Mister P-Mosh

When I read through some of these threads and in US newspapers, I have to ask myself, are all these crazy cults in America there for a reason? I know the “need to belong” is a universal human trait, but a need to belong to religious splinter (cult) organizations seems to be so prevalent or indigenous to the USA.

Over here, there may be some, but I think most of the time members ride around on motorcycles. <_<

Any ideas?

This is a complex topic that many thesis could be written about. However, just to try to put it in simple terms, I have a few ideas that I won't elaborate on here but feel free to ask questions if I say anything that doesn't make sense.

To start, we do have a solid foundation of religious freedom since the early days of this nation. Since the founding fathers basically provided for an anything goes society when it comes to religion, we have the groundwork for new religions and ideas to spring up. Not only that, but we also have a strong belief in freedom in general, combined with a constant push for improvement and innovation. The result is that we don't focus as much on traditions as other places will.

We are also a fairly religious nation. While the U.S. was "in no sense founded upon the Christian religion", religious people have been here since the beginning, and religious extremists from Europe came here to be able to practice their religions openly. That sort of extremism offers another factor that leads to a fertile foundation for cults.

The U.S. is a melting pot of ideas as well as people. Immigrants bring new ideas and values, some of which are good and attractive to people here. The merging of those beliefs often do create new religious organizations.

However, there is a dark side to what allows cults to exist. Many people are isolated because our nation does not really have a unique identity, and people are looking for something to latch onto. It doesn't help that many people are very poorly educated, and even those that are well educated are often lacking in terms of training in skepticism.

Anyway, I'd write more but I have to do some work then go to lunch. Ciao!

I don't believe in living scared. But one big thing stays in the back of my mind.

Pakistan's government may fall within the next few years. They have nukes. The people who would take over are the Taliban. At that point I would not live or visit New York or Washington DC. We will be talking a Jericho.

Me I'm not worried. I live in a town of 20,425. We are 70 miles from a major city. The highway patrol has a plan that cuts the interstate off 35 miles east of us. That keeps the craziness isolated away from here.

Actually, if Pakistan does fall, I predict Bush would declare Iraq a success and move our military over to Pakistan and bring al Qaeda back up again. Additionally, we would actually be able to get a real coalition to go in there, and the Indian military could probably take most of the brunt of it on the ground. Nobody wants renegade nukes out there.

The only good thing is that Pakistan is incapable of producing missiles that can reach the U.S. If anything, terrorists would attempt a dirty bomb, and that is far less devestating than a real nuke attack.

Still, you have to keep all of this in perspective. You're more likely to die in a car accident today or by having a heart attack than you are by an act of terrorism. You're more likely to die by being struck by lightning than you are by terrorism. It does no good to worry about any of that stuff, although we should make sure our government does it's job in securing our nation against groups like al Qaeda.

Granted, it's been a while, but yes, I did read the whole series, Mr. P. The only complaint I have is, they were written as stand alone books. The repetition was sometimes detracting.

Agreed. Since they are so cheap though, I picked up the whole series and read them over the span of a few years mixed in with other things, so the repetition didn't bother me too much.

Actually, I would like to see the books made into a movie, but feel it would have to be too watered down.

Assuming (yes, I know what happens when one assumes) there were gods, don't you find them a bit capricious?

Definitely, but I think that could result in an entirely new topic. The Jehovah of the old testament is right up there with the Greek gods.

Ok, I've probably stayed in hotels more than most people and have learned to look out for this and other things. In addition to the plastic cups, I always check for a few things. The first is that I move the furniture, especially that around the bed as well as the bed itself. I look to see how dirty things are, and look very closely for bed bugs. I had a really bad incident with an Extended Stay America hotel with bed bugs and had to get medical attention because of all the thousands of bites on my body after sleeping there. If it's fairly clean (there is always dust, but I've found food, condoms, etc. at times) then that test is passed.

I also check the bed sheets. They should be clean, and usually you can tell by smell and sight. Another sign of bed bugs is black or grey stains on the bed sheets, but that could also be due to cigarette ashes. I also check the pillows, because it is possible that a place changed the sheets but left the pillows. Again, sight and smell are usually a good enough check.

Something else to keep in mind is that the floor is going to be nasty, even if it looks clean. You should always have your feet covered when you are walking in a hotel room. Slippers, flip flops/thongs, or at minimum socks should be worn.

It also helps to check the heat and AC, because that has been broken in about 10% of the hotels I've stayed in. This is especially important if you are staying somewhere with a radically different climate than you are used to.

I've also found things left over from other guests at hotels. Probably the most interesting was what appeared to be heroin at a high end hotel here in Houston.

As far as the primary topic of the cleanliness of the glasses and water is concerned, I suggest not drinking tap water anyway. When you travel, you should only drink bottled water, even if it is to another region of the U.S. Lots of people get sick because the water in one city has different microorganisms and chemicals than the water in their city. Bottled water, even if it is originally tap water, is usually purified in some way, so it's a safe bet.

Another travel tip that I don't follow is to eat local yogurt if you travel overseas anywhere. This tip was passed on to me by an Indian friend who said that is how people travel to India and avoid getting sick. It seems to work according to those that I've talked to and eat yogurt.

When it comes to the quality of hotels money does make a difference. While high-end hotels might have toilet water on their glass cups just like the low-end hotels, there are certain things that the extra money can provide. For example, if you're staying at a $200/night hotel, you'll likely be staying in a room frequented by other people that can afford it. If you stay in Motel 6, you're likely to stay in a room that has been used by hookers, drug addicts, and other people who might not be as clean. Additionally, a $200/night hotel can afford to change the sheets every day. At somewhere like Motel 6 they have to cut costs. If there is a problem, you will have a lot more leverage if you're paying $200/night than you would if you're at a cheap place. The response I got for my TV remote not working at a Sheraton Ambassador was a whole lot better response than I got from a hotel where a used condom was on the floor behind the nightstand.

Anyway, don't let all of this prevent you from traveling, just be safe and aware of what to look for.

This doesn't deal directly with the analogy at hand, but "The Incarnations Of Immortality" by Piers Anthony is a good read. The seven book series deals with the major events in life as though mortals became immortal and have to learn how to be Death, Nature, etc. The first book is called, "Death Rides A Pale Horse".

To me, it is just as reasonable explanation for how the world works as any other religious text.

I liked that series quite a bit but it seems a bit juvenile now for some reason. It's like the attitudes of the deities are going through the emotional problems of teenagers. By the way, have you read all of the books? This includes the last two, where the devil and the Christian god are replaced.

If I found that I was getting this much trash left on my door, I would stay home from work one day to wait for the person to bring it, then beat the sh!t out of them. I am sick and tired of these jackasses leaving their trash on my door. If I want their services, I will come and ask them for it.

If I sound bitter, it's because I hate people that fill up my mailbox with trash and those that leave trash on my door even more because it all falls and makes a mess when I open the door. Also, I'm bitter because it's just after 4am and my daughter has been up all night screaming, and there's nothing I can do for her since it appears she is teething. Maybe I should call up those numbers of the businesses inconsiderate enough to trash up my front door and record long VMs of her screaming.

I think it is paranoiac and self-destructive to worry about such things. I have family in Belfast, one of whom has had an IED blow up and put him in a wheelchair. My family members there don't worry about being blown up, despite the fact that people do get blown up over there a lot more than Americans do here.

You should not worry, or be "vigilant" as the self-deluded like to call it. Live your life as if you could die at any moment, because you really could die. A blood clot could take you out at any moment, getting into your car to drive is infinitely more dangerous than terrorists with IEDs. There are simply better things to be concerned about.

Oh, and for the record, IEDs are set off in the U.S. occasionally by Christian extremists like those that want to kill doctors that perform abortions. It's nothing new here either, but I don't worry about it in any case. I have to live my life instead of being afraid.

I wish I could have attended, but I was out of the country for a while. I just got back from Vancouver this weekend so I couldn't go. It's great to see you all had fun though.

I am glad to be shedding my fear of the unknown, and feel that I will no longer be surprised in the future in finding out that someone I admire is atheist. A life without God for me would be empty, directionless, and without hope. For them it is not. And we have both made the choices that are best for us individually. I can live peaceably with that.

Suda (hoping this post isn't too long!)

Suda, you have amazed me. Not only are you getting it, you're understanding it well and you are able to respect those of us that differ from you. Thanks for trying to understand even though you have come to a different conclusion in your life.

In this you are in error. The stongs concordance mentions the word slavery twice (I believe, I am not going to go re-check) The relationship you are referring to is the Master-Servant relationship. perhaps you could recite some instances of an employer-employee relationship that existed at that time, replete with timecards and employer law, to prove your theory that this relationship was anything but that.

That relationship was often slavery. The most obvious example I can think of is how Exodus 21 basically lays out the rules for slavery according to the bible.

Of course war is always murder in atheists mind, but only when it comes to war in context with the you know who of the Old Testament. What about the Redcoats of England in the revolutionary war, or those from Mexico that attacked the Alamo. Or those Canadians who provided safe harbor for the redcoats. Certainly the atheistic movement must have some document calling for all out war on Mexico, Canada and England for the atheistic peace movement would certainly not let these scoundrels and their countrymen live in peace for what they did. (These wars happened in the last approx 200 some years and directly effected us. Where is the outrage and power outage of atheists over this stuff/) While your at it, where is the cat call for war against the sharks of the ocean for being monarchists and not good Democrats? I mean why didnt they nip at the Redcoats when they were sailing over?

Are you on drugs? Seriously, I never said anything that you're talking about, and you are contradicting yourself multiple times. First you say atheists are always against war and consider it murder, then you expect atheists to call people to war, then you talk about sharks. The only thing the sharks are doing is being jumped over by you.

Atheism has nothing to do with war. Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. What you're talking about doesn't have anything to do with anything else I was talking about so I won't respond to nonsense.

Never of course do they mention the following:

1) That God did not attack the Amorites because their inquity was not yet full.

2) That Israel tried to make peace with Og and other Kings who were not in there land and where attacked.

3) That God used bees to chase some people out of the land.

4) that King Davids soldiers were as much Hittite and from other countries of the land as they were Judean.

5) That David's war's were rather evangelical in that he circumcised or converted his enemies to Israeli faith,

So you are saying that Numbers 31:17 is false? It's a verse that states, "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him." Somehow I don't think that they "killed" them by evangelism. Did they use biblical humor and they said, "STOP! HAHAHA! THAT'S TOO FUNNY, YOU'RE KILLING ME!" Does that term originate from biblical times?

Where is the atheistic cat calls against the countries of Napolean, Alexander the Great, Nebuchadnezzar Cyrus and English monarchists who were expanding their Empires? Oh thats right Richard Dawkins is English whatever will they do? Of course never mentioned by atheists is that God never sanctioned any as in not one, expansion of the country of Israel beyone a strip of land 75 by 200 miles, unlike the ones listed above who had real estate and where plundering other countries You would think atheists everywhere would be so angry at every person who engaged in war, yet never one cat call against all ethnicities everywhere for doing what God never did. What gives? Murder only applies for atheists in war in buggery towards religion, otherwise its just another rainy day.

Again with your apparent halucinatory rants that don't make sense or fit in with what I wrote. I really don't know how to respond because what you're saying is just gibberish.

Utter non-sense. Jesus said there is nothing done in secret that shall not be shouted abroad and there would be judgement in the hereafter. This is without question greater accountability than atheism provides.

Only if you believe it to be true. However, if you can't be held accountable to yourself, then you have some major issues. Part of being an adult is being responsible for your own actions. If your belief is that you have to be afraid of going to hell in order to be responsible, then you have some problems.

Again nonsense, and you do not know scripture. The Apostle Paul provides provision for seperation of husband and wife in such cases to have 'peace" with no guilt associated, it simply does not sanction divorce.

Then if you're such a biblical scholar, why don't you "educate" me. I don't remember anything about that, and if it's as accurate as the rest of your biblical knowledge then I won't count on it.

It is not difficult to do in some cases. Please note I used the word some. For example, when Greta the angry atheist goes into a diatribe against God, I must take note that she is a Lesbian and that perhaps her demeanor is more effected because of the Biblical view on homosexuality, then say her embracing of atheism. Same screw holds true for Richard Dawkins, who somewhat sanctions homosexual behavior in his comments. Thus, we Christians at times wonder if the cart isnt pulling the horse, rather than the way atheists explain themselves as the horse of evolution pulling the cart. I think for this reason it is unfair of you to say to him that he is ignorant and lacks empathy for this reason.

I feel the same about your analysis too.

I'm not sure what homosexuality has to do with anything here. If you watch the news lately, all the famous people turning out to be gay are the staunch Christian conservatives. The percentage of gay atheists is probably similar to the percentage of gay Christians. Also, as an atheist I don't say anything about evolution pulling any carts and have no idea what you're talking about.

As far as empathy and ignorance, you and johnj are still wrapped up in your TWI brainwashing and are unable to see reality and understand other people. That's why both of you go off on delusional rants and talk at people rather than with them. Both of you have a "holier than thou" attitude and offer nothing but insults, lies, and strawman arguments that make no sense. You both think you're better than everyone else and that you know more than everyone else and that egotism is something I despise in people.

What is it about the science of evolution which is the dogmatic formula for atheism, that is sooooo must concern itself with Biblical values. Depending on the author it seems that 40 to 90 percent of the science concerns itself with brow beating people of faith. It would be akin to the science of going to the moon and rocket technology, insisting that automobiles everywhere get rid of piston technology and replace auto's with rockets to help space technology. If atheism has a "science" why the need to rip tear and gouge upon those of faith?

Evolution and atheism have nothing to do with each other. You might as well be comparing the horses and the 839th digit of Pi. You don't know what you're talking about and don't make sense. Atheism is simply an absence of belief in gods. It's not science, evolution, or a conspiracy against you.

As far as being concerned with biblical values, only people like you who are always out to attack non-Christians get attacked back. If you come here acting like an @$$ people will act like one back to you. Read the comments prior to you and johnj's posts. Things were pretty calm and people were sharing ideas rather than crapping all over everything and stirring arguments.

It is in fact a belief system. Athiests tenants are: Any type of thiesm is bad and the morality prinicipals established in the Bible in atheists view are not good and atheists will never follow them. The sceince of it, is nostagically poor. It's like watching a group of people who like to pout and spout off at God, and dang it all, you have the pseudo-science of evolution to prove it.

Who are you to tell me what I believe? I've stated over and over what atheism is, yet you reject that and continue to build lies in order to tear people like me down. You are free to believe what you wish, but you will always be wrong and I hope someone will always be there to contradict you, lest you be able to trick innocent people into hatred with your lies.

I don't know whether you are being arrogant or ignorant. Either way, you are seriously far from the truth with your posts, this one is no exception.

I think atheism gives a poor answer in the area of morality, because it lacks two important things:

1. Standards. (As was said above) without God to give humans a benchmark, there are no unmovable standards because morals are human-made. You can make up your own. Nothing is right or wrong.

When I was in college the fashionable term was "values clarification." You should clarify your values, but nothing was right or wrong, only different. Humans can make up their own values (no standards) and change them at will. If standards are man-made, then you have no right to call another's choices wrong, even if they involve murder, stealing, incest, whatever. The result of this is that anyone can rationalize any behavior. And they do, whether dictator or skinhead.

Fortunately, atheists and a-moralists don't live consistently by this. Even people who consider there to be no right and wrong have favorite morals (a fashionable one these days is racism), at least when they're the victims of others' values.

If you study history, you would see that even in the most religious of societies, even past Christian societies, there were things occurring that many if not all of us would find immoral. You mentioned slavery, which is sanctioned by Christianity depending on what part of the bible you read. In the old testament, Jehovah supposedly told the Israelites to go murder innocent men, women, and children. Today it would be considered immoral to kill people that pose no threat to you, but back then there were supposedly commandments from god to kill every living thing in a city that the Israelites would go to war with. Doesn't this violate pretty much any interpretation of "thou shalt not kill?"

Additionally, most non-Christian religions have the same set of morals as Christianity. Most atheists also live by the same morals. There are core values that are inherent in humanity. Things like "thou shalt not kill" are just written versions of what every single person already knows.

2. Accountability. Without a God who pays attention, humans have very little accoutablity. Most of the things humans do to injure others are fully legal, and most crimes go unpunished. Moral religion says that God does hold people accountable even when society is unable or unwilling to do so. Atheism provides no ultimate accountability, tho it may provide some limited accoutability on the fashionable morals which evolve and change because nothing is really right or wrong, just different.

Nonsense. Human nature includes empathy, and empathy is what prevents people from hurting others. This is a natural trait in human beings and many animals. Your dog doesn't need "jesus" in order to start crying when they hear another dog cry. It's a natural instinct. However, there are people who are either born with a mental illness that robs them of empathy or go through harsh experiences that cause their mind to become damaged and restrict their empathy.

Atheism provides GREATER accountability than Christianity does. As an atheist, I have no fall back, I am responsible for all of my actions and must face the consequences as a result. Also, since this is the only life I have, as well as the only life that the people I interact with have, it is more important for me to help others. For example, it is my duty to society to help those that are in need because if there is no heaven, they have to be helped immediately so they can be ok in this life.

People need reasons to be "good" because being good is usually harder than being bad. Thieves find it's quicker to steal income someone else worked 6 months to get. Sudents find it's easier to steal answers (as the Newsweek article noted) than study. Many people think divorce or separation is easier than humility, admitting wrong and working through problems, etc.

This is a lie. Being good is the default, while being bad comes from ignorance, mental illness, or suffering. Thieves find it to be quicker to steal because they don't see a legitimate way to make money, and they often live in poverty or have a problem that causes them to steal. It is not natural for people just to steal and not feel guilt about it.

Many divorces of non-religious people happen because a woman is abused or treated badly. In a strict Christian household, the woman would continue putting up with the abuse because she is supposedly a subject to her husband and inferior somehow. Divorce rates are a symptom of bigger problems, and we should address those problems rather than focusing on the end result.

There are two basic reasons to choose to do good even when it's harder: 1) reward ("if I'm nice to him, he'll be nice to me") and 2) penalty ("if I hit him he'll hit me back, and he's bigger than I am")

The weakness of atheism and a-moral thinking is that frequently humans aren't rewarded for doing good (The IRS doesn't reward you for paying taxes); and we are seldom punished for doing bad (eg the IRS seldom catches tax cheats). Little accountability and no firm standards.

What morals'based religion like Christianity does is to fill in the gaps. It provides complete stanards rather than make-up-your-own. For example, most of the 10 commandments prohibit things that are fully legal in America, because God wants to establish standards higher than human-made ones.

It also provides ultimate accountablity. God will reward and punish even when society can't or doesn't want to.

It's very offensive that you conflate atheism and amorality. It is a sign of your ignorance and lack of empathy for your fellow human beings. In your examples, you also show your lack of thought concerning other aspects of life. The IRS does reward you for paying taxes -- the money goes to build freeways, maintain national parks, maintain the military to defend us, etc. Just because you expect them to personally thank you doesn't mean that you don't benefit.

This is why Newsweek linked nonreligious students to a high rate of cheating. The students knew that accountabiluty was poor (teachers seldom catch them) and they lacked unmoving standards (their "values clarification" led them to "self-made" morals which allow cheating.) The religious students were linked to low rates of cheating because they personally accepted God's higher standards and believed they were accountable to him even when they weren't to other humans.

I think your analysis is nonsense, but since you didn't provide a link to the article the rest of us have nothing to base our opinions of it on.

Suely there are hypocrites. But this doesn't mean that religion's standards and accountability are weak- it means people are weak or hypocritical. To criticize the standards because some people don't keep it is like criticizing American law against first degree murder because some people murder anyway. There will always be people who are or claim to be religious who don't live by God's standards and accountability, but that doesn't mean that they don't still provide a more reliable answer to morality than atheiism and a-moral thinking.

So in your mind, we atheists have to ignore the fact that "sinners" don't live up to what you believe the standards are, despite the fact that according to the bible we are all guilty of "sin." So a translation of what you are saying is that we should ignore all the evil that the followers of Christianity have done because it supposedly doesn't reflect on Christianity itself, right? You don't want us to judge Christianity based on it's "fruit", yet you judge everything else based on even stricter criteria.

A big problem with your views is that you seem to believe atheism is a belief system. It is not. It is not amoral, it is not a lack of values. It is simply and only the fact that we don't believe in gods. You can't honestly extrapolate anything further out of that. Atheism is not the polar opposite of Christianity. Christians and Satanists are the polar opposites competing against each other (if real satanists even exist is debatable), where atheists are not even in the game you all are. Don't try to demonize us based on your own ignorance and prejudice because it's clear you don't know us.

quote: If religion is man-made, that means that morals are man-made as well.

Wow. I totally agree. I wish this concept was acceptable on other threads, like the ones that say VP is the devil.

But as to the topic of this thread, I don't think morality is a 24/7 thing. Sure, we all take our beliefs wherever we go, but many situations are not moral just by themselves. For instance, going shopping. I spend about 1 hour going grocery shopping every week. There's no 'right or wrong' about this activity; I'm just getting groceries.

We all spend many hours doing many activities that have no moral ramifications at all, so Christians and atheists can mingle with no ill effect whatsoever. But during those times when morality, man made or not, is the prime governing value in our decision making, how much impact does this have? Does a little leaven leaven the whole lump? Atheism may be more of a system of non belief than a system of belief, but atheists are just as moral (conscious of right and wrong) as Christians.

I'm glad you also see things this way. However, I would clarify something. Most people are able to go through life doing the right thing by default most of the time. For example, you mentioned buying groceries as having no moral ramifications. I would say that for some people with mental problems, the fact that you are buying rather than stealing is a choice of morality. While normal people like us may not think about these two options, there are some people for whom it is a problem, and they need a moral code dictated to them in order to keep functioning in society.

IMO the existence, prosperity, and quality of life of the USA is strong evidence that Christian based morals at the government level isn't the worst thing that could happen to a country.

I don't see any indication that the U.S. has "Christian based morals", but instead morals based on natural order and philosophical principals from many different societies. Much of our government is based on the ancient Greeks, and they worshiped Zeus and Athena.

I just read a Newsweek article last week (not a Christian publication) that did link religion and morality. The article noted that 60% of students admit to cheating (and how many more don't admit to it?). The studies stated that cheating was linked to nonreligious to not cheating was linked to being religious. It did not say, nor do I mean to say, that 100% of religious people are always honest and 100% of nonreligious are cheaters, but that there is a significant link between the two.

On the other hand, studies have shown that students of a religious nature who make "chastity vows" are just as likely as other students to engage in premarital sex, and they are more likely to engage in risky sexual activities such as sex without a condom, anal sex, etc. Does this mean that Christianity fails, since Christian students are more likely to try anal sex than non-religious students?

One reason for this is that people have what the Bible calls a sinful nature. That's hard to deny. Parents typically have to teach their children to share, not to be selfish, for example. Selfish comes naturally. What moral religions such as Crhistianity do is to hem it in. The fact that many people who claim to be religious don't actually follow Biblical morality doesn't mean that religion is bad in itself. In fact, if you say that such people are bad because they don't follow Biblical principles, you're indirectly admitting that the religious moral standards are in fact good.

It's not hard to deny. While we humans are not perfect, I have a hard time believing that my infant daughter is a "sinner" since she is not capable of being responsible for her own actions yet. You have to choose to do wrong to be a "sinner", at least in my atheist view of things.

As far as the rest, you are the one saying that biblical morality is good and that people should follow it. What us non-religious folks think is that it's hypocrisy for them to demand we follow their morals while they don't practice what they preach.

Some of the posts above seem to use some very inflamatory terms to describe religious and/or Christian people, which surprised me coming from such reasonable atheist/ agnostics as yourselves.

From what I've seen, you have been the one who brought the inflammatory writings to this thread. You come here and make false statements about atheists and non-Christians, and let your ego get in the way of seeing anything but your version of Christianity as being ok.

Well, a if a religious person wrote a book they'd get the same accusation.

Dawkins is an influencial man. People don't have to buy the book to get the message: Want to be a good scientist? Give up god(s). That's what the best of them do. Sure, there's a few who debatebly ascribe some sort of loyalty to a god, but why make it hard?

That's odd, there have been plenty of scientists that are religious or superstitious at a minimum. I have a friend that has done work for NASA and is a strong Christian. He sees no contradiction in the two.

Some atheists are raised Christian to one degree or another, then abandon faith. Their lives seem OK.

But I'm most concerned about their children (or grandchildren) who are raised without the same Christian upbringing they had.

First generation atheists I think take some of their Christian upbringing with them into atheism. They live by some Christian values without perhaps admitting it. And these values give them some foundation and benefit.

Keep your concern to yourself then, because you are as qualified to talk about this as I am qualified to talk about the effectiveness of ancient Egyptian brain surgery, or maybe less so.

But the second generation is more likely to abandon those good values and foudnation because they don't have the same Christian upbringing as their parents, and don't have the reason for the values or behavior. The "why" (pleasing and obeying God) is gone, so the "what" (the 10 commandments, living a life of love, etc) gets eroded. Then parents wonder why their kids didn't turn out to have as good of values or behavior as they did. I often see this even among Christian parents who have faith and morality, but don't give their kids the same Christian training they had growing up. They think their kids will pick it up by osmosis without Christian trainging. But they usually don't.

This simply isn't true. I know people raised by atheists and remained atheist, and they grow up to be normal, well adjusted adults. In fact, they often don't have the baggage and problems that people that grow up in strict Christian households do. You're "they usually don't" claim is purely fictitious. What do you base it on? What your preacher tells you to think?

I suspect that if the USA continues to turn away from its Biblical foundations (which deists had as well as Christians), some "American" values (which are based on the Bible) will erode or change as well. And the result will be that the USA of 2050 will be uglier than that of 1950.

This is a flat out lie. As was said in the treaty of Tripoli, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and it has always been that way. Some of those "American values" you mentioned of the 1950's need to go away. I'm sure that black people will be a lot better off in 2050 than they were in 1950, for example.

I read an article on Japan recently about how the poor are looked down on and not cared for. The welfare system is very poor as a result. And, the article noted, there is no private safety net organizatiions because Japan does not have the tradition of "relgious" compassion for the poor (seen in Christian groups like Salvation Army and formely Christian groups like Goodwill). Japan has relgion (Shintoism) but not the Judeao-Christian religion that emphasizes compassion and care for the needy. In time atheism would produce the same thing.

The poor are looked down upon and not cared for well here either. Don't you think our welfare system sucks? Christianity is not the only religion that advocates taking care of each other. The very basis of society is that principle. Even animals have packs, flocks, and other groupings that help them take care of each other, and animals are certainly not Christian.

You view the world through Jesus colored glasses, and are unable to see the bigger picture. You give Christianity credit for things that are common sense and natural, yet you say those same things are somehow bad.

To me, atheism doesn't have good answers on some important questions, but this isn't always apparent until later, or until atheism dominates a society instead of being a small percentage of it as it is in the US.

I'm not aware of atheism ever dominating a society in modern times (communism doesn't count because it uses religious ideas as a base of government worship).

One of these topics has been alluded to a few times-- the idea that we all have the freedom to pick and choose our values, what we want to beleive and do, etc. I like freedom, too. It's better than oppression. But the problem is that this idea ends up in anarchy. It's impossible to have complete freedom without injuring each other. (If my values say stealing is perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances, that sounds good to you until you're my victim or vice versa.) A society can tolerate a few anarchists, but if a lot opf people become that way, it'll be obvious it doesn't work. WHich is why we need a Lord.

So you support freedom for some but slavery for most? You're presenting a false situation. If religion is man-made, that means that morals are man-made as well. Things like stealing not being morally acceptable are based on common sense and should not need a "lord" to enslave you and tell you right from wrong. If you can't tell right from wrong on a basic level you have a mental illness. Most people, Christian or not, know that it is wrong to steal.

Another problem (related to anarchy) is standards. If there are no universal standards, you're left with anarchy (mutual blood-letting of many kinds)... or with society making up the standards (ask Jews in Nazi Germany if they like that idea)... of oppresive dictatorship (this is the way of evolution- survival of the fittest). We need one Lord to survive as humans with some civility. Some days I think it would be a lot easier to not be a Christian. Then I wouldn't have to have quams about cheating on my wife when I felt like it, being harsh with my kids, stealing, etc. But the sensible part of me tells me that I'm better off in the long run with God's standards than following my feelings.

Alternatively, letting society define the rules rather than being under religious tyranny results in things like Democracy and Representative Republics. You can't just pick and choose the worst. Governments come from societies creating order, sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad.

One of the "big" reasons people abandon God is that they've been disappointed. A loved one dies, they get a chronic disease, etc. Then we ask "why?" and conclude God is not around so abandon beleif. But the fact is, abandoning God does not make disaoointment go away. Atheists still wonder "why?" and are no less disappointed with how life turns out than Christans are. But Christians have God to help them through it, which makes more sense to me.

This is a pure strawman. I'm not dissapointed with life after becoming an atheist. I'm pretty happy and live much more comfortably than I did as a Christian. You just make this stuff up to make yourself feel better about your choice.

I also think that one of the biggest needs we have is for grace. Not just overlloking our bad side and saying it's OK because we all have it. But genuine grace, calling our bad side genuinely evil, but having God's grace to forgive and more than cover it, to treat us better than we deserve. And I haven't seen a religion besides Christianity that is as severe in calling our "weaknesses" evil and sin while at the same time offering redemption and grace in Jesus Christ. God treats us better than we deserve.

You don't know what I need, and somehow I doubt you've looked into any religions other than Christianity for anything.

So on the big questions, to me Christianity has better answers than atheism/agnosticism.

That is your choice, but you don't need to act so egotistical and high and mighty in rejecting other people's choices. Don't state your opinions as fact and tell us that everyone needs to think like you do.

Not that it makes any difference but nope Dahlmer was NOT a ChristianJeffery Dahlmers (family) where church going types. If you dont believe me watch the MSNBC interview with Dahlmer from prison where he states that he "was" an evolutionist and an atheist. (In fact he said so in the interview) But like I said, It really isnt relevant.

I never saw the MSNBC interview, and maybe he claimed to be an atheist at the time (and only Christian fundamentalists use terms like "evolutionist", so if he did say that he did so as a Christian) but the fact is that he was raised in a strict Christian family and I read that he was baptized in prison by a Church of Christ pastor as well.

Of course, religious or not, what Jeffrey Dahmer had in common with us was the fact that he was a human being. He showed the great evil that any person is capable of in the absence of mental stability. This problem is not limited to people with or without religion, so I agree that it doesn't make any difference. Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, etc. are all capable of murder and I don't see religion stopping evil people from doing evil things.

Agnostic isn't nothing; it's a thought through belief system just like any religion. If what you say is true, that Geo meant we're all born with clean slates, then yes I agree, but to me saying we're all born agnostics suggests that any conclusion reached about a God requires some outside tampering beyond that required of other conclusions. THAT I don't agree with.

It's clear you don't understand the term "agnostic", which basically means the "clean slate" you are talking about. Atheism is what you are more against and consider a belief system, although there are different types of atheists.

Atheists like me and apparently George simply stopped worrying about the whole "god" thing and moved on with our lives. I see no evidence that a god exists, so I don't believe in it. It's not that I have "proof" there is no god, there's just no proof that there is one either, so why should I believe in it? It's not a "belief system", because there is nothing to believe in. It's literally the absence of belief.

Misterp-mosh

I seriously doubt that GW Junior wants to take away your citizenship. Do you have a link of a text where GW said that?

What happens with you guys is this: Sure there is some people like David Koresh or the guy of the cult who tried to catch Halleys comet or some wack job somewhere spouting off. This is not a reflection of Christian views which in almost all cases are most happy that you and I and everyone share in civil liberties. Christians could make the same mistake by saying people like Jeffery Dahlmer are reflective of atheists, but mostly we dont because we dont see a lot of cannibal zombie atheists running around. Lets have some harmony but stopping futile stereotyping. Ok?

As you've already seen, it was George H. W. Bush, which is usually in reference of the elder rather than George W. Bush who is the younger. Also, it took place before he was president.

I also was not indicating that all Christians are intolerant or dominionists. I just wanted to show how extreme of a bias against atheism exists in this nation, and how even though not everyone feels as extreme about it as Bush Sr., the majority of people would not be offended by him making such a statement, which is part of the problem.

Also, Jeffrey Dahmer was a member of the Church of Christ. He was not an atheist, and it's been theorized that his religious hatred for homosexuals enabled him to murder gay people and hate himself for being homosexual. Of course, I don't believe Jeffrey Dahmer to be a typical Christian, either.

I'm sure the roles will be reversed within a few generations. Religion will become a minority.

You used the term "bad behavior" and "good person". Did you read the article about the Japanese culture where suicide was considered a duty?

http://www.arthwollipot.com/articles/scien...moralrelativism

"Good" and "bad" are arbitrary. No, no god needed. "psychological problems" are an opinion. "natural instincts and feelings" -sounds genetic, so what's natural to you won't be the same for everyone.

I see no reason to believe that religion will be gone anytime soon, unless you think humans will all die off soon.

As far as the rest, I feel that you're building up a strawman of what I believe (or more accurately, don't believe) because you have a preconceived notion about what atheism is, and expect everything to fit within that narrow definition. You're trying to get me to agree with you when I clearly don't, and I don't see any benefit to either of us in continuing this.

who is pushing their views on you? Jehovah's witnesses? twi? 95% of people I run into don't want to talk about religion or Jesus, and if they do, in a very superficial sense.

It's a vocal minority of people who are out to change our nation and force us to essentially be a Christian version of the Taliban. You're lucky that you don't have to deal with these people at all, but as an atheist whenever a Christian finds out, I am usually treated differently. I have pretty much stopped discussing religion altogether with most people as a result. However, that doesn't stop these groups like the Army of God of trying to take over our country, or the less evil but still doing harm to our nation folks like Pat Robertson that are trying to push their religion into our laws. Think about it -- why don't we allow federal funding of stem cell research? What reason could we possibly have not to allow it when the federal government funds all kinds of medical research, and should be funding one that holds a lot of promise like this one?

It's difficult to understand what it's like to be a non-Christian in this country if you're a Christian because these loudmouths have convinced so many people that this nation was founded upon Christianity when it clearly was not. However, if it would help you see things from my way, look at the statement George H. W. Bush made concerning atheists:

I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

to me atheism is this: you will cease to exist any minute, if you don't get caught before you die, you win. morals, love, and loyalty may be part of a social structure but they are to be played, not followed, to the best of your ability.

I want to know why should I think otherwise?

If you require the belief that someone is watching over you and will punish you for bad behavior in order to be a good person, then you have some pretty major psychological problems. Morals, love, and loyalty are natural instincts and feelings. I hear statements like yours all the time and hope that people don't really believe that to be the case, but it seems like a very strange idea.

In either case, the reason you should think otherwise is because it's common sense to expect human beings to have human feelings and emotions, especially if you see things as I do. In my view, religion was invented by humans in order to help explain social structures, morals, feelings, etc. not the other way around.

and is determined largely by your genetics. It didn't always exist. And it won't always exist.

We have nothing to base any ideas of the future of love on scientifically. I think it will exist as long as life exists, but who knows really? There's no way to know.

and no, I don't consider atheists vulcans. but I see books like "Good without God", which I do plan to read. It sounds silly. It sounds like religion reincarnated under an atheistic label.

The problem is that religious people tie together the concept of "good" with religion. In reality, morals exist within the human mind and society, religion is just a way of organizing the personal and social values into a unified group.

"good" and "evil" are arbitrary. In some species, mothers eat their young as soon as they are born. It is considered good for the species, because the weak are culled out.

Right, but that obviously doesn't apply to humans.

what matters in evolution is that traits, genetic and non-genetic, are passed on. If a species can reproduce w/o the need for love, it could become a "diluted" trait. If it gives members a disadvantage in the future they could be eliminated. An Aldous Huxley kind of scenario.

I think you could think up a loveless supernatural being. My question is about athesim, not theism. In considering atheism, all I see is atheists attacking theism. Is that all atheism is?

You could be right, but that's like saying, "If humans could reproduce and evolve away from the process of breathing, we might no longer breathe."

As far as atheism being anti-theism, we are to a degree but only because theists push their views on us. There is little more annoying than some religious jerk coming up to you and telling you that you're going to hell because you don't believe in Jesus, or that you're a good person, so surely Jesus will show himself to you and you'll suddenly "learn", or any of the other holier than thou attitudes we face on a regular basis.

However, we are more than just anti-theists. It's not a matter of being a Christian or anti-Christian. In mathematical terms, we aren't 1 or -1, we're 0. We simply have no belief. There's no strict moral code, no set of beliefs, or any unifying thing other than the absence of a belief in gods.

I saw a video on the subject where Dawkins put some kind of helmet on to try and trigger a "religous experience". Maybe you've seen it, I forget what it was called.

I haven't seen it. Believe it or not, I think Dawkins can be a bit obnoxious so I'm not his biggest fan even if we do agree on certain things.

How do you view love and label something as good or evil or right or wrong?

Love is what it is. There is plenty of evidence of it that pretty much everyone experiences and shares. Atheists are not Vulcans from Star Trek. Emotions are real, observable, and experiencable.

a religious person might see the universe as a result of love. The universe was made because God wanted someone to love. All things follow from that.

an atheist, I would think in general, would see love as a product of evolution. The universe just simply came into being, and only recently, within the past 200 million years, love developed because it gave some species in the animal kingom, or just some vertabrates, a reproductive/survival advantage. Humans have just inherited this trait.

Perhaps. I haven't thought too much about it really. Emotions do seem to have some evolutionary traits and help us survive. However, since I don't follow your belief that "the universe was made because God wanted someone to love", I don't have to justify everything with that premise. Of course, that begs the question of why this supposedly perfect "god" would be lacking so much that he would have to create us to fulfill that.

I would also assume love would one day, possibly, become a vestigial trait. Much like our jerky response when sleep, which some believe is due to a survival response we've inherited. (our ancestors slept in trees, so those who didn't fall out had a better chance of reproducing, thus the sudden awakenings)

yes?

I see no reason for that to happen. I seriously doubt that humans will survive long enough to risk evolving to that degree anyway. Besides, the conditions that make love possible still exist, unlike the sleeping in trees thing.

As an atheist, my view is that love is love. It has no need for the supernatural to exist. The two are apples and oranges to me. You need religion to feel love as much as you need unicorns to eat pancakes.

Don't know what you mean.

Dawkins connects religious folks' "experiences" with their genetic make-up. Some have it, some don't. Those who don't tend to be persecuted and even eliminated. Thus the majority of the human population is religious, (because of their biology).

Concepts like love and loyalty can be connected to some evolutionary advantage for a species. They were advantageous for the human species for a time. That doesn't mean they always will be. If the supernatural is an illusion, why not our sense of free will, love, humanity etc. Why can't they be delusions too?

It's related to explaining what you're talking about, but research is being done on the brain where scientists are triggering "religious experiences." I suggest reading this Wired article for an easy (e.g. non-scientific) article about it.

This does not do anything to explain the existence/lack of existence of any supernatural though. To the atheist, it will look like "proof" that religion is purely psychological, while to the "believer" it will seem to be proof that God put something in our brains to connect with him. In either case though, it is an interesting look into the mechanics of the human mind.

I'd answer, Mosh, but you've made up your mind. Extremist? Please.

Is it okay for people, regardless their beliefs, to be politcally involved? Or is it that only 'approved list' beliefs need apply?

That depends on your definition of being "politically involved." If it is to strengthen the country and do good, then people should be involved. If the goal is to subvert the principles the country was founded upon (freedom, not religion) in order to force people to follow your religion, then I'm against it.