Well, let's see. Robertson also predicted a meteor (doubtlessly influenced by that summer's blockbuster "Armegeddon" with the hunkalicious Bruce Willis and the "I feel pretty" Ben Affleck)falling on Disney World, or a hurricane. Con't you just love it when the Almighty is so indecisive? Apparently, Disney has incurred the wrath of the Almightly backpedaller for allowing "Gay Day" to occur (which, by the way, Disney has no control over).

Well, with every day being "Gay Day" for some -- not that I believe in god -- but wouldn't that be god's doing? PS Gay Day is the only day I'd want to go to Disneyland. Why can't Pat Robertson predict his own demise? And in the near future. (And be right for a change.) Haven't we heard enough from him?

Let me tell you something Amy
I really do admire you greatly, why?
Because to my knowledge you are the only major, successful writer columnist that makes no secret of her nonbelief in god. I ask the blogsnackers
are there any others? I'd like to know.
Three cheers for Amy and her continuing to post and write about religious matters.

As to Robertson, what to say? He's not talking to any gods becasue none of them exist. Not the Christian, the Jewish, the Muslim, the Hindu etc.
It's all superstitious nonsense concocted by our ignorant ancestors. Period.

With that being the case, Mr. Robertson emerges as the epitome of modern day ignorance. No person, in the history of the world has ever talked to god, no seer has ever seen anything, no clairvoyant has ever devined anything. It is all just patent nonsense.
Chris Volkay

Actually, come to think of it, I am aware of one other nonbeliever, Dave Barry.

I wish his fate mirrored that of others who claim to hear voices -- they get locked away in a padded cell so we can't hear their screams, much less their idiotic pronouncements.

two things:
first, while Gay Day at Disneyland might be lots of fun, the best day is Super Bowl Sunday .... the place is virtually empty!

second, while a non-belief in God -- or at least a mocking disrespect for all those who use the idea of God for politics and power and personal gain -- is at least to me a healthy thing, that shouldn't be cause to eliminate spirituality from our lives. i'm afraid the negative aspects of religion turn off many to this component -- which doesn't have to be based on some mythical higher power at all, but could easily and simply be an awareness of the interconnectedness of all things. a golden rule sensibility. personally, my faith is sort of a quantum-zen-libertarianism, if that is taken to mean that quantum physics shows the interconnectedness, sees existence as a grand game, and doesn't contain a component that insists any one else do or feel as I do. you can even believe in god if you want, as long as you don't mind me pointing out how ridiculous and contradictory and corrupt that game has become. but hey ... go for it.

"an awareness of the interconnectedness of all things. a golden rule sensibility."

Makes a lot of sense, but there's a big problem with that as a religion -- doesn't require you to join a congregation, thus ruining the financial opportunities of all of those who would instill themselves in business, uh, religion.

The interconnectedness of all things sounds nice, but it's probably too ambitious. Why not start with an awareness of the interconnectedness of all genitalia?

The only interconnectedness I'm aware of is that of the Australian Croc guy's fat little happy meal baby and the crocodiles deserving teeth.

I think there are things that science cannot as yet explain, which may point to the "divine" or whatever. But attending an organized service in which someone tells you exactly how you should interpret the unknown seems to me a dubious proposition. Assuming that any kind of deity who's theoretically creator of us all takes sides in wars, much less football games and elections, strikes me as one of the heights of small-mindedness and human arrogance.

Well, I'll be the idiot who's willing to admit that I believe in god and I am part of a regular congregation of people who also believe.

Beyond the spiritual aspect, there is a practical aspect of a group of people who have a goal of charity. My congregation works with single mothers in the community, providing free car repairs, food staples, clothes, and emotional support.

My congregation at different times has stepped in and helped me financially when my husband was unemployed. And recently, when my now-ex-husband began stalking me, they stepped in on my behalf, helped me find ways of escape and helped me work through the legal red tape necessary to get legal protection.

Their missionary work of course focuses on promoting their belief in god. But it also has established medical clinics and schools in different nations, and access to those clinics and schools does NOT require participation in worship--they are open to the public.

Yes, there are cultural organizations that establish schools and clinics, or help single mothers, etc. But beyond meeting the physical needs, my congregation is also full of people who love me and love others and meet emotional needs as well.

I'm not stupid, or 'unenlightened', and I am in full support of good science. But like LYT said, there are things that science can't explain. I prefer to believe that we do not understand it all. If you can definitively tell me that there is no god, then that puts you in the position of 'god'--you know it all and can state unequivocally what is and is not.

Hi Peggy
Thanks for the response
I will try to give you the best answer I can.

While it may seem, that I am the one making the assertion, "There is no god," I'm really not. You are the one making the assertion, "There is a god." No facet of science is aware of any of these gods that are supposed to exist.

So as the asserter, it becomes incumbent upon you to offer a show of proof your god actually exists. Until an offer of proof is received, non-believers really have nothing to prove to anybody.
If someone posits that ghosts exists, or UFO's exists, or werewolves, or santa claus exists for that matter, must we prove they don't? Of course not, it is up to the person making the assertion to prove it. Or pose the question this way, there are people in this world that DO believe in werewolves. Must we prove they don't exist? It really is the same thing.
As you presumably have no proof of what I would believe is just wishful thinking on your part, the point becomes moot as far as disproving it.
Chris Volkay

Peggy: all that stuff you do at church is way cool and seems to me to be based on a theory of connectedness. we are our brothers' keepers. Also, the emotional support aspect. The whole idea of community is wonderful, as long as that community doesn't seek to impose a certain set of beliefs about some invisible creator/deity, or try to legislate those beliefs. Of course, there are inevitably community standards, so if someone doesn't like them they can form their own communities. It's when fear of one way of thinking and living ends up being the Crusades, or the Holocaust, or any of the millions of genocides, etc., that there is a problem.

Also, science doesn't pretend to explain everything or have all the answers. Science is a continual exploration. But quantum physics has shown an interconnectedness that supports (not denies) spirituality. They're not saying it's a complete accident; they're just looking at tinier and tinier parts to find out what's going on. Religions are the ones who claim to have all the answers -- and when they can't prove it, ask you to accept it on faith. That's bullshit. There are other more sensible ways to feel connected to something larger than ourselves (which to me means the aggregate of our single "selves.") But hey, whatever works for you.

Finally, LYT's comment about the dubious nature of a diety that takes sides seems to me dead on. God being on any group's side is a load of crap and is the root or result of all that's wrong with religion -- and it's what ends up blurring what's right with organized religion.

Believe in something if you will. Certainly when one looks at the universe or the human body or the mind, it seems so intricate and beyond our currently capabilities to recreate that we egocentric beings believe, "Well, someone must have made it!" Really? What if it just happened that way? I mean, if it didn't happen as it did, we wouldn't be here arguing about it, would we?

Now, I've got to get back to rubbing this prayer cloth on my wart.

Chris has it right, at least as far as I'm concerned. Is there a god, isn't there a god? Well, I simply have no idea, and I'm cool with that. What puzzles me is that people find it comforting to invent a god, or pretend one other$ invented exists, instead of saying "I have free will, and I intend to exercise it." Of course, acknowledging you have free will means you're responsible for yourself, and your life -- a scary idea for some. It's one reason people prefer the (wrong) idea that addiction is a disease. It removes their responsibility. Well, it's not a disease (see Peele.net) -- it's a choice: Wanna get blotto this afternoon, or do you choose to take a more long-term orientation to life, and have just one beer, or none?

I have no idea whether there's a hereafter or not, because, like you and everyone else, I have zero proof of its existence or non-existence. That's why I live in the moment - but with the realization that I'll probably make it to tomorrow.

Moreover, if you're moral merely because you're afraid "god" is going to punish you, you aren't really moral - just calculating. I'm ethical because I think ethics are their own reward; because acting ethically gives me self-esteem; and I give money and time and help people because I'd like to leave the planet better than I found it when I go. What happens to us when we die? Have no idea. Just because I have no explanation doesn't mean it makes sense to make one up or hitch my head to one somebody else made up. In fact, that seems pretty ridiculous! Religion is business. Like I said above (quoting from David), you don't have to pay to join some "house of worship" to behave well, and know what's ethical -- just follow the old golden rule and remember to respect the planet and everything in it as well as people.

AMy
I can't help heaping praise on you today.
addiction is not a disease it's a choice-
my how bright you are-
that is absolutely correct-I've known that for
a long time.

In fact-right at this moment I'm writing an essay
and in it I'm lampooning Michael Douglas and his
idiotic, pathetic, gutless, brain-less, embarrasing assertions that he has or had a
sex-addiction.

The entire world is addicted to shifting responsibility for everything in their lives.
All of these so-called addictions are choices and all the rest is absolution and mythology.

And how about the first tenet of
Alcoholics Anonymous-
Admitting you are powerless over your disease-
This is truly criminal-we are not powerless
We have only been led to believe we are.

It's just like these religions do-
take perfectly healthy, potentially strong
individuals, and turn them into shaky, weak, on their knees mush, searching for some salvation outside of themselves.

This is why I have written and why I believe that
this battle of science vs. superstition, really is the most important battle going on in the world today. Really. By far.

As Chris Hitchens has written and I agree, religion isn't mere nonsense, it's a really really bad idea. It's not the "noble lie" as some put it. It is truly the most evil, vicious toxic monster on this planet. Why 9/11? Why the de facto war in the middle east? Northern Ireland? Why the hatred of gays? Why the diminishing of women? Why the crippling of our sex lives? Why do thousands die everyday in the 3rd world?
Why are advances in medicine being FOUGHT at every turn? Why do billions of people do nothing about their lives here and now, because they pray daily and believe in other lives up in the sky that never come? Why did India endure centuries of occupation?(See sentence above) And why are we split along tribal lines all throughout the world, with one group thinking they are god's chosen, and another thinking they are the master race and another thinking we are owed your land and your virgins because our holy piece of crap book promises these things to us? And I assure you I could go on and on and on? Why? Because either wholly or partially, religion underpins all of these things and many more. It's not some noble innocuous lie, it is the chief problem, the chief divider, the chief poison in the world today, by far, with no close seconds.
Chris Volkay

I have no problem with people not believing--my point was that saying "god does NOT exist" puts one in the position of god--all-knowing. It's a self-defeating statement, because you cannot know that god definitely does not exist unless you are a god yourself. Not everyone accepts the theory that god is all-knowing, but in general that's a pretty common characteristic ascribed to god by many major religions. I have absolutely no problem with people who say "I don't believe in god"--that is completely fair.

I am not asking anyone to prove or disprove it, because I don't believe that it can be proven. We do not go around "proving" gravity, we accept that it is real because we see it's effect consistently. And if people chose not to believe in a god because they don't see his/her/its effect, fine. Some people believe they do see his/her/its effect, so you can agree to disagree.

Personally, I don't see a good enough basis for ethical behavior if we are all an accident. If this is just a cosmic collision, and we happened to get melded together into the bits that make us up, then even our own thoughts are just random neural firings, and my thoughts are as likely to be correct as yours. Some thoughts may lead people to do better for society as a whole, but then who says society as a whole deserves better? If it's random chance, then why do humans matter? We're just more meat on the planet--let's just die off and let the bugs take over. Why put in the hard work of being 'good' and 'responsible'? Who cares if the earth or universe lasts? Science says it's all going to go up in a fireball one day anyhow, so what difference does it make if it happens now or later?

I might as well drive a gas-hogging, air-fouling SUV since you have no more say-so in this accidental world than I do. Ultimately, 'social resposibility' is just someone else's rules. If you think society matters and I don't, then don't impose your 'belief' on me. You are setting up 'for the benefit of society' as a standard for 'good' behavior, but you haven't convinced me that society matters if we're all just a cosmic accident.

Actually, Peggy, it seems we adapted to live in groups of people -- since we have modules for cheater detection and reciprocal altruism. Our natural sense of morality is probably biological. See, if you steal food from one member of a cave band, other members are likely to find you out, and cast you out -- which probably means death (if you're living millions of years ago). Surviving meant developing a capacity for cheater detection, and reciprocal altruism (you scratch my hairy back and I'll scratch yours). This is all very basic evolutionary psychology. Wish I had time to get into it in detail.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

God told me to take the Panthers and the points today.

This site seems fond of beating dead horses. Believers will smugly dismiss your rhetoric until you give them something better to live for, and pissy condescension ain't it.

>It's just like these religions do-
>take perfectly healthy, potentially strong
>individuals, and turn them into shaky, weak,
>on their knees mush, searching for some
>salvation outside of themselves.

Most believers would want you understand that it isn't faith that's so diminished them, it's LIFE. This is one cold, motherfucking planet. The fact that you and I have been fortunate enough to sustain ourselves economically and psychologically without faith doesnít help the rest of the planet to do so. And certainly, many current obsessions of the popular mind (global warming, multilateralism) will in short years ahead be recognized for the unreasoned tenets that they are.

I adore Hitchens, and feel great respect for his hostility to religion. Last year I went nuts and went through every book and article of his I could find. His reflection on the Marx passage (ìopiate of the peopleî) turned up so often as to qualify as a tic (as does the ìFriends, brothers & sisters, Comradesî invocation). But in only one recent piece does he follow through on the whole of the context. Marx was acknowledging that life is shitbath, and that society had done little to tame its horrors. He was not condemning the masses for their gullibility.

Are you trying to do something besides look down on people? (After all, you'll always be able to do that.) For starters, play fair: Much comfort and decency have been brought to humanity through religion. And in the century just a ended, a hundred million people were killed in secular war, a huge multiple of those lost to religious terror.

People didn't get killed in the secular war out of a mandate of "yay atheism." But just turn to CNN.com and see how many people were killed today because they're on the wrong god's team. Then go back in history to the Inquisition, and a gazillion other "die, heathen, die" episodes. You want condescending? Condescending is the idea that one's religion is great and "the answer" and everybody else is going to "hell" or whatever particular reverse of paradise the people running the religion are selling. And all this from nothing -- from a fantasy. Sitting around wishing things will be better (aka "praying") won't make it so -- getting up off one's knees or one's ass is the only way to do it.

I think the key distinction to be made is between "personal faith" and "organized religion." I have great respect for the former; considerably less for the latter.

To Crid:
Marx was right when he compared life to shitbath
You then say I am looking down on people and condemning the masses. Oh how could I be so brutal?

Yes that is exactly what I am doing. I am condemning them. Isn't it about time somebody did?
There superstitious idiocy has turned this planet into a graveyard, and it's time to grow up stand on their own two feet and stop living their lives like little children in need of the big daddy god.

For starters you say, play fair, much comfort and decency have been brought to the world by religion. Crid, the good things religion has done is to strip humanity of its strength, its dignity and leave people weakened and impoverished. Then it grandly steps forward and offers its crusts of bread to the people that it's helped to put in this position in the first place.

Then you refer to secular wars killing 100 million people in this century. I have to guess here, WWll, the big one.
Adolph Hitler, if that is who you think was secular, was anything but.
He was a good catholic boy, praised and supported by the church. Hitler's roots were deep into anti-semetism at an early age. As Germany was awash in anti-semitism for centuries starting with it's fair-haired boy Luther. He also hated Marx, a jew, who he saw as perverting the spirit of the German people. He saw the jews as the enemy of god. The history books never mention the religious component of this war or others, but I would posit that religion played a large role in Hitler's hatred of, an extermination plans of the jews, and others. I believe that religion played a large role in both Hitler's and the entire German people's hatred of the jews. The guns they carried didn't say religious war on them, but religious hatred was in their hearts and certainly a contibuting factor to world war II.

You don't like my tone, Crid? The vast majority of people don't. Who the F cares?
People believe this nonsense because, I do agree with you here, life IS shitbath. However that's not an excuse. That's like the drunk that says, life is shitbath, so I'm justified in being a drunk. No you're not.
Finally, dearest Crid, what most people seem to have failure grasping is that, while these fantasies and nonsense are seen by many as the opiate of the masses, they are in fact the cyanide of the masses. For these religions make the people's problems so much worse in the long run. They help to create the very problems in people that people then turn around and try to escape from.

Don't like my tone?
If you have cancer nobody wants to lose their breasts or their legs, but if that is what's needed, off they go. Yes I know it's hard.
Same with religion, yes it's a hard surgery, but necessary for the long term health of people.

Chris, the advice god, Volkay

Here are a couple of links I found on Hitler's religion:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Essays/Hitler.shtml

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html

It seems Mr. Genocide was quite the believer.

Amy, it's apples and oranges, and you precisely ignore the point: More are dying across the globe in secular war than in religious war. To put it another way: Blood spilt for secular causes seems not to bother you, no matter how larger or fresher the bleeding. And of course, to the extent that our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan refutes religious extremism, I presume you're prepared to give props to W.

People will continue to pray and have faith whether you like it or not. I don't understand what energy you find from banging your head against this wall, unless it's for the deeply human thrill of looking down at other people. (The better faiths have something to say about that, too.) Yes, Robertson's a fuckwad. Who'd doubt it? Ridiculing him is too easy to be courageous. If you really want to persuade people instead of just belittling them, it might be wise to cultivate some sensitivity to what's going on in their lives.

LYT, as a boomer child of the Disco Era (thumpa! thumpa!), I've been hearing about the evils of (scare quotes) organized religion (end scare quotes) for a lifetime. But the truth is, there's no other kind. People who say that they're "very spiritual" without considering the feelings or counsel of others are simply narcissists.

Amy often decries the 'underparented children' that she comes across. The implication is that children need to be trained to be societally acceptable creatures. Therefore, societally acceptable behavior is not something we are born with.

So even if we evolved with reciprocal altruism and cheater detection, ultimately one band forces another to do what they want, claiming that it's for the good of the majority. Who gets to decide what is 'good' or 'not good'? If the bigger band with the bigger club says it's 'good' to steal, who's going to stand up and fight that? Since basic human nature is selfish, "might makes right" will allow the most 'natural' human behavior to come out. Frankly, I'm quite cynical about 'natural' human instinct. I think that's what we all hate about the big corporate, political and religious leaders--they have power, and they use it to get what they want. All humans do, unless acted upon by an outside force that is bigger and stronger (either societal pressure or religious belief).

How many people drive better when there's a cop around? So they aren't truly 'moral'? I agree--people behave better when they're being watched, since our basic nature is selfish. So of course believing that you might get caught is going to be more of a motivator to do good than thinking no one is paying attention and you can get away with whatever you want.

Immoral? Yes, that's my point. We are corrupt, whether it is part of our evolutionary psychology or 'the fall'. Religion does posit a grand 'judge' who sits outside of all societies and requires us to behave. Doesn't always work, but I'll confess that I was always nicer to my brother when mom was in the room than when she wasn't. I don't think I'm unique in that.

Crid:
When Patrick wondered where you were a week ago
I gathered from his comments that you were a fairly bright fellow. What's happened?

Our(US) involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan refutes religious extremism?

Well, Crid, allow me to give you a brief education on the matter. 9/11 was born of religious extremism,
then our going into Afghanistan was to rout out the Taliban that was a religious extremist regime.
Then we come to Iraq. Most of the left(where's Amy's dumb lefty award) says that it was a matter of US economic interests. Oil. Oil for blood. Well yes that is part of the story, but only part.
Bush and his merry men all claim to be Christians, not only that but born agains. What part did that have to play in their decisions in Iraq. When you have religious nuts that believe in armageddon and such events, the final battle of gog and magog, what do these beliefs do in influencing their decisions?

You apparently would like to draw broad distinctions in these wars, to where if the troops aren't fighting under religious banners, than it's a secular war. Oh no Crid, the influence of religion on these events is far more pernicious than you apparently would choose to believe. As an example, I'm guessing most people in this country, really don't realize that 9/11 was born of religious nonsense. You never heard it in the mainstream media. At least I didn't. All of these events, while not officially claimed by state departments as religious wars, are still heavily influenced by all manner of religious thinking and nonsense.

Chris "the advice god" Volkay

"Secular war"? As if people are fighting because there is no evidence of god in hopes of benefiting rational people everywhere. If only.

"People who say that they're 'very spiritual' without considering the feelings or counsel of others are simply narcissists."

Sorry, not the same thing as organized religion. One can consider the feelings and counsel of others without making donations to a particular affiliated church, or submission to the doctrines of a given religious leader.

I'll give you one thing, though: I AM a narcissist. Just looking at my URL should confirm that.

I check this site every once in a while--I agree with some of it, disagree with some of it; whatever, it's always interesting. This topic, though, is the only one I've felt strongly enough to comment on. I am a Christian. I attend church regularly, etc. Here's what I think: a lot of organized religion is crap. It's not about worshiping God or helping others, it's about making money and gaining power. (Pat Robertson comes to mind.) It's been that way forever. That's absolutely true. (Pretty much any time you deal with people, you find corruption and greed, religious circumstances or not.) But that's not what real Christianity is about, and there are a few people who don't go in for all the crap. Maybe you've never encountered them, but they do exist.

They believe in a holy, powerful, and incredibly loving God, who saves us from all the crap. True Christianity isn't about power or money or human gain; it's about unconditional love. Read the Bible; Jesus was killed because he scared the heck out of the rich, powerful religious leaders of his day. He wanted them to get off their butts, stop condemning people (because that's nobody's job but God's), and start showing some compassion and mercy to the people around them, particularly those that society deemed worthless.

Christianity is not about being nice so God will like us; in the Bible it says that Christ died for us while we were still sinners. We serve others because God has shown great love to us, and it would be selfish to keep that to ourselves. Scare tactics are not real Christianity. True Christianity is also not about piety and all that "holier-than-thou" stuff. The Bible also says that we are all exactly the same to God. Christians are not better than other people. Yes, there are moral absolutes (try the 10 Commandments) but those really make a lot of sense, if you're not blinded by religious phobia. In the end, though, we don't judge the world; only God does that. Christians are simply called to show love, grace, and respect to those they meet--because that's what Christ does for us.

I do have a personal relationship with God. You can doubt and make fun of me as much as you want, but that's what I believe. And my life would be empty without it.

zina
what you said rings loud and clear and is certainly something i also believe.

but do you need god to act that way toward your fellow man? is it not a conclusion and behavior you can arrive at and practice without a faith-based relationship?

I'm not even suggesting you should change. What you want to believe is up to you. But I am asking you if one needs a God in order to believe and act as you profess? Isn't it possible that your relationship is with mankind?

just asking.

David writes: "I'm not even suggesting you should change. What you want to believe is up to you. But I am asking you if one needs a God in order to believe and act as you profess? Isn't it possible that your relationship is with mankind?"

Like Zina, I also believe in God and believe I have a personal relationship with Him. It's also my belief that ultimately my desire to believe and act as Zina professes MUST be done without of a belief in God. Ultimately, I cannot prove, even to my own satisfaction, that God exists. I believe God speaks to me and tells me what to do. Either they're really is a god, or I'm just nuts. I have no guarantee that God's going to take me up to heaven when I die, see a few good, charitable things I might have done in my life and say, "Way to go!"

Maybe there is no God and my beliefs in a personal relationship with him are inspired insanity. So, ultimately, for everyone, believer or not, there is only one reason to do the right thing: because it's the right thing. I'm not talking about things like not stealing or murdering. That we do out of respect for the judicial system which will likely catch up with us sooner or later. I'm talking about helping someone out who needs it, leaving the park neater than when you found it, that sort of thing, even if it comes with some personal loss. I have no proof that any deity cares whether I do that or not. So, ultimately, it falls upon personal choice. I choose to do what I think is right because I think it's right.

Patrick -- That was great. I'm your fan! -- hugs, Lena