I remember how the atheist Christopher Hitchens dealt with such issues when he announced his terminal cancer and had to deal with the news of the announcement from both friends and enemies, both religious and otherwise - - with a great deal of dignity, as it turned out. Many of his essays from that period can still be read in Salon and Vanity Fair, and of course in his last book.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/sep/06/christopher-hitchens-asks-fans-not-pray

Thank you Amy. There are a lot of atheists who are 'more catholic than the pope' so to speak. And it does neither them or anyone else much good.

I always just say thank you. No need to be a jerk. I also don't want Christmas decorations taken down. I like the sparkle :) It's not hurting me one way or the other if someone is religious. As long as they don't try to convert me we'll be just fine.

I believe and also believe that people "looking for a fight" about anything (even/especially religion) are (assuming I've not just taken their favorite parking spot) in trouble at some basic level.

Typical the people I "see" doing this are insecure, going through a bad time, have self-hate because of the life-style choices they've made, or they are just a negative energy person (sucking the life out of anyone they can like vampires).

Most positive or self-assured people are comfortable w/themselves and take things in the spirit offered. They don't condemn, argue, say you are going to HELL if you don't do what Pastor __________ says, and so on.

They say HOWDY! How are you today and they mean it (unless they are quiet and then they just Ma'am and nod their head).

God Bless You All!

Thanks, Ben. There's a guy like that on Twitter sneering at me for this post.

Actually, I'll make it part of this post.

Even those of us who are not church people can admit that this is nice. "Pizza Lady Delivers to a Church… Leaves Sobbing After What Christians Do to Her":

http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/pizza-lady-delivers-to-a-church-leaves-sobbing-after-what-christians-do-to-her/

It's likewise inappropriate, when someone says "How are you?" to give a detail account of your grossest health problems. We know this. Even we atheists know this.

Amy, re the Twitter guy;
Make sure you have the vampire stakes and "holy water" handy. (Is it the bullets or the cross that needs to be silver?)

I'm glad that he has confidence in his surgeon. He needs to have a good anesthetist too. Of course, that's not all that goes into it. General condition and an element of luck both play parts.

I've heard that great surgeons often have higher mortality rates because they get the toughest cases. It seems difficult to know who is the best, but it must be comforting to have such faith in the surgeon atheist.

I think if people simply start from a position that the other person means well in every interaction, we would all be kinder and more considerate.

If we're right, then we respond kindly to kindness. If we're wrong, then we haven't lost anything, and shown kindness to someone who perhaps needs it.

". I say in the introduction to my last book, “Glittering Images”, that “Sneering at religion is juvenile, symptomatic of a stunted imagination.” It exposes a state of perpetual adolescence that has something to do with their parents.

Camille Paglia interview July 2015

In fairness to the atheists, Christians are often assholes to them, too.

Thankfully, though I'm a Christian, my church teaches universal salvation, so I'm not particularly worried about the condition of anyone's soul. You'll attain perfection in your own time.

If you're comfortable with the idea of a God that punishes people for all eternity in unspeakable agony, then you worship a monster, and I would recommend therapy if you consider such a thing "good."

One of my favorite scriptures, and one I consider highly undervalued, is James 1:27. "Pure religion, undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

That's it. That's pure religion and it's the only proselytizing I ever do. Can you deal compassionately with those who need compassion? Can you avoid getting caught up in the world's vices? That's all the Christianity as I ask of anyone.

As for this whole "personal relationship with Jesus!" nonsense, I point out that you cannot have a personal relationship with someone who left this world 2000 years ago, unless you believe in spiritualism.

Off topic, Hegwynne I am with you. This atheist has to have a christmas tree, even though the little ones have grown up. And we call it a christmas tree, not a holiday tree, or whatever is the politically correct thing to call it. My wife and I get a christmas ornament at every place we travel. It also has all the hokey homemade ornaments the kids made growing up. It is a memory tree for us.

I generally don't tell people I am an atheist. Only good friends and close co-workers know. I have been married 37 years and my in laws - mostly catholic - only just found out a year ago that I am an atheist. My wife outed me. I have, of course, attended numerous family church events. I have quietly respected their beliefs. They are good people. Even now they have taken my atheism in stride.

The only religious people I can't stand are the ones that go around beheading non-believers, and the ones that give me that smug knowing look. The first kind I am inclined to shoot between the eyes, the second kind, I am really want to punch.

Patrick,

People are assholes. The cristian or atheist has little to do with that base nature. And converts are the worst at trying to convert everyone they come across.

And there is a ton of stuff in popular cristiantity that is not in the bible. The whole people with wings and a floaty gold ring for a hat, not biblical. The gates of heaven being a white cloud wall with gold gates and a guy acting like the maitre d', also not in the bible. Even Noah's ark with all those animals, not biblical. Noah had a couple of domesticated animal and that is it. Flood also did not cover the world. Some people are desperate to oversell a fairly simple message.

I like money, even though it says "In God we trust"--please give me yours if it makes you feel icky.
I use the term unbeliever. Atheist seems combative to many people and I always laugh at the signs for "United Atheists"--must be almost Unitarians.

The only religious people I can't stand are the ones that go around beheading non-believers, and the ones that give me that smug knowing look. The first kind I am inclined to shoot between the eyes, the second kind, I am really want to punch.

Posted by: Bill O Rights at October 18, 2015 8:09 AM

The only thing that annoys me as much as *smug know it all Christians*, is *smug know it all Atheists* because they remind me of me, when I was 12....

There are many attractive things about Buddism and Shinto, the first of which, is that they are not evangelical.

The fundamentalist Christian sects, are the most annoying because they are both anti intellectual, and evangelical.

Ben, very true. The only thing I would add is that the maitre d' is supposed to be St. Peter. Sounds like a pretty tedious afterlife to me. Admitting people into Heaven for all eternity.

It seems that one day, St. Peter was at the Pearly Gates admitting people into Heaven, and he asked one gentleman, "And what religion were you in life, my son?"

"I was a Mormon," he replied.

"The Mormon room is room 12. Just go by room 2 very quietly, proceed down the hall and turn left. Welcome to paradise."

Then to the next man, St. Peter said, "And what faith did you follow in life, my son?"

And the man said, "I was a Presbyterian."

"The Presbyterian room is room 17," St. Peter said. "Just go down the hall, pass room 2 very quietly, turn right, and you'll find room 17. Welcome to paradise."

Then the next one in line, a young woman, approached.

"And what faith did you follow in life, my daughter?" asked St. Peter.

"I was a Jewess," she replied. "But I wanted to ask you, why do you keep telling people to pass very quietly by room 2?"

St. Peter leaned in closely and whispered, "That's the Southern Baptist room. They think they're the only ones here."

Patrick - I love that joke - it IS funny!

It made me remember a story that I heard from our nuns in elementary school:

A man was given a tour of hell. He found that hell was a fancy dining room with some of the most aromatic, best tasting, most tempting food ever. But no one was able to enjoy any of it as they all had long spoons tied to their hands. The spoons were too long so that they couldn't reach their mouths. Try as they might they just could get a bite.

The same man was then given a tour of heaven. He was surprised that heaven was the same set up as hell - delicious food and those same long spoons tied to everyone's hands. But, there was a key difference; everyone in heaven was able to enjoy all the food as they were feeding each other!

The moral of the story, of course, is that it is better to be helpful and share than to be selfish. But, I think the real difference is heaven is not the place, rather it is the people. The same is true with hell - it is the people who make it so.

It doesn't matter what someone's religious beliefs are or are not - it is how they treat and respond to each other that matters. Which is the gist of Amy's post; and, yes, there are atheists AND believers who are kind and there are also some (of each belief or non-belief) who are assholes too.

Which reminds me of another thing a nun once told us: There are some Popes in hell just as there are some atheists in heaven.

If you're comfortable with the idea of a God that punishes people for all eternity in unspeakable agony, then you worship a monster, and I would recommend therapy if you consider such a thing "good." ~ Posted by: Patrick at October 18, 2015 7:58 AM

The dissonance between a loving and merciful God and an eternal Hell has been an ongoing debate within Christianity for centuries. It prompted Dante to write The Inferno, positing an escape from Hell.

Keep in mind that the Bible is divided between the Old Testament which is based on ancient Judaic beliefs and the New Testament which owes much of its theological underpinnings to the then-more-recent Roman Empire and is not as dependent on the superstitions of a nomadic desert people.

St. Thomas Aquinas postulated a hell divided into four sections.

• Gehenna. This is hell in the strict sense, or the place of punishment for the damned, both demons or humans.
  
• Limbo of the Children. Where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, enjoy natural beatitude without the sensation of pain.
  
• Limbo of the Fathers. Where the souls of the Old Testament saints who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven - Also a natural beatitude without the sensation of pain. Limbo of the Fathers is now vacant.
  
• Purgatory. Where the righteous who die in venial sin or who still owe a debt of temporal punishment for sin, are cleansed by suffering before their admission to Heaven.

This organization into four parts is in line with the Hebrew view of the Sheol (underworld) expressed in 1 Enoch (a non-canonical book to most Christian sects). Sheol actually lines up nicely with the ancient Greek version of the underworld as a shadowy existence for the departed.

"...are cleansed by suffering before their admission to Heaven." So, even as venerated a thinker as Thomas (later canonized as a saint) struggled with the idea of an eternal Hell.

"I think if people simply start from a position that the other person means well in every interaction" -- well, I think that goes a little far, and can lead to one being walked on, but I think it's important to consider where a person is coming from. Somebody who tells you they'll pray for you, who means it, is trying to be nice and maybe even do something they think is nice for you. That doesn't change because I think it's silly to think something will come out of prayer (besides a person's feeling that they might have made a difference by praying).

I have been treated very badly by Christians -- this is especially true when I was growing up. But atheists have been shitty to me, too, though not specifically about religion. A lot of people are tribal, asshole-ish jerks. I look at individuals and judge them by their individual behavior. For example, my lawyer friend, who practices his Christianity by funding a foundation for the homeless (beds, job training, etc.), and who has a bunch of young associates that he is extremely good to (without being a pushover).

Atheism is for too many not an examined belief system, but a negative reaction to growing up in Christian surroundings, an absolute rejection of the faith of one's parents and peers. Simply put, it's a way of looking down on and feeling superior to a belief system one has rejected.

Which is why you have so many atheists objecting to even the whisper of prayer or references to prayer at high school football games or in public discourse.

"I believe in science" is not a declaration of support for scientific foundations (as many uttering this statement are homeopaths and anti-vaxxers), but a way of saying "I am superior to you." Atheism, for many, has become a religion, with all the regular rules and rituals of an established religion.

===================================

And, yes, Atheism has killed in its name.

Priests were put to death after the French Revolution for reusing to renounce the Church. French citizens would risk imprisonment or execution if caught practicing their religions in the many secret services Christians held after religion was banned by the Terror.

The Cult of Rationality as a substitute religion was established when the Revolution found it coudl not eradicate religious belief. Services included lectures on logic and science.

However, the Cult of Rationality proved less popular then the old religions and was converted to the Cult of the Supreme Being, which fared little better.

Eventually, the Revolution discovered it could not eradicate religion and relented. The metric calendar (with its 10-day weeks and 40-day months) was discontinued and the standard 7-day solar calendar reimposed.

The irony is that a country that doggedly held onto its religious beliefs in the fact of unrelenting state-imposed terror is now a mostly secular and fairly agnostic country.

Of course, religion did not fall out of favor in France because its underlying beliefs fell out of favor, rather because the Church was seen as lending support and legitimacy to the hated aristocracy. Spain has the same issue in the priests supported the Carlists and the Franco regime. The growth of Liberation Theology in Central and South America comes from the same place.

Years ago, I found this, in "The Bible According to Mark Twain":

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1044/1044-h/1044-h.htm

Extract from Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven

Scroll down a little more than 1/3. Or search on "Sandy" and start with that paragraph. The story ends at the end of Chapter 1.

It's about why perpetual youth, even in your 20s, is not as desirable (or dignified) as you might think. I suspect, at least, that this was Twain's way of suggesting that the very idea of HEAVEN isn't plausible - a place of all play and no work? What a bore! Eventually, after all, you'd just lose your sense of perspective.

From another source:

"Twain was raised a Presbyterian. He was probably what would be considered a deist in reality, though many contend he was an atheist."

And, on the cover of the book, it says:

"This is the Mark Twain least likely to be adapted into an attraction at Disneyland. Get your own copy before your local school board burns theirs."
-Bill Maher

It's true Conan. It depends what part of Central or South America but they are more welcoming of Catholic criticism (and acceptance of atheism) than what Americans picture. That picture is tainted by our experiences with poor Mexicans arriving here en masse.

One of the weirdest things watching on tv in Colombia was uh the telenovelas. They do historical pieces and they were graphic and blunt and they made secular me really uncomfortable. They had no problems showing exactly what the Catholic Church did--from forcing men to check if their virginal wives bled, making slaves hear how they'd burn in hell while chopping off their hands, and priests coming over and tearing a mixed race person a new one for daring to sit near the front. Seeing that was awful frankly. We treated our slaves like angels compared to what went on over there.

I couldn't imagine watching anything like that here portraying Evangelical Christianity with such anger during prime time on ABC.

Conan: Atheism is for too many not an examined belief system, but a negative reaction to growing up in Christian surroundings,

Hold it. Christian cultures aren't the only ones who produce atheists. Amy's an atheist, and she was raised by Jewish parents. Obama's father became an atheist and he was a Muslim.

You might have said, "Atheism is a negative reaction to growing up in religious surroundings." But even that is not accurate. I know lifelong atheists, who were raised atheist.

You might have said, "Atheism is a negative reaction to growing up in religious surroundings." But even that is not accurate. I know lifelong atheists, who were raised atheist. ~ Posted by: Patrick at October 18, 2015 5:26 PM

True, but a virulent animosity on the part of evangelical atheists is displayed toward professed Christians. It's possible that it's due to the country's politics being heavily populated with evangelical Christian politicians and issues - that the high density drowns out anti Jewish and anti Muslim atheism.

And it's true that with things like the Creation Museum, evangelical Christianity has invited upon all of Christianity a fair amount of legitimate scorn, but atheism seem to have reserved a particularly virulent scorn for Christianity.

Actually, the atheists I know speak out more against Islam than Christianity. Understandably, since Islam is responsible for virtually all the terrorist related deaths in the world.

People call atheism a "belief system" only because they are accustomed to colloquialism - the imperfect language of association, not definition.

Here's the practical contrast:
When a Christian seeks government endorsement of her actions, government resources are diverted FROM others who are guaranteed equal protection under the law, and assorted other rights appertaining to citizenship.

An atheist wants NO government resources dedicated to religion, logically pointing out that in order to avoid favoritism repugnant to the Constitution, EVERY faith would be accommodated -- and the sheer number of these would consume every resource.

Belief includes a degree of emotional commitment, be it a freedom from fear or the ecstasy of self-generated, necessarily unrequited, love of a father figure -- or both. Usually, these cannot survive a few questions asked in the light of day, and this illustrates nicely why government should act as a business, with ROI considered at every step.

But in the end, "religious freedom" does NOT mean that you get to tell others what to do from a public venue at taxpayer expense.

Sorry Rad, just because your irrational beliefs are not organized doesn't make them rational or altruistic. Atheism is a religion based on faith just as much as any other belief system.

So Ben, what you are saying is you have no rational reason not to believe in Tezcatlipoa and refuse to believe in him because of an irrational faith in his nonexistance?

Atheism is most often defined in most peoples minds as a lack of belief in ALL deities. But is is also a lack of faith in SPECIFIC deities.

Are you therefore asserting that EVERY god and spirit worshiped by man in fact does exist, and your average monotheists lack of faith in all of them is irrational?

Are you therefore asserting that EVERY god and spirit worshiped by man in fact does exist, and your average monotheists lack of faith in all of them is irrational?

Posted by: lujlp at October 18, 2015 9:33 PM

My assertion is much simpler. Absence of evidence for existence of a Supreme Being or Supernatural force/Creator of the Universe is not *Evidence of Absence*

The failure of all religions to provide scientific evidence for the truth of their beliefs does not absolve the atheist from providing the same specific evidence as to the non existence of a God. It is a big old Universe out there , and so far from our tiny perspective here on earth *Science* has been able to explain a minuscule fraction of what had been observed.

So the Atheists belief in the non existence of God is an unsupported faith based assumption, just like the religionists belief.

"So the Atheists belief in the non existence of God is an unsupported faith based assumption, just like the religionists belief."

Amazing. Do I recall some experience with the law in your history?

Because you really, really haven't considered the definition of "faith" at all: the assertion that something exists without evidence (or by manufacturing "evidence" by constructing a house of cards). Nor have you noticed that the affiant has the burden of proof. Here you are, ignoring that basic requirement of real life: the need to put up or shut up. Is that the accused? Got proof he committed a crime? No? Bye, dude. You might have done something, but she can't prove it, and until that's the case, we can't put you in jail for her delusions. Come to think of it, we can't show how the crime you were accused of actually happened. We have no idea why people were so hot to blame you for it.

Now, here's a gem to treasure when dealing with a specific religion: sometimes, it's not "absence of evidence". Most religions have specific things written in the books they hold holy. The Bible™, for instance, is asserted to be "true" by its affiant - yet its story of a global "Flood" is clearly fiction, and NOT because of an absence of evidence that a "Flood" happened: there is abundant physical evidence that other processes continued throughout history without interruption by a "Flood". This is in addition to the classical physics, the laws of nature, that such a thing would blatantly violate -- and those thing are manifestly NOT matters of faith.
Of course this does not preclude the existence of a God of some kind; what it does demonstrate is the unreliability of the average Christian's "testimony".

Nothing here has defeated my assertion that an impartial American government must treat all religions equally. In such a case, either "none" or "all" are the only two solutions to that logical problem.

Feel free to tell me how much time we have left in the school day after exhausting the material at adherents.com.

Here's the short story: you have asserted that counting on logic and reason, and the observation of cause and effect are a belief system. Odd, because reality is that which persists when you stop believing in it.

What Isab pointed out Lujlp.

And to take it further, Rad said any law a religious person tries to pass is them pushing their irrational beliefs onto others and in fact taking things away from them but only atheists are different. Only atheists can push for laws without unconstitutionally taking from others. This is complete nonsense. The reality is that most of any atheists views are a set of irrational beliefs just as much as anyone else's.

Just looks at the big ones like killing people. There is no scientific answer for who you can and who you cannot kill. There is a legal answer. There are emotional answers. There are even traditional answers. But there is no scientific or rational answer. Any atheists views are no different from anyone else's. So ""religious freedom" does NOT mean that you get to tell others what to do from a public venue at taxpayer expense." is just Rad pushing to strip the vote from groups he doesn't like. The only other ration read of that sentence is that Rad is an anarchist because nobody can tell anybody what to do so all laws are invalid.

As for your point, how many of our laws cover the name of god as you picked out? I don't remember anything covering Yahweeh or Tezcatlipoa or Confucious or d. None of the above being the right name.

Here's the short story: you have asserted that counting on logic and reason, and the observation of cause and effect are a belief system. Odd, because reality is that which persists when you stop believing in it.

Posted by: Radwaste at October 19, 2015 7:02 AM

As usual, you totally missed my point, and started ranting about nonsensical issues.

Most people live their life taking all sorts of things on faith, because they lack the scientific background and enough evidence to truly understand much of anything.

They are also unwilling to change their belief system to accommodate new evidence, which most always shows up just in time to give you a good kick in the ass.

Since we know you are a global warmest Rad, we also know, that no amount of scientific evidence against man caused global warming is going to change your opinion on this subject.

You've got a religion, you just won't admit it..

I personally take quantum physics on faith, because I lack the higher math background necessary to truly critique it...

I repeat: the fact that all Christian sects are clearly wrong in their very specific beliefs about the nature of God, does not make atheists right, about the non existence of *any* God.
The best a person with any humility at all can do, is say, " I don't know". And I hope your personal beliefs about a God or the lack there of, give you some sort of happy framework to organize your life.

Railing against the religious, or people who don't share your particular political philosophy about what government should do, and not do, in my opinion, is mostly a pointless waste of time.

Riffing on what Isab said: One of the purposes of religion, historically, is to explain the unexplainable. The human mind wants to find some kind of order in existence, and the presence of a lot of observable phenomonea with no explanation is disturbing. When science is not of a sufficiently developed state to form a theory, that's where philosophy and religion step in.

However, over time, science gets better. New theories build on old, and tools and instruments improve. Religious explanations of the nature of the sky and the universe were untestable until calculus and the telescope were invented. Then, they became testable, and many were found wanting. New scientific theories took over the space that religion used to occupy alone, and human knowledge evolved. However, it's often the case that science succeeds in opening doors to new spaces which it can't yet explain, and here religion finds new territory. What is the fundemental driver behind quantum mechanics? Does God really play dice with the universe? Who knows. Right now it's untestable. But someday it will be testable.

I foresee that the day will come that the existence, or not, of an entity that we refer to as God will be scientifically testable. That day may be very far in the future, but it will arrive. What answer it will find, I have no idea. We may very well find that there is no God, or we may find that in fact God is on the other side of the door and waiting to shake our hands when we finally succeed in opening it. Or, we may discover that there is an entity that is supernatural (from our viewpoint) and that we might refer to as God, but its nature is nothing at all like what any of our monothestic religions have taught. It may very well be, to paraphrase Asimov, that it is scientific in its own way, but is a product of a science that we cannot yet comprehend, and so appears to us as magic.

Given all this, is there really any point in worshipping a God? If it makes you feel good, and doesn't cause harm to others, and doesn't blind you to the already discovered truths, why not? Yes, it may turn out that it's totally silly. But is it any more silly than watching the Kardashians? Probably not, and it might at least lead one to ponder questions that would otherwise not be thought about. On the other hand, if it doesn't do anything for you, why bother? We have no idea if it will make a difference or not. It might very well cause one to be condemmed. On the other hand, it might turn out that God actually hates being worshipped and has been trying to get us to stop for centuries. We have no idea what the probabilities of any of these outcomes are. So, within the caveat of the Golden Rule, you may as well believe what you want.

An atheist wants NO government resources dedicated to religion.... ~ Posted by: Radwaste at October 18, 2015 6:48 PM

A militant atheist wants government resources directed toward anti-religion, i.e., scrubbing public traditions to eradicate any mention of or reference to a religious tradition.

"In God We Trust" on our money? Mint new coins sans that religious reference. It offends us.

Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall? Spend money to remove them. They offend us. No matter that other ancient law systems are displayed beside them, they're relevant to a current religion and offend us.

Right. Atheists want "NO government resources dedicated to" mollifying their fragile belief systems.

And, yes, atheism is a belief system. A belief system is how we order the universe. From our belief systems spring our concepts of morality, justice, our place in the universe, and, in the aggregate, our civilizations. And, yes, some of them have been bloody because of religious intolerance (including atheism as my earlier example pointed out).

Over time, our religions change. We've gone from worshipping the animals around us to worshipping humans with animals heads, to worshipping giant humans to worshipping unseen spirits. In 1,000 years, if you were to come back to earth, you would probably find people viewing Christianity and Islam as we do the ancient Greek and Roman pantheons.

Religion is part of our civilization. Acknowledging it is not endorsing it.

"Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!" William, and Theodore.

why so difficult?

"A militant atheist wants government resources directed toward anti-religion ..."

I can't even call that anti-religion. They want their views and their faiths promoted and all others torn down. That is classic evangelical intolerant religion. Even the excuses are the same. Talk to a Scientologist and they will tell you it isn't a religion, it is the truth. Just like militant Islam and militant Atheism.

My assertion is much simpler. Absence of evidence for existence of a Supreme Being or Supernatural force/Creator of the Universe is not *Evidence of Absence* - Isab

OK then, I am god. As you have no proof against my assertion it must be true

The failure of all religions to provide scientific evidence for the truth of their beliefs does not absolve the atheist from providing the same specific evidence as to the non existence of a God. It is a big old Universe out there , and so far from our tiny perspective here on earth *Science* has been able to explain a minuscule fraction of what had been observed. - Isab

But then why arent religions and their adherents required to prove the non existence of the gods they claim do not exist?

So the Atheists belief in the non existence of God is an unsupported faith based assumption, just like the religionists belief. - Isab

So then when I refuse to believe that the god of the smoking mountain is cooking dinner or that the thunder god is throwing lighting at his enemy the earth god that is an unsupported faith based assertion?

My refusal to believe that Erra spreads illness and pestilence is an irrational assumption and I should pray to be spared as opposed to washing my hands after shitting and taking antibiotics?

As for tearing down religiosity on public works, most athiests dont give a shit about religious homages that were included in original architecture, we are pissed about being forced to spend tax payer money on NEW things while at te same time having money wasted on court cases where christian politicians refuse to allow other religions to have items displaying their faith displayed in a similar manner.

Its not about the religious icons, its about the unequal treatment before the law and waste of tax monies

What Isab pointed out Lujlp. - Ben

As I recall you are jewish? Or was that someone else?

Either way you are a monotheist of the Judeo/Christian/Muslim variety yes?

As what Isab said is that those who claim a god does not exist must provide scientific proof, please provide such proof for the tens of thousands of deities worshiped by man that your religion says does not exist.

Each and every one, in alphabetical order.

As for tearing down religiosity on public works, most athiests dont give a shit about religious homages that were included in original architecture, we are pissed about being forced to spend tax payer money on NEW things.... ~ Posted by: lujlp at October 19, 2015 12:33 PM

Most might not, but it's the crazies that define belief systems these days:

The American Humanist Association sued in 2014 to have a 1925 war memorial in Prince George County, Maryland torn down. Why? Because the memorial is fashioned in the shape of a cross.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/43104-should-we-tear-down-a-war-memorial-because-it-shocks-and-upsets-atheists

In 1954, The Knights of Columbus erected a Jesus statue on a Montana ski slope (on US Forest Service land) to honor the 10th Mountain Division World War II casualties. The KofC worked with 10th Mountain veterans on the memorial and the USFS had nothing to do with the memorial. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (from Wisconsin) filed suit to have the statue removed because it is on USFS land. The KofC won the suit in 2013 and the FFRF appealed. The Ninth Circuit will hear the arguments this year.

So, tell me again how atheists are only "pissed about being forced to spend tax payer money on NEW things while at [the] same time having money wasted on court cases" and how they don't bother with longstanding religious homages.

I'm not particularly religious and I find militant atheists to be as annoying as evangelical Christians.

"OK then, I am god. As you have no proof against my assertion it must be true."

You might very well be. I can't prove you aren't. I read Millenium.

"But then why arent religions and their adherents required to prove the non existence of the gods they claim do not exist?"

That's a good question. Could idol worship have been right after all? Not likely, I think -- there was that whole human sacrifice bit, for one thing. I conjecture that that's when religions die: when they tie themselves into such knots of contradiction, trying to explain newly observed phenomonea, that they wind up requiring people to do things that are clearly harmful to themselves or to their civilization. Monotheistic Judaism, when it appeared, was far simpler and easier to understand than the crazy-quilt of Roman gods, and it didn't require increasingly bizarre rituals which soaked up a lot of resources. And the culture that followed Judaism survived while the Roman culture committed passive suicide.

Could the same thing happen to Judeo-Christianity someday? Possibly. It's had some close calls. Martin Luther bailed it out in the 16th century. If trouble appears again, will there be another Martin Luther waiting in the wings? Not necessarily. The whole thing could wind up being replaced by some new belief system organized around principles which we have yet to imagine.

"As what Isab said is that those who claim a god does not exist must provide scientific proof, please provide such proof for the tens of thousands of deities worshiped by man that your religion says does not exist.

Each and every one, in alphabetical order."

You don't get it Lujlp.

I have no interest in even attempting to prove that even one deity exists, let alone hundreds.

It can't be done. But like every other reasoning individual atheist whose is mentally older than 12, I don't assume that everything in the Universe is open to my purview, so I leave room for the possibility that something out there, might be so fantastic as to meet my very loose definition of a deity.

When you attempt to prove there *absolutely is no God* that is a very tall order, one that a militant athethist apparently thinks can be done by destroying a theists arguments for a God.

Scientific proof doesn't work that way.... The burden of proof is on the Atheist in this case, to prove the negative ( a very tough problem in a Universe the size of ours).

I personally think that the idea of a God serves a very useful purpose for many people. Because I admire, and respect many religious people, and institutions, I don't spend my time denigrating believers, as a bunch of stupid boobs. I know better.
Most of my friends who are Catholic have manners, and a surprising number of my fellow Atheists do not.

"As what Isab said is that those who claim a god does not exist must provide scientific proof, please provide such proof for the tens of thousands of deities worshiped by man that your religion says does not exist.

Each and every one, in alphabetical order."

Work on your reading comprehension as well as logic and deductive reasoning Lujlp.

Isab said the claim god exists without proof is pure faith. And that the claim god does not exist without providing proof is also pure faith. And she is right. The only rational view is agnosticism. I don't share that view. But the truth is the truth. Nothing you have said separates you from the rest of us superstitious monkeys. And claiming you have 'THE TRUTH' is traditional religion.

Conan, I said "most" atheists.

In that case so long as the Forest Service is not paying for maintenance of the memorial and likewise allows every other religious group to place similar memorials in conjunction with those being commemorated I dont see as the atheists have any case

Isab said the claim god exists without proof is pure faith. And that the claim god does not exist without providing proof is also pure faith.

So when I say that the great god Ungagadu the Earth Shaker is NOT the reason California suffers from earthquakes, your argument is that this assertion is one of pure faith?

Can you prove Ungagadu doesn't exist or that there was an earthquake and Ungagadu was in Oklahoma trying some of their fine local meth vintages? You can say it is unlikely Ungagadu did it. You can show how something other than Ungagadu did it. But no, you probably can't show that there is no Ungagadu anywhere. And claiming there is no Ungagadu without proof is an act of faith.

P.S. Ungagadu isn't all that great. And make sure there is plenty of ventilation if you are ever in a room with him. Not silent but surely deadly.

So, Isab, argument from personal incredulity...

I see you can't read the Nizkor fallacy tutorial yet. It would help tremendously. If you don't know what they are, I see why I'd confuse you.

And, Ben - when you say, "Sorry Rad, just because your irrational beliefs are not organized..."

Wow. Apparently, the laws of nature and proper scientific and engineering discipline is "not organized".

As usual, I am amazed that people can say such things on the Internet without dying of irony poisoning.

OK Ben, what god do you believe in?

"The only rational view is agnosticism."
-Ben

Not quite. The most honest view, yes. The agnostic says I don't know (an epistemological statement), but says nothing about what is (an ontological statement). The atheists and theists do.

We can all agree (I hope) that A & ~A is always false.

We can also agree (I hope. Can you ever type two true statements in a row on the internet?) that A or ~A is always true.

So, I hope we can agree that God (in whatever form or forms) exists or does not exist.

However, unlike Cousin Dave, I do not believe the issue is ultimately testable or provable.

So, I have no problem with people who opt for the ~A, while I opt for the A. One of us is right (in the broad issue of God or not God, ignoring all of the subsets in the God category). The A just makes more sense to me; but, what persuades me may not persuade others. That is why I have a problem with Cousin Dave's optimism: reaching an agreement on the metric of proof and the evidence is unlikely.

But, I know A or ~A is true, so my betting on A is at worst arational (where the propositions are wholly undecidable), as opposed to irrational (where the proposition is against the evidence).

-Jut

Lujlp,

I am a practicing Episcopalian. But I do disagree with many of the things they teach. They are understandable mistakes since for one explaining a concept you have no personal experience in is really hard. And two, priests are the sales and marketing wing of the church. Without strong managerial oversight some sales people will sell you the Brooklyn bridge.

As for belief, that is a stickier wicket. I am a part of the catholic (little c is significant here) church. But I'm not in sales and marketing. More the maintenance side of the business. So I am very non-evangelical. I don't want to save your soul. I'm here to save your bill fold. So from my position belief is not necessary. And honestly belief in God is not necessary or even important. What is necessary is belief that things will get better. And hopefully I've muddied the waters enough that there is no chance of you converting or having any sort of religious experience. I've got enough black marks on my employment record I don't need another from an interdepartmental squabble.

Ask a silly question get a silly answer?

A more significant question is if God does exist and is non-interventionist does it matter if it exists? For example Jin Pao over in Long Nan, China exists (for the sake of argument). But neither you nor I am going to ever meet Jin Pao. He is never going to do anything to either of us. So, does it matter to us if Mr. Pao exists or not? Similarly God hasn't done all that much in the world lately. You probably aren't going to meet God. Proving God doesn't exists anywhere is a pretty tall order just like proving there is no and never was a Jin Pao in Long Nan. But does their existence matter to you when it doesn't impact you?

And Rad, as I mocked before, you have 'THE TRUTH'. You know 'THE SOLUTION'. Everyone else are just superstitious fools. Hey, we get it. You have the one true religion. Now stop bogarting that truth and give us the engineering definition of murder. After all there is a lot of debate and disagreement on that around the world. You could really help clean thing up if you weren't so selfish.

I think you actually proved my point Jut. You started out (in your argument) agnostic. Neither A or ~A can be proved. Then you made an arational (not based on logic) decision. At that point you moved away from rationality.

And your definition of irrational is off. The two words are used interchangeably. (Not based on logic vs. not logical) I'm happy to use your definition, just not retroactively.

Ben,
I don't agree that arational and irrational are interchangeable.
One is a logical opposite and one is a real opposite.
Logical opposite: good v. not good
Real opposite: good v. bad (or good v. evil)

Are dogs irrational or arational?
Are chairs irrational or arational?

-Jut

"However, unlike Cousin Dave, I do not believe the issue is ultimately testable or provable."

Of course, the agnostic position would be to say, "I don't know if it will ever be testable or not". But at that point we're getting silly. My belief that someday it will be testable is just that, a belief. I claim that the historical evidence supports this belief; we've seen in the past that things that were once the sole purview of religion eventually got invaded by science, e.g., the structure of the solar system, and the causes of communicable disease.

(Logic back alley: I can word my belief so that it can never be disproven. By saying "the existence of God will be testable, someday", then if anyone else argues that my belief is false because God's existence is not testable, I can say, "Not enough time has elapsed." But then I would just be a jerk.)

Cousin Dave,

I know where you are coming from and I don't mean to come off as critical, but to go a little further with this:

Two qualities generally applied to God (at least in the Judeo-Christian conception) are omnipotence and omniscience.

To test or prove these things, wouldn't people have to be omniscient. We would have to be able to know whether the "magic trick" was just scientific innovation, or was a deviation from the reality.

Also, lots of "miracles" can't be replicated, but they cause intense belief in people. It is often impossible to confirm or deny isolated events.

Then, finally, we can't agree on the metric for judging things. When people say, "it was a miracle that X occurred," (or something like that), I cringe. They believe X constitutes divine intervention; I don't. They might be right; I might be right. But, neither of us are likely to agree on what factors would constitute some form of divine intervention (that, again, would probably require omniscience).

-Jut

Jut,

Using your definition of the words they are different. But I've often seen them used interchangeably. I go to the dictionary and I get different definitions than you use.

irrational - not logical or reasonable
arational - not based on or governed by reason

And then we get into real trouble with the whole 'not expressible as a ratio of two integers' bit.

As I said I am happy using your definition. Just understand that was not the definition I used earlier.

Jesus won.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/31/appeals-court-upholds-jesus-statue-on-montana-mountain/

He won because the appeals court ruled that since people have decorated Big Mountain Jesus with Mardi Gras beads, goggles, and ski caps over the years, that he's become a secular object of frivolity rather than a religious icon. Not sure that's a victory for Christianity, but Jesus will stay in place.

Let's see if the Freedom from Religion Foundation takes this one to the Supremes and wastes even more taxpayer money.

OK Ben, you are a believer in Jesus, Daddy & Co.

You also agreed with Isabs statement that those claiming there is no god must prove it.

By your own stated belief you deny the existence for thousands of gods.

So . . . PROVE IT.

You are claiming that thousands of gods do not exist, that there is no Thor - so prove it

That there is no Ra - so prove it
That there is no Ishtar - so prove it
That there is no Erra - so prove it
That there is no Zeus - so prove it
That there is no Mithras - so prove it
That there is no Vishnu - so prove it
That there is no Quetzocotal - so prove it

Umm Lujlp I thought we'd been over this before. And Jut was so succinct with his symbolic logic. I haz a sad.

But back to your question:

1. You don't prove faith based claims.
2. An absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I am not claiming to prove the existence of God through any rational or logical way. Therefor proof is not necessary.

If you are claiming God does not exist (Atheism) and that this is not a faith based claim (Radwaste) then you must prove that you have looked everywhere and that there is no God anywhere.

If you want to fall back on point 1 with me, Welcome. Yes, atheism is a religion. It is a system of arational (for you Jut) belief.

Also, why do you care what I believe? As Rad pointed out "reality is that which persists when you stop believing in it". Just because I believe something is completely irrelevant. Especially if it is a faith based claim.

To go back to where you started Lujlp.

"Are you therefore asserting that EVERY god and spirit worshiped by man in fact does exist ..."

No. Not what I claimed at all.

"... and your average monotheists lack of faith in all of them is irrational?"

Yes.

Faith - a belief not based on proof
Why do you think faith is rational?

I dont, but as theists tell me all the time it is, I expect them to argue the case.

If you are willing to admit, and it seems you have, that your faith is wholly illogical and has no basis in what any reasonable person could call "fact" then I have no arguments against it.

Though I might against you should you try and legislate your beliefs into laws governing the behavior of society at large

However as to your assertion that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, in many cases it can be.

There is no evidence that Erra causes illness and death, there is however evidence of micro organisms, and the efficacy of antibiotics and soap.

There is no evidence of Apollo pulling the sun across the sky, but we do have proof that the earth revolves on its axis and circles the sun

There is no evidence that blood sacrifice on the tops of Aztec temples keeps the sun burning, but there is evidence that the sun has not gone out despite the lack of such sacrifices for nearly 500 years

In such cases an absence of evidence coupled with verifable evidence of other causes does point to a logical reasoning of evidence of absense

Lujlp,

Absence of evidence is still not evidence. You have proof Apollo is not pulling the sun across the sky in a cart. You looked and saw he wasn't. That is your rational evidence.

Claiming God does not exist anywhere without looking everywhere first to prove it is a statement of faith.

By your logic the fact that one can not see Apollo is not proof of Apollo's nonexistence.

And taking Pascals wager to its logical conclusion, as you can never be certain of the nonexistance of any god, or vampires, unicorns, and aliens, why not behave as if they are all real?

You are correct that I did not provide proof that Apollo does not exist. I provided proof that "Apollo pulling the sun across the sky" is a false statement. I doubt I could correctly prove that Apollo does not exist.

"why not behave as if they are all real?"
This is a completely different question I've tried to drag you to. You can neither prove nor disprove any of those. But if they do not impact you one way or the other then behaving as if they do not exist does not conflict with either belief or non-belief in them. An absent and unapproachable god is functionally the same as a nonexistent god.

Do keep in mind you are taking lessons in logic from a lunatic who claims to be a celestial janitor. That is the problem with disorganized religion. People don't really know what their beliefs are.