Personally, I go farther than that. I have a distrust for anyone who tells me that they are basing their values on a Faith/Belief system. I always wonder what it will happen to them the day their "Sky-Daddy" will chose to call a (un)Holy war against Atheists (or anyone else).

I might sound like a Faith-Intolerant here but I have the same attitude towards those who builds their house in a floodplain or next to the ocean; what are you expecting?

> I go farther than that. I have
> a distrust for anyone who tells
> me that they are basing their
> values on a Faith/Belief system.

Well, Touby, you SAY you do, but that comes off like posturing.

Years and years ago, Prager and Hitchens had a moment with this point. I'd initially credited the victory to Hitchens. But in the rematch, it seems like Hitchens is having to dance his way out of trouble... Basically he talks until you're so bored you don't care if he's right or not.

In the United States, our devout people are religious because they want to be. Since no one's forcing it on them, they often don't rub our noses in it, either. But they're out there. I think Amy and many of the Dawkinoid atheists --who seem actually fearful of what's going on in churches just a few hundred yards from their homes-- are naive about the beliefs of the people who closely surround them.

Crid, I get your point that, at least in the States, people are free to worship as they please. For me, it just says that they are free to drink their own poison and call themselves righteous for doing so.

Religion is nothing but fast-food for the mind. It is a Mind-Crap happy-meal for those who don't want to bother themselves with Ethics and the like. All religions put a little bit of social engineering, personal self-help and a value system together. The novocaine against the fear of death came as a freebie at the bottom of the bag.

Of course, you will tell me "Nothing is wrong here, it's all full of vitamins and stuff..." but I disagree. All those beautiful things are based on fluff. With good engineering skill, I bet we can build an entire bridge with aluminum foil. It will be pretty until a car tries to cross it. A Faith-Belief system just goes the same. Instead of having convictions related to what is right, a Belief-System ask you to trust that Sky-Daddy (God, Zeus, Santa-Claus, the S**t Fairy) made the best choice for their lifestyle. By putting this fallacy inside of them, they let religion being a weakness in their character. It will just take an able preacher to sway their mind right or left by calling on emotions instead of logic. This is the slippery slope that can be exploited for nefarious ends.

Would you trust more then, the person who says "I do it because of my own rational conviction" or the person who says "I do it in the name of JEE-ZUS"?

Jesus spoke of love and tolerance. Mohammed spoke of war, conquest and domination. Churches will always hijack words and try and create power. I am neither Christian nor Muslim; however, I will always feel safer surrounded by Christians than Muslims.

> they are free to drink their own
> poison and call themselves
> righteous for doing so.

So is everybody else. The average anti-religious person on this blog loves to pretend to be a high-minded senior research scientist, a Star-Trek-Spock figure of rationality and calculation. But mostly they're just snots....

> Religion is nothing but fast-
> food for the mind.

Statements like this don't convince. It's just teenage snark.

> The novocaine against the fear of death

I think that when they look back at this time in two hundred years, they'll be struck by our psychotherapeutic obsessions, our certainty that we can peer clearly into the souls and motives of those around us.

> you will tell me "Nothing
> is wrong here

No one will ever, ever say that.

What I'm saying is that religious people carry much of the virtue that makes your life into the safe, rewarding enterprise that it is. And those people credit religion as the source of that virtue.

You may think they'd be nice to you anyway. From what I've seen of human nature, that's a profoundly reckless gamble.

Toubrouk, as much as I bristle at your condescending Sky Daddy canard (which bears as much relationship to modern religious belief as the "Atoms are Little Solar Systems" model bears to quantum mechanics), I have to agree with you on a few points.

> All religions put a little bit of social engineering, personal self-help and a value system together.

And this is bad -- how, exactly? And how does this description differ from political parties?

> The novocaine against the fear of death came as a freebie at the bottom of the bag.

Glibly put, but I like this.

>Jesus spoke of love and tolerance.

Jesus spoke of a lot of things. He spoke about being dumb, poor and obedient as the key to heaven. He also spoke in favor of slavery, against the families and of hell. He's not a poster child of the meek and the affable.

Christianity used to do all the stuff Islam is doing now. Countless of wars were waged and multitude of people died due to questions like "Do the pope is the ultimate authority on God" and "Thou shall not let a witch to live". The reason why the mainstream Christianity is tame today is because few people are ready to read the bible and apply it to the letter of the "Divine" law.

Islam is not there yet and I don't think we can wait for the five centuries Christianity took to calm down. For the rest, it is the same Happy-Meal with the same mental obesity; after Foie Gras you got Foi Grasse.

"Religion is nothing but fast-food for the mind"

So is socialism. You'd think that after racking up 100 million corpses & leading to police states, poverty & utter failure in every country where it's been tried, that true believers in Karl Marx would have the same credibility as believers in the Tooth Fairy. Instead, the faculty lounges at every university in the western world are full of them. Aren't universities supposed to be temples of reason?

The fact that all religions are irrational does not mean they're all equivalent. When a bunch of bearded Amish men in black start shouting & getting excited, you know there's going to be a barn-raising. When a bunch of bearded Hasidic men in black start shouting & getting excited, you know there's going to be a bar mitzvah. When a bunch of bearded Muslim men in black start shouting & getting excited, you know there's going to be a suicide bombing. There's no getting around this.

Lyn,

In no time I put the values taught in the religion's "Happy-Meal" in doubt. They are quite effective and the main reason why I believe religions of all types are still around. My problem is the justification people make of them.

An example; Stealing is bad. If I ask why, what would be the best answer? Would it be " It is not fair because someone worked to get his possessions and robing it cause him harm" or "Sealing is bad because "Sky-Daddy" says so and he will hit robbers in their heads after their deaths"? Here's the point I try to make; Morality must be based in a rational reality, not in mystical miasma.

An example: look at three current Ethical dilemmas the western world need to deal with today. We got Stem-Cell research, Same-Sex unions and abortion. Can you please explain me why this debate can't be done without "Sky Daddy" lurking around like a Tourette-affected troll who skipped his medication for a month? Why should we need to bring mystics in everytime there's such a debate and why they are always talking about "Sky Daddy" famous brimstone hottub he made just for us?

In all things, reason should prevail.

Toubrouk - I've argued logically against all three of your issues.

I got called a religious bigot for it. Never mind that I never invoke God because of my view that the creator has never had contact with his creation, and therefore the will of God is inherently unknowable.

Anti-religious zealotry is every bit as irrational as religious zealotry.

Oh, and what is it with you people conflating the Catholic Church (or the C of E) with Christianity? Catholicism bears only a passing resemblance to Christianity.

> In all things, reason should prevail.

> I've argued logically against all
> three of your issues.

It's like a tic with you guys.

Incantation. (Ironic, no?)

Martin,

For me, socialism and fascism are both Faith-Belief systems just like religion. The difference is that they are praising a material god instead of a mystical one. It is the same crappy Happy-Meal but, instead of having the "Fear of Death" novocaine, you got the "glorious tomorrow" opiate. Some fancy things like the chinese "Leap Forward (In the Abyss)" is a perfect example.

>The fact that all religions are irrational does not mean they're all equivalent.

True. This is why we should approach them differently. There's many christians who talk to the celling every night while keeping their faith personal for the rest of the day. I have very little problem with this. My problem goes to those who use it as their base for their actions and export them to the public place. You should know how much I have no problem with the Amish. They are in their corner and they are living there by their terms.

On the other end of the spectrum, there's a good reason why laser-guided ordinance exist.

I agree more or less with Toubrouk. I work with an extremely religious person and I asked him if he would have any problem killing anybody if his god told him to and he said no. I really hope that he doesn't start hearing voices. I'm not saying that most extremely religious people are like that, but it's scary that some are.
I'm not lumping all religions together - I certainly am glad I'm surrounded by Christians and not Muslims, but I would rather be surrounded by people who base their morality on their humanity than on what someone else told them is moral.

"Their humanity" isn't a code, it's a greeting card.

The Ten Commandments are a code.

religion was invented some long time ago (my guess is at least more that 50,000 years ago) as an explanation of the world some primates lived in.
Brian: yeah well them cat-licks sure built some cool churches (even if that has nothing to do with Christianity).

the big 10 C.
modern humans have exsisted for at least 100,000 years.
Why did SkyDad wait util relatively recent to hand out the rules?

Brian,

I am quite surprised by your position on this. You never come to me as an Agnostic. In the sake of clarity, I will declare my position: It is my firm conviction that an ethical life can be achieved only through reason. Being right and acting right is noble by itself but to assure a perennial state, only reason is valid as a base.

It is also in my deepest conviction that a Faith-Belief system is rooted in an emotional mindset. This very mindset can be swayed by con men, clergymen or the state for personal gain, not group well being. Show me such a system, I will show you the fringe who is making it difficult for all of us.

I guess my roots as a Roman-Catholic shine through my rhetoric but be assured that, If I was raised Jewish (or Buddhist) , I will just use another angle on this.

Just because protestants broke away from the catholics doesnt mean catholicas arent chritian

Nor do their prayrs to idols, the notion that jesus want devine, snd their insistane on ignoring the rules about rote prayers and the preperation of the eucharist effect thier classification as christian

It is my firm conviction that an ethical life can be achieved only through reason.

That's as may be, but you have no REASON to demand it of others.

In fact, just about every argument hinges on the existence of Judeo-Christian "morality" as its starting point.

In fact, any "rational" system starts from "who can, may" and devolves from there. There's no "logical" reason that all men must be equal before the law. There's no reasonable argument to require ethical behaviour.

I doubt even Dawkins could make a convincing argument from a Darwinian standpoint for anything even approaching "human rights".

No lujlp, but in your haste to hate anything even remotely religious you let the point fly fight over your head.

Why would a sane person assign to "Christianity" something that was done by a derivative organization?

Would you hold the Whigs responsible for the Iraq war?

The fact of the matter is that the whole "do you accept the authority of the Pope in Rome" was CATHOLIC and not CHRISTIAN.

Or do you want to blame it on the Jews because Jesus was a Jew?

Crid: What I'm saying is that religious people carry much of the virtue that makes your life into the safe, rewarding enterprise that it is. And those people credit religion as the source of that virtue.

True.

I think Geert Wilders said it best during a speech he gave on behalf of the Hudson Institute;

"There may be some moderate muslims. But there can be no moderate Islam."

Catholicism bears only a passing resemblance to Christianity.

Huh?

How can you say Catholicism isn't Christianity when it's one of the earliest forms of Christianity?

Toubrouk: Sky-Daddy says stealing is wrong BECAUSE another worked hard for it. Why do you think it's either/or? That you can rationalize up some great rules to live by, but sky-daddy grabbed them out of his ass and they make no sense? There are ethicists at Unversities-atheists all-who can rationalize away your own personal right to life real quick. All in the name of the greater good, you understand. SO yeah, I feel real safe with atheistic rationalists.

I can argue against embryo-based stem cell research, and abortion without mentioning god. You are ending a new life full of promise who may bring amazing medical or artistic advances either for someone's convenience (abortion) or to extend the life of someone who's already had a shot at life. How is one life worth the end of another? Atheists will say all sorts of things-most notably that they aren't people. And the ease they dismiss that is exactly the ease a persuasive ethicist can convince them you don't matter either. Germany didn't just happen to be full of mass murderers. They had the very human desire to improve their lot, and it was easy for a charismatic leader to convince them the way to do that was.....kill a few million people. And it's not like the germans were the first to ever fall for that line.

And yes, there is no darwinian reason for me not to shoot you and take your ride. In fact, having a nice ride would make me more successful as a breeder, right? More likely to attract a mate and pass on my genes. I'd say that's an argument for. I can't think of one against.

Brian

>That's as may be, but you have no REASON to demand it of others.

This is a fun point you bring in, Brian. Of course, as a rational man, it is out of my mind to coerce, force, denigrate, intimidate, torture or kill someone who refuse to live their lives with reason as their prime value. This being said, various Faith-Belief systems did those very things under the belief that they were acting in the name of a greater power.

On the other side, I am free to not associate myself with someone that don't share my values.

>In fact, just about every argument hinges on the existence of Judeo-Christian "morality" as its starting point.

Because we got both a Judeo-Christian background. This is not a choice. If we were both Buddhists, I would speak about sutras (and in chinese).

>In fact, any "rational" system starts from "who can, may" and devolves from there. There's no "logical" reason that all men must be equal before the law. There's no reasonable argument to require ethical behaviour.

On this I clearly disagree. There's a very good reason why a society would want to grant freedom and equality in front of the law to their members; Productivity. Such a social stand allow every individual to pursue their own goals and thus offering their best to society. Even the smallest advance was a pull toward a better future. France, the United-States and Athens are shining jewels of this ideal

Now tells me what a society where there's no equal rights and where freedom belongs to the few looks like? Looks at Saudi-Arabia; they are neck-deep in a Faith-Belief system where Sky-Daddy had chosen who got the wealth and who doesn't, they get their wealth out of religious tourism or oil and all the technology they got was brought or stolen from the west. How long will they last the day we will stop buying their oil? Not long, I guess.

Now, if you don't believe me yet, please take a look at all the rich countries out there and match them with their level of human rights and freedom, you will see a correlation.

>I doubt even Dawkins could make a convincing argument from a Darwinian standpoint for anything even approaching "human rights".

I just did. A society that grand freedom and basic human rights to their citizen will flourish faster than one who is dominated by dogma. If you want to know more, may I suggest you Ayn Rand's books? there's more answers related to reason in them than Dawkins's.

Toubrouk -

China is growing at a faster rate than we ever did, and they've got ideology up the wazoo, and an almost complete lack of basic human rights.

More on stem cell research: where does it end? If we can use the cells of fetus's because they aren't people yet, why not grow test tube babies for spare parts? No one conceived or wanted them, they were made in a lab, why not use them as we see fit? Maybe we could engineer them to have no faces-make it easier on people? If you say a fetus isn't human till it's born, then a lab-created fetus is never "born", thus never a person? How does one rationalize the difference, and stopping point?

Maybe societies that embrace equality advance more, but why would those who can, not do? If I can be rich by keeping you down, why not? Why care more for society than myself and my family?

Momof3

>That you can rationalize up some great rules to live by, but sky-daddy grabbed them out of his ass and they make no sense?

And I need Sky-Daddy to tell me that? I can't get this out by myself? Do I really need his stick in heaven to act as a decent human being?

>All in the name of the greater good, you understand. SO yeah, I feel real safe with atheistic rationalists.

I never said greater good. It would be socialist. I said my personal, rational good. it is more than enough for me and society.

>How is one life worth the end of another?

If a being can breathe outside of the womb, it is a life. At that point, all human life are equal. If someone can't breathe by himself (Even with the help of a ventilator) I don't see why I should give him a voice. I live with facts, not possibilities, in my mind.

I will skip the whole "Atheists are Nazis" charade. Do you really believe that Nazis have acted out of reason? Fascism operated like a religion, but on the materialistic side. Instead of preaching "Sky-Daddy" they are preaching the "Master-Race". As far as I am concerned it is the same thing. Khmers thought the same thing with their Communism, and it failed just like the german Reich.

>And yes, there is no darwinian reason for me not to shoot you and take your ride. In fact, having a nice ride would make me more successful as a breeder, right?

My concern is not to breed and pass my genes. My concern is to live a comfortable life. I have no duty to my genetic material or to society toward the whole breeding thing. Where's the logic of ending in jail for the rest of my life to get laid? Do this is in my best, rational interest? Even better; do I really need JEE-ZUS to tell me that doing so is a crappy idea or I am so dumb that I can't make the difference?

>China is growing at a faster rate than we ever did, and they've got ideology up the wazoo, and an almost complete lack of basic human rights.

Reforms, Brian, reform.

They just discovered that giving the right to their people to OWN stuff and protecting this right will make them rich. China is trying to pull themselves out of hard-core Communism for the last 20 years and the day they will succeed, we will have a real powerhouse in the East able to match the United-States.

>More on stem cell research: where does it end? If we can use the cells of fetus's because they aren't people yet, why not grow test tube babies for spare parts?

Why not?

Honestly, why not?

You are a mother, right? If one of your child got sick and need a new heart, would you wait for a transplant from a donor or clone a perfect spare? It might me science-fiction right now but a solid reality in our lifetime. I don't care for the dead, I don't care for the un-living. I don't care for the possibility of life. I care for the LIVING.

In fact, I care more for you and your children that a thousand embryos frozen in a fertility clinic. If you give me the choice of saving your child by destroying ten thousand embryos right now, I will put them in a blender and hit "Purée" without a second thought.

Crid said ""Their humanity" isn't a code, it's a greeting card."

When I said 'their humanity', I was talking about what we are. We are human beings - social creatures. If tigers were as intelligent as people, they would not have the same morality as people, it wouldn't make sense for them. Most of our morals, our sense of right and wrong is a direct result of us being social creatures who function poorly by themselves. At lot of our thought processes are directly related to figuring other people out. Our sense of empathy, the 'theory of mind' that we have, probably exists because we are social animals. For a social animal, doing things that get you outcast is akin to committing suicide. There's a strong selection bias in favor of thought patterns that are good for the group as well as the individual. Most of us have a strong sense of right and wrong because it is built into us. Some of it is upbringing, but I think most of it isn't. I never had to have anybody tell me that killing another person is wrong unless it's self defense. The thought of shooting someone and taking their ride is repugnant to me, and I don't remember having that drilled into me. Yes, there are exceptions. The way they are treated is a good Darwinian reason not to be that way.

> Some of it is upbringing,
> but I think most of it isn't

Good luck with that.

And BTW, aren't you therefore saying you think the incredible disproportion of blacks in our prisons is righteous?

The incredible disproportion of blacks in our prisons has more to do with retarded drug laws and retarded welfare laws that discourage poor women from being married.

It is, in fact, righteous. An arrested black man is less likely than an arrested white to do jail time. They just do a lot, lot, lot more crime. Generally against other blacks. I don't give a rat's ass who raised you, you know what you're doing is illegal and leads to prison, and you still do it. Your own fault, not society's or anyone else's.

No, toubrouk, I would never breed a child to make a heart for another child. How revolting in every conceivable way. No more than I would put a bullet through her twin's head to get HER heart. Insane. And scary that you'd think it's ok. Maybe, instead of breeding spare parts people, we could just use you? Do you cease to be human when undergoing surgery, since you are on a ventilator then?And for what it's worth, with your little "clone a spare" comment, ID twins ARE clones. So I have cloned my daughter. And guess what? The clone's a real person! Not a donor!

Where's the logic of ending in jail for the rest of my life to get laid?" Why would you be in jail? If we're going darwinian here, passing on your genes is the only possible good.

>The incredible disproportion of blacks in our prisons has more to do with retarded drug laws and retarded welfare laws that discourage poor women from being married.

What about their choice to commit a crime and the fact that they got caught, accused and found guilty of the said crime? I find the rhetoric of blaming the welfare system for criminality quite offensive; it put all the welfare recipients in the same at-risk statistic.

As human beings, we have the freedom to chose. They made the wrong choice, they are in jail. as far as the question Why?, it's to them to answer.

>I would never breed a child to make a heart for another child.

Where did I said I would kill a child? If you want to add drama in the conversation, it will be on your terms.

Right now, we have enough knowledge to clone a single layer of tissue right out of a slab of saliva. Two months ago, an entire throat was removed from a cadaver, cleaned of all his dead cells, injected with stem cells tailored for the receiver and transplanted with success. No chance of rejection, no medication to take. The body is completely fooled.

The same technology will be effective for the human heart in ten years. It is now quite effective on the heart of lab rats.

If you talk about cloning a full body, why not? We know the genetic mechanisms that cause mortal mutations (like a missing brain) that could assure us that the donor body never had a chance to breathe by itself out of the body.

Of course, this seems inhuman for you but take a good look at the current organ transplant technology; it is quite ghoulish. First, we need to wait for a willing organ-donor to die. Then, the macabre organ lottery start to know who deserve the kidney, the lung and the heart. After that, even if the surgery went well, there's always a chance of rejection. If you compare this to a cloned part, I don't see why you are horrified.

Ethics are for the living. This is why I have signed my organ donor card; I couldn't care less how my carcass will be used after my own death, so if I can help the living, I will do so.

As far as your charade around the stolen car goes, please be informed that I am not an animal. My primary goals in life are not to breed, to sleep, to eat and to be afraid. I am a living, thinking man. I am aware of my own mortality and the terminal end it ensue. This implies that I put my life, and the quality of this one, in my upmost value to my eyes. This would include NOT getting myself in criminal activities including carjacking or murder.

The vast majority of people in prison are there for drug related crimes.

Poor people are much more likely to end up in prison, whether it is drug related or not. Children raised in single parent homes do worse than children raised by 2 parents. Since the 60's, our welfare system has been slanted to keeping poor mothers single.

I'm not excusing peoples bad choices, but black imprisonment has risen sharply since the welfare laws were changed. Maybe it's a coincidence, but I doubt it.

William, I am a Objectivist. I could rant for days over this. I will make it short; welfare is all about receiving something for nothing. Crime works kinda the same way. On this, there's a correlation, the only difference between the two is hoe the crime is committed. One is by force, the other one is by guilt.

Drug laws in North-America are quite repressive but easily avoided when you focus on legal drugs:Alcohol and Nicotine. I never needed anything else. On the other side, if I lived in a country where you jail those who wears blue sneakers, I will never own a pair.

Probably because you don't see many better-off people robbing convenience stores, William. Should you go give half your salary to someone, to keep them from committing crime? If you feel the need to keep some poor downtrodden public-teat-sucker out of jail that way, go right ahead.

I'm fairly poor. I'd like a bigger car/house. But you won't see me selling drugs or robbing to get the money. I am so sick of the "society keeps them down, they're poor and have no choices, etc" bullcrap excuses for crime. If you're so lazy and lacking in moral fiber that you choose the easy way out for money, that's on you. Not society.

Toubrouk and momof3, I'm amazed by the conceit of people who judge and condemn people who have been raised in totally different conditions from their own. How the fuck do you know how you act if you had been raised that way? I mean really, what make you think you are so different? How do you think you would act if your IQ was 10-30 points lower because of bad nutrition and lack of stimulation as a baby, you learned diddly coping skills growing up, your parents taught you a shitty vocabulary and grammar that causes most potential employers to say "next" as soon as you start talking, you had zero functioning role models, and all your peers are the same way. The people raised in that kind of environment who manage to function all had an adult who functioned as a mentor.

No, momof3, we don't see rich people robbing convenience stores. Rich people who steal do it to stockholders. A lot less risk for a lot better return, plus a slap on the hand if you do get caught.

I'm not black, I'm solidly middle class, I've never been on welfare, I don't steal or act violently, but I wasn't raised in totally crap conditions. I don't like a culture of victim-hood and I do think people should be responsible for their own actions, I'm not so conceited that I think that I'm that much better than other people. What's bullcrap is judging other people when you have no clue what it's like to be in their shoes.

I don't feel like giving any of them half my salary and I don't have any solutions that society would accept (taking their kids away and forced sterilization if they keep having more they can't take care of). I do think that the welfare laws help perpetuate the situation.

In the last 5 years, since I started learning about Islam, I have never once seen a post on a blog or forum that can stick to the subject of Islam. Not once. It never fails. Some idiot has to bring up Christianity and then the inevitable pissing contest starts about Christianity. Usually by two "Christians" who have to argue about who is more or less Christian.

Wise up people.

Jaynie59 - Only highly moderated forums stay on topic, it's the nature of the beast. A highly moderated forum only stays on topic because the moderators remove off topic comments.

Amy's site is a kind of free for all, with Amy putting an article up like someone throwing a chunk of meat in a room full of starving cats. We have at it and occasionally Amy responds.

By the way, your comment was off topic :)

Amy, why does the leave a comment section have a place for email address and a URL? The email address doesn't show up, at least not for me.

I view the Old Testament as violent and dangerous. I was raised as a Christian, but stopped being one after I read the horrifying things written there. In my view, Judaism, Christianity, and presumably Islam (I haven't read the Koran) are all violent and dangerous.

I agree that only fundamentalist Christians, Jews and Muslims are true to their religions. Fortunately, the rest of the adherents to those faiths are not true believers, and ignore all the crazy, violent things their holy books tell them to do.