beginning. Time and space are "something". Something can't issue from nothing. So there had to be "something" pre-Big Bang, something infinite and beyond space and time as we know it. This 'something' then,had to be responsible for Creation as we know it, had to have, in effect, conceived of Creation and its necessarily delicate atomic balances.

Again, doesn't say anything about the nature of the Something, but it logically points to the existence of a Something. All this is just logic - the real pudding begins with the intuitively experiential and goes up from there. But that's where you can't go.

Oh, I'm "ranting", eh? Which one of us uses the word "fuck" as a means of expression? I know, anything to sound hip and with-it.

We're not talking about what has no meaning for me. We're asking whether you believe in god because you have evidence there is a god...or because you have a head filled with what you've turned into the equivalent of Jell-O?

As for use of "fuck" as a mean of expression, I'm in very fucking good company:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2003/12/all_humans_are.html

What's wrong with fuck? As Al would say, when somebody says "Fuck you" -- "No, unfuck you...fucking's a good thing!"

As for the murder comment above, what is it with so many of the polyamorists and religious nutters commenting on my blog that they have no grasp on irony? Did you really see that as a serious death threat? Are you that fucking dim?

I don't comment on every remark here (for example, Crid's gay crack above). I knew Lena would wipe up on that one so much better than I could.

When the most murderous states in history - the USSR, N Korea, the Peoples Repub of China - just happen to proclaim themselves atheistic entities, one really has to have one's head buried in the dust not to draw some kind of link between their official non-religious religion and the body count.

Look, I'm so sorry you're a moron, but I've explained this above. Atheists are no more a group with an agenda than are people who like milk in their coffee or people who like green.

Please, take a remedial logic class. As fucking soon as humanly fucking possible.

Mr Grouchypants,

How is 'meaning' based upon the acceptance of an imaginary being any less subjective than someone's desire to be liked? Pre-emptive answer: it isn't.

Will T.

If your argument passes for concrete, I feel sorry for whatever you build your patio out of.

For the sake of argument, please enlighten us as to what events or natural phenomena comprise empirical, objective evidence that points categorically to the existence of a god. Additional points for a coherent description of the source of it's power, and the mechanism by which it is wielded. Feelings or numinous fantasies need not apply. If I can posit any other, even slightly likely, explanation for said event, you'll need to provide additional objective, independently observable, evidence that said event can be explained *ONLY* by your ephemeral buddy in the sky.

Attempting to deflect the argument to the 'athiest agenda' (what a crock) by invoking other intellectually corrupt and ethically bankrupt societies is just fucking stupid. Athiesm, to whatever degree it was part of these societies, was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the driving force behind those viewpoints. They weren't actual athiests in the regards of due, considered rationality, they used athiesm like you use logic, inaccurately, and as a largely ineffective way of squashing competition.

And as for your 'logical' determination of 'somthing', feel free to provide us, using formal statements in logic, the complete chain of events that lead you to that 'logical' conclusion.

Your logical thinking is largely similar to the following:

A: all grass is green
B: the sky is blue
C: therefore, a toothpick must be made of glass.

You make an immediate fallacious statement about time and space 'having' to have a beginning, and how something cannot issue from nothing. These are mere assertions of preference, not a definitively factual (or even observered) characterisic of the way things may actually work. Your initial preferential statement is a logically null position from which any derivative statements have no logical validity (you cannot define your starting condition as an axiom, therefore you cannot rely on any conclusions derived from that starting position). If you feel as though you would like to support your argument, feel free to provide your complete mathematical analysis of creation of time and space, with special attention to the structure and energy characteristics of the inside of a singularity (as this is a meaningful contender for the initial state of the big bang).

I rather suspect that you will answer with a resounding silence, or another attempt to project your personal preferences about the way things should work on the rest of the universe.

Since you refuse to address the issue of your pet psycho, I'll refuse to reply to your load of gibberish dressed up as intellectual profundity.

But mostly I'll refuse to reply because you are terminally boring.

And since we are being free with the F word - fuck you, you classless hag.

I'm out of this sewer.

Will, if you had reason on your side, you could stick around and maybe win an argument. Since there's no way you can prove there is a god, I guess a tantrum is as good a cover for leaving as any.

I'm still waiting around to find out why it's "classless" to use the word vagina. On a sunnier note, at least I brought you over to the fucking dark side. Toodles!

OK, I'm back on the dark side, momentarily. Amy, your "numinous feelings need not apply" applies only to those who haven't experienced genuine transcendent states of consciousness. Like you, obviously. Bottom line: you haven't experienced such, so your perspective is no one else ever has,thus it can't be a legitimate map. Fact is, it is legit. It doesn't abandon reason, it takes reason to a new level, one not accessable by those who are bereft of numinous perspective. Again,like you.

If you couldn't really see the basic good sense of what I said re the beginning of time/space, etc., it's because your thought process is strangled-up to the point where it parses the issue to meaninglessness. The same old gerbil-in-a-cage, circular, mental-mastubatory, redundant round-about.

Atheism was certainly more than a convenient tool that the Soviets, et al., used, though it was indeed used as a bludgeon at times. At root, the whole sick, evil Soviet-style Marxist ideology grew out of atheistic secularism - it was the ground on which it flourished.

BTW, if I have to explain to you why tossing words like "vagina" (in a non-erotic or clinical sense) and "fuck" around are classless, then you are truly lost in the ozone.

Now I really am out of here.

Amy,

Original sin does not mean original guilt, at least in orthodox christianity. You need to do your homework before you can claim the mantle of theological expert and pass judgement on such things. I strongly suggest you chill out, admit your ignorance, and then act more the scholar than the demagogue. By such statements you give atheists a bad name, frankly.

Sincerely,
Joe

"The problem I have with the notion that you create your own meaning for your life is that there don't appear to be any sort of standards by which to choose the meaning. And something that can mean anything actually means nothing."

Well I'm sorry if you're uncomfortable with that reality, but "creating our own meaning" isn't just a "notion." The fact is, there is no invisible man living in the sky, creating a set of standards for us. Religions are just standards invented by other people. And that's fine - you can live by other people's standards if you want. That's your choice. But some of us figure our own standards are just as good (or better) measures to judge ourselves by - like a preference for being self-employed rather than working for a corporation. It requires more risk and creativity, and less security, but the payoffs can be much greater. (Or not, depending upon how well you do.)

I disagree that "something that can mean anything means nothing." If I look at the employment section of the newspaper and say, "I can have any job here I want," it's true that I also have the option of pursuing none of the available jobs. But there is a huge difference between selecting one and selecting none, which my bank account would reflect pretty quickly.

Pirate Jo,

The meaning you create by fiat is no more real than the invisible man in the sky. It's just something some people use to get through the day. And since it's purely subjective, it is more empty of content than theism. At least the theists make objective claims and put forth arguments to defend them.

Amy,

Given that atheists in the former Soviet Union and China have actually persecuted people, how can the claim "atheists are at best annoying" be defended? Stalin's actions alone disprove that claim.

Will T said:

"Amy, your "numinous feelings need not apply" applies only to those who haven't experienced genuine transcendent states of consciousness. Like you, obviously. Bottom line: you haven't experienced such, so your perspective is no one else ever has,thus it can't be a legitimate map. Fact is, it is legit. It doesn't abandon reason, it takes reason to a new level, one not accessable by those who are bereft of numinous perspective. Again,like you."

Well, I'll go ahead and jump in here, because I have experienced "genuine transcendent states of consciousness." In fact, I'm an ordained priestess in my former religion. I have volumes of personal journals describing my various satoris, meditations, astral projections, you name it. And you know what? Not a bit of it stands up to rigorous critical thinking or logical examination.

The fact is, it has nothing to do with "taking reason to a new level"-- these states are all explainable by current research on stimulation of certain areas of the brain.

What changed my perspective? Well, it was none other than the miracle of childbirth. When it came time for me to teach my child about the world, I did everything I could to tell him about plants, animals, the solar system, physical properties of light and water and everything I could think of. Then every time the opportunity came around to pass on religion, the words turned to ash in my mouth. I realized that I had a responsibility to this new little person to teach him properly about the world he lives in, NOT to pass off myth as fact. I chose right then and there to teach him facts as facts and myths as myths, and to teach him to protect himself and his mind from those confused on the difference.

Now I think I'll go have a numinous fantasy with a cup of coffee.

It's a silly question. And a very feminine one... Basically, it's a way to make people talk. And talk gratifies the Oprah/girly heart. There's no reason to think that the things that make life work living can, or should, be put into words.

And what do you know, over 50 responses in one day!

WHoop, that's

...life *worth* living...

I wish I'd had a rockin mommy like you, Melissa. You deserve major kudos. Could I interest you in a little cunninglingus?

"At least the theists make objective claims and put forth arguments to defend them."

Not true. The best the theists seem to come up with is attacking science, and finding holes in "my" theory is not the same thing as proving "yours." Theists don't even attempt to hold their beliefs to the same scrutiny that they hold science - we are expected to accept their invisible pink unicorn ideas by default.

I agree that assigning meaning to your own life is a purely subjective exercise and is largely a tool people use to get through the day. It affects no one other than yourself. Look at the converse - imagine someone decides their life doesn't NEED meaning. Is that going to harm anyone else?

It's not empty of content for the individual who decides his life requires meaning and then seeks to find it. It just doesn't matter to anyone ELSE.

Heee, thanks, Lena. I think you're numinous. ;)

Mr. Grouchypants, I'm so sorry you aren't able to understand this, but saying that is lying saying "People who wear green" persecuted people. They didn't persecute people as atheists, because there's an atheist group that condones persecution, simply because they were bad guys. Religions, on the other hand, are organized groups who condone all sorts of persecution and detriment; for example, denial of rights to gays and lesbians. Maybe Stalin and others also happen to hate green. It doesn't make sense to say "green haters persecuted people in Russia" anymore than it makes sense to say atheists did. While maybe some of them hated green, just as they may not have believe in the Imaginary Friend theory that there's a big guy in the sky moving us all around like chess pieces, there's no organized movement of people who hate green to do damage to people. If you can't get this, please have somebody explain it to you. It's tedious to explain it again and again.

"I have volumes of personal journals describing my various satoris, meditations, astral projections, you name it. And you know what? Not a bit of it stands up to rigorous critical thinking or logical examination.

The fact is, it has nothing to do with "taking reason to a new level"-- these states are all explainable by current research on stimulation of certain areas of the brain."

Melissa, that's awesome. I was reading some very interesting stuff recently about people who combined the use of hallucinogenic drugs with those meditation tanks. They really "went deep" in the thinking that resulted, and found that the experience was overwhelmingly positive, even years later. Just because it was based on the workings of the brain instead of non-existent magic or mysticism doesn't invalidate the positive effects they experienced in the least.

Have you read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris? You might like it.

In order for the statement "At best, atheists are annoying" to be disproven, all you have to do is find an atheist that is more than annoying. It doesn't matter if Stalin persecuted people in the name of atheism or if he did it because he had a headache. He was an atheist. Therefore he would be included in the group referred to by the claim "At best, atheists are annoying". In order for your claim to be true, there can't be any atheists that are worse than annoying.

Atheists are not a coherent group or movement. Atheists are simply people who don't believe in unproven crap. Stalin was, also, let's say, a man who disliked green. It's idiotic to say that people who like green are persecutors.

"I was reading some very interesting stuff recently about people who combined the use of hallucinogenic drugs with those meditation tanks. They really "went deep" in the thinking that resulted, and found that the experience was overwhelmingly positive, even years later. Just because it was based on the workings of the brain instead of non-existent magic or mysticism doesn't invalidate the positive effects they experienced in the least."

Exactly, Pirate Jo! The mind is a wonderfully cool and awesome thing. I find these studies so interesting! Did you see this in the NY Times yesterday, about out-of-body experiences?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/health/psychology/03shad.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087%0A&em&en=62b2c7a94f67f4c2&ex=1160193600

Also, there's an article with ensuing discussion on Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" site about the "God Helmet" for electrostimulating the parts of the brain that produce mystical experiences-- awesome!
http://www.badscience.net/?p=255

"Have you read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris? You might like it."

Haven't yet, but I keep meaning to pick it up. Thanks for the reminder! I just finished Robert Park's Voodoo Science, a wonderful book, no less relevant today than when it was first published in 2000.

"transcendent states of consciousness" - I attain those through the use of a plant which I don't think is legal!

If Stalin disliked green, it would also be false to say that green-haters don't persecute people. I'm not claiming that all atheist persecute, or even that an atheist group persecutes. I don't have to. Your remark refers to all atheists and makes a specific claim about them. All that is necessary is for me to find one atheist to which that statement would not apply.

I'm going to hope you're just playing with me, and you're not actually this dim. Atheism isn't about anything other than nonbelief in god. Stalin didn't persecute people out of some atheist rulebook, simply because he was a bad guy. If he didn't believe in god, that's incidental. Religion, on the other hand, is what's behind Christians, Muslims, and to a lesser degree, Jews, trying to control the lives of the rest of us.

The actions of religious people are irrelevant to the discussion of whether atheists are more than annoying. And it doesn't matter if Stalin had an atheist rulebook. All that matters is that Stalin was an atheist. If someone claims that atheists don't persecute people, then there can't be any atheists anywhere that persecute people. Similarly, if you wish to claim that atheists are never more than annoying, then there can't be any atheists anywhere that have been more than annoying.

It if were true that atheists are never more than annoying, then it would follow that Stalin was never more than annoying. Since Stalin certainly was more than annoying, there must be something wrong with your claim.

Mr. G, you have reduced yourself to quibbling over semantics. Okay, so it is not a true statement that no atheist in all of recorded history has ever persecuted anyone. It is only correct to say that atheists as a group or as a matter of belief have not persecuted people, and that any such persecution that DID occur was in no way related to said persecutor being atheist. I can't believe we're dwelling on this. As Amy has pointed out again and again, it's no more relevant than Stalin hating the color green.

However, while we're on the subject, members of most major religions have persecuted others in the name of their religions.

What Pirate Jo said.

Whatever religious people have done is completely irrelevant to my point, Pirate Jo. I simply pointed out an obvious flaw in a statement made by Amy. Her response was to try to tie herself in knots to try to ignore that flaw. Stalin was an atheist. Claiming that he didn't act as a atheist when he persecuted people doesn't change that fact.

Perhaps playing semantics makes you feel better, as it takes the focus off the fact that it's irrational and damaging to believe in god. Yes, there are bad people in the world who are atheists, but they aren't acting out of some "atheist agenda" because there is none.

Religion, on the other hand, is a huge moneymaking venture that, in most cases (Buddhism, I guess, being an exception) turns on the irrational belief in god, and needs to perpetuate fear and nonthink and tribalism to survive...which it has, for centuries, and continues to do -- to the detriment of all of us.

Imagine how different my childhood would have been if Christians weren't taught that "the Jews killed Jesus." And then there were all those times I was called "dirty Jew" by young children. Kids didn't invent that by themselves. They heard it from their parents, who got the hatred of "the other" from the church. I love the notion that Adolph Hitler could go to heaven if he "accepted Jesus as his savior," but if Florence Nightingale didn't believe, she was hellfire and brimstone fucked. What kind of bullshit is that? It's not about goodness -- it's about brainwashing people so they'll show up at church and toss their income in the collection plate to buy gold icons and Crystal Cathedrals...oh yeah, and pay for the pedo priest relocation and coverup fund.

I don't believe in God, so it makes no difference to me whether the focus is on religious people or not. You seem pretty intent on putting the focus on religious people though. Perhaps it is because you hope to take the focus away from your ridiculous remarks about atheists.

"You seem pretty intent on putting the focus on religious people though."

Maybe because that was the topic for discussion? Just a guess.

I can see where she would be more comfortable discussing the irrationality of others instead of her own flawed statements. However no amount of religious nonsense makes her comment about atheists reasonable.

"At best, atheists are annoying."

No, I didn't go into a huge explanation in that short sentence about how atheists are not an organized group working for the group's irrationally based motivations. I did explain that after I was dragged into an idiotic discussion about it by you. I've made that clear in the posts above. Consider them footnotes to the post you're clinging to...like a rat on driftwood.

Again, for the tenderheaded, here's the background on why that sentence is correct:

There's no atheist agenda to stop stem cell research, murder people in the name of non-belief in god, or to prevent women from having abortions. An atheist is simply somebody who doesn't believe in unproven crap.

I'm sorry you're either so dim or have nothing better to do, but I've explained and explained, and if you still can't understand, I don't think I can help you.

There is no point in trying to have a logical discussion who is not logical. The 'belief without any proof' indoctrination pollutes the rest of their brains and makes it a very cloudy and lazy place.

One example which no Christian ever seems to notice is inaccurate: "...if Christians weren't taught that "the Jews killed Jesus." " Actually, the Romans killed Jesus, therefore logically there should be anti-romanism (or anti-Italianism). I guess it's easier just to think what you're told.

Amy you are simply not getting it. It doesn't matter if atheists aren't a group. Mr. Grouchypants is pointing out we're all equally capable of irrational thought. Like Stalin with his Christian persecution, and you with the refusal to see religion as anything other then some Christian fundamentalist strawman.

There are those that disagree with you about whether atheism motivates action. From a review of Dawkins' "The God Delusion" at Prospect Magazine:

"Yet under Stalin almost the entire Orthodox priesthood was exterminated simply for being priests, as were the clergy of other religions and hundreds of thousands of Baptists. The claim that Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his actions may be the most disingenuous in the book, but it has competition from a later question, "Why would anyone go to war for the sake of an absence of belief [atheism]?"—as if the armies of the French revolution had marched under icons of the Virgin, or as if a common justification offered for China's invasion of Tibet had not been the awful priest-ridden backwardness of the Dalai Lama's regime."

If you kill a lot of priests in an attempt to enforce atheism on a country, how can that action not be related to atheism?

Yes, we are all capable of irrational thought. The fact remains, while Stalin may have been a priest-hating murderous motherfucker, there's nothing in atheism that says "Go kill priests." Atheism is simply nonbelief in unproven crap. Period. It doesn't tell you to stone your neighbors, hate homos, or do anything else. There's nothing there but nonbelief.

> Atheists are simply people who
> don't believe in unproven crap.

The thing they disbelieve is religion... There are 10,000 other kinds of frogwash that they swallow whole.

> Atheists are no more a group
> with an agenda

Atheist are as likely to have agendas, including shitty ones, as are the faithful. And they're about as likely to compose those agendas with others of like mind. So unless you're against freedom of association, it's time to deal.

> I'm out of this sewer.

Don't go, man! We need you for your courage! And your insight!

> why it's "classless" to use
> the word vagina.

In an adjacent comment, Eric demands that museums feature only "tasteful" nudes. I suspect this is the same confusion.

> it was none other than the
> miracle of childbirth.

Years ago, I chided most women here (excusing our hostess) as "reproduction robots". There's no more reason for anyone to find motherhood enlightening than meditations and astral projections. It's too common a condition, and one too often bungled. If it lead to excellence inherently (so to speak), we'd know about it.

> there's nothing in atheism that
> says "Go kill priests."

Nothing? Nothing?

The thing that bugs me most about Amy's atheism is that it makes no room for humility. Most churches, once you blow through the major stipulations and get to the fine print, put it in pretty plain language: Buttercup, there are things you are just not going to understand. Amy resents being told to have faith.

Those of us less strident in our atheism resent being told that there's a logical explanation for everything, or that every human question has a satisfying rational answer. There's a lot of shit out there that's weird, and a lot of shit out there that just plain fucking haywire. If you wait for the collegiate caste to deliver the rewarding explanation, you'll have wasted your time.

"There's a lot of shit out there that's weird, and a lot of shit out there that just plain fucking haywire."

If I had to pick a religion, it would be existentialism a la James Dean. Weekly services would be held at the Griffith Observatory, where congregants would watch a presentation about the universe, and how utterly cold and empty and meaningless it is. Everyone would carry a switchblade. No one would talk very much at all.

i'm a nihilist, and religious... as such i won't say i have no need to rationalise god as i haven't the skill to rationalise anything, which is different from the nihilists i see everyday who can rationalise anything.

many of them claim to be christian. they don't even know what nihilism is when they point the finger at atheists.

from wiktionary, nihilism is:

1. (philosophy) Extreme scepticism, maintaining that nothing has a real existence.
2. The rejection of all religious and moral principles.
3. A doctrine holding that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility.
4. The belief that all endeavors are ultimately futile and devoid of meaning.
5. Contradiction between behavior and espoused principle, to such a degree that all possible espoused principle is voided.

"...the bandmembers sweat hard enough to earn their pretensions, and maybe even their nihilism" (rock critic Dave Marsh, reviewing the band XTC's album Go)

6. The deliberate refusal of belief to the point that belief itself is rejected as untenable.

not like wiktionary can be considered a valid source, being subject to the hands of iMorons who would've no.2 in the first place, preferably in the first place.

*choking on my latest redundancy*

Melissa: it was none other than the miracle of childbirth.

Cridian: "Years ago, I chided most women here (excusing our hostess) as "reproduction robots". There's no more reason for anyone to find motherhood enlightening than meditations and astral projections. It's too common a condition, and one too often bungled. If it lead to excellence inherently (so to speak), we'd know about it."

Except your interpretation doesn't match what I actually said. I said that thinking about my responsibility to teach my child about the world was what spurred me into atheism. Sorry, did I need to put the word "miracle" in quotes in the above line to get people to understand I was using it as an ironic aphorism in the context of my post-- or did you just not read the rest of my post when confronted with a line you didn't like? I have to remember to type for the benefit of a less intelligent audience next time.

Yeah, I'm a bit cranky this morning, having been awakened by my little beloved miracle at 4 fucking a.m. and no coffee in the fucking house.

And I was cranky last night, just on general principle.

> or did you just not read the rest of
> my post when confronted with a line
> you didn't like?

It's a blog! If we can't ignore context here, when *can* we ignore context?

Back in the 100-level philosphy classes thirty years ago, the ones with 400 students in every lecture, they told us this: If someone says they've have a profound religious experience, you oughta to try to take them at their word... Not necessarily to believe them, exactly, but to play along and see where the rhetoric gets you.

Amy hates to do that with religious people. I hate to do that with women or other people who think sexual identity brings special powers and insight.

I think Amy hates to play along with religious people because they seem to have a penchant for using their profound religious experiences as a basis for public policy and sawing off journalists' heads. Playing along with someone's profound gender/sexual identity might be tedious, but you can often get some pussy in return for your troubles.

Exactly. I have no problem with other people who believe in really dumb crap -- astrology, for example -- because nobody's, say, passing laws or creating public policy based on the moon being in Aquarius. Why people don't find it any sillier that people pass laws and create public policy based on silly unproven contentions that there's a big Imaginary Friend up there is beyond me.

> you can often get some
> pussy in return

Not often enough to surrender the only shard of clarity ever to glint in one's immortal soul.

> nobody's, say, passing laws or
> creating public policy based on
> the moon being in Aquarius.

Oh, how quickly we forget!

http://tinyurl.com/p5ghw

Can I get jackboots like that with some rhinestones and a red velvet lining?

I need something to coordinate with my black velvet mace.

I hate to do that with women or other people who think sexual identity brings special powers and insight.

I definitely don't think that way, Crid. In fact, my husband felt the same way (re: the realization of our responsibility to bring up our child to be a rational thinker), and I doubt his sexual identity is the same as mine. :)

Besides, all my special powers come from that radioactve spider bite. ;)

Given that atheists in the former Soviet Union and China have actually persecuted people, how can the claim "atheists are at best annoying" be defended? Stalin's actions alone disprove that claim.

As individuals, atheists or theists can be good or bad people. The relevant question is whether it was Stalin's lack of a belief in a deity that made him persecute people with such beliefs, or whether it was his belief in Communism. I submit that the only logical conclusion is that a dogma (Communism in this case) is the source of persecution, not the lack of a dogma.