NoGodBlog.com

Theistic backlash op-eds are a dime-a-dozen these days, and I think it's great.

Who would've thought that a handful of books and a single congressman would inspire such a heated reaction? It's fantastic - our arguments are striking a nerve with the public, and theists are scrambling to assemble a coherent response (to no avail.)

Of course we're subjected to the same old tired chestnuts: Vocal atheism only inspires more faith, Hitler and Stalin "were atheists" therefore atheism = communism/fascism, without religion man would have no moral compass (atheism will make you a criminal), lots of people are religious therefore there must be a god, America has lots of Christians and America is powerful therefore Christianity is true, blah blah blah. Good grief, have any of these guys actually read the arguments they're claiming to refute? Sure doesn't sound like it.

Theists are constantly trying to instill a sense of codependency of ethics and religion. I can't believe how many people - when hearing I am atheist - become literally scared of me, as if at the next turn I will cut their heads off and light them on fire.

Here is a real special comment from the article.

"The books referenced above assert that the debate is over and that atheism has won, but atheists have been saying that for more than 200 years."

Classical mechanincs is over 300 years old. Special relativity is almost 100 years old. Quantum mechanics is at least 85 years old.
Classical thermodynamics is over 200 years old and Statistical thermodynamics is over
100 years old. Yet very few peolpe can even recite with adequate understanding one of the three laws of classical mechanics. They usually totally botch the second law of thermodynamics if they have ever even heard of it. Quantum mechanics? Special Relativity? Forget it.

So what's this guy's point that humanity is full of slow learners. Duh!

"Hitler and Stalin "were atheists" therefore atheism = communism/fascism,"

Bush is a xtian and humanity's public enemy #1.

Should have read:

So what's this guy's point? That humanity is full of slow learners? Duh!

K.:

I can't believe how many people - when hearing I am atheist - become literally scared of me, as if at the next turn I will cut their heads off and light them on fire.

Um . . . you mean we're NOT supposed to do that?

:-)

pixel,
No, we're supposed to burn down their churches during Sunday mass. THEN cut their heads off and light them on fire. After raping their women and children of course and then aborting the fetuses we had impregnated them with.

People like that (those who just -jump- to conclusions about atheists) make me angry.

I mean, even my own classmates asked me, "are.. are you going to shoot people or something?" (That was after I told them I was an atheist)

Looks like they've noticed the new zeitgeist.

The paradigm shift towards secularism in the USA is terrifying to the religious and I think its great. This sort of reactionsim from them is a direct response to what they see as a threat to their control and worldview.

That whole thing where atheists must be immoral is really weird. They just don't seem to realise that they are saying that they believe themselves to be sociopaths held back only by their fear of god and hell.

I'm not even sure just where they find this particular pitcher of koolaid. I don't remember any sermons or sunday school lessons that used atheists as the boogeyman.

All I can think of is that it is derived from the constant repetition of repent and pray for forgiveness on sunday followed by six days of accumulating guilt. Rinse and repeat, as it were.

Don Feder deserves a really thorough fisking for his assembly of lies. I hope to read several soon.

Did anyone figure out how to read/make comments on the USAToday site?

I believe that until one comes to the conclusion that there is no God, there is no way to understand the morality behind it.

I couldn't be more sick of hearing that old, tired saying, 'Hitler was an atheist', when in fact, he was a very devout Catholic. (For you theists out there, just read Mein Kampf and you'll see what I mean.)
I'm tired of theists making up stories to prop up their delusional ideas.
Sadly, this character who wrote this piece (of crap) is only feeding into it and furthering the lies about us and our morals.
Funny, the most moral people I've ever met were non-theists, and the most immoral have been fundies.
Go figure.

Pixel, Eviatheist:

Ahh... you know I'm sure I was missing something in my everday atheistic haunting and hellraising. I forgot about the burning of the churches, god dammit, i always forget that one.

Niall:

I had a similar, "you're not going to shoot me?" response. Saddest thing was it came from my girlfriend of 7 months. "Why didn't you tell me this before?"... "You mean before you feel in love with me; the person I am; and the way I treat other humans?" Oh I forgot, suddenly at this shedding of light, I am a monster and all past actions and ideas are now negated.

Needless to say, we broke up. I never hid my beliefs, I just didn't force them on her.

I am an atheist in Texas and a preschool teacher. I read this forum on a regular basis and have kept quiet until now. Feder's article has me dadgum fired-up somethin' awful. What does he mean by "faith endures"? Is it the "faith" of Pat Robertson claiming he can lift 2,000lbs after swallowing his own brand of vitamin shakes? Is it the "faith" of a narcoleptic Pentecostal preacher with 17 cats who sucks down cases of Tab and reads the "Left Behind" books as nonfiction and who passes out every night in a Percocet haze while watching endless reruns of "Knight Rider"? Is it the "faith" of the creepy megachurches with their glossy preprogrammed pastors and syrupy self-help books and proselytizing websites and hateful radio brainwashin' programs and malicious teenage abstinence seminars they have to go along with the nearly naked virgin car-wash fundraisers they offer up to Jesus on warm summer Sundays...And I quote Feder, "America has the highest weekly church attendance in the industrialized world (...)" Okay. Basta.Sorry about the rant...had to get it off my chest...I have a hard time with the word "faith".

Welcome aboard, Barbie.
Funny that you mentioned how many 'church goin' folk' we have (one of the highest percentages in the world), but yet, we are one of the most violent.

Hmmm...

I once met a woman who recently moved to the US from Australia, and when I asked her about what is the biggest adjustment with the move, she said it was with how violent and angry we are.
I had no answer for her.

Well I've got a busy day tommorrow doing one of my normal, hateful anti-Xian things.

I'm going to get a bunch of my Atheist friends and hold up signs outside of a xian funeral that says, "Nature hates Christians".

Boise Jim,
Here's a sight talking about how Hitler was a christian. It has a bunch of quotes from Hitler.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
Also, about the woman from Australia's comment, that's something I've been wondering about myself. I find it odd that we have such a bad crime rate and so many awful murders committed every year. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see those things going on in most industrial countries. I can't figure out why it's so bad over here.

Barbiebrains,
Welcome and feel free to rant. We all have at one point or another.

The tone of the column is predictably triumphalistic, and accompanied by the usual small-mindedness of religionists. But the fundamental error the writer makes is to project his own arrogance and small-mindedness (or more properly, that of his religion) upon the writers of the books he criticizes.

In his own words he reveals just how small his god really is. He speaks of an "ego-centered" atheist universe replacing one that is god-centered, but what he clearly misses is the humility that arises when one confronts the reality of a universe without any "centeredness" at all.

This atheist's world is special because of the wonder it provokes every day, and the joy I feel in living life as a free, liberated human agent. His world is special only to the extent that it includes a god that cares about him and watches his every move. Tell me again, whose is the ego-centric worldview?

As a nation we're violent and angry and...mostly christian.

Hmmmmm.

Evil

"I find it odd that we have such a bad crime rate and so many awful murders committed every year."

The GOP answer to all problems: More Jeezuz, more guns.

Merry

"what he clearly misses is the humility that arises when one confronts the reality of a universe without any "centeredness" at all."

EXACTLY!


DD Dropout

"They just don't seem to realise that they are saying that they believe themselves to be sociopaths held back only by their fear of god and hell."

Religion is the self medicating of potential mass murderers. Do we really want to get between them and their fix knowing consequences? If religion were actually effective in help the sociopath suppress violent compulsions then I would say no. But clearly it is not effective. Blast away!

What,
"Religion is the self medicating of potential mass murderers. Do we really want to get between them and their fix knowing consequences? If religion were actually effective in help the sociopath suppress violent compulsions then I would say no. But clearly it is not effective. Blast away!"

Damn, so that means that there are even more crazies out there than the ones we know about. The only thing holding them back is religion. Napoleon Chagnon was right.

As you say, What. I would certainly never want to make one of them lose their faith if I believed what they seem to be saying of themselves.

Me: "And that's why I don't believe"

Him: "I see what you mean... Now give me your wallet or else.

Me: "Pray with me on this!"

Don Feder's opinion is based on atheophobic ignorance and spite.Atheophobia is in a way fun to read and make fun of.I like to read atheophobic and other fundie stuff with a head full of Landover Baptist and Betty Bowers. Try it some time if you haven't already.

Is the opiate of the masses becoming the crystal meth of the masses..

septos:

Is the opiate of the masses becoming the crystal meth of the masses..

Somebody's tweaking, b/c I keep hearing the same creationist nonsense over & over again. No god no morality.

It's almost as if they're cognitively defective.

The article is completely misleading.

OK...I'm at a loss here. Exactly how is this article misleading?

Why the sudden outpouring of atheist advocacy?

Now that's a simple question to answer...the most popular word in capitalism is...COPY

A universe that isn't God-centered becomes ego-centered. People come to see choices through the prism of self: what promotes the individual's well-being and happiness. Such a worldview does not naturally lead to benevolence or self-sacrifice.

This is a very profound statement...I'd be curious to know how a non-believer might disagree with this statement...

There are no secularist counterparts to Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa, William Wilberforce (the evangelical responsible for abolition of the British slave trade), Martin Luther King Jr., or the Christians — from France to Poland — who rescued Jews during the Holocaust.

Can anyone prove this statement as inaccurate...?

This is not to say that atheism leads naturally to guillotines and gulags

FWIW...I definitely agree with this statement...

Mark Twain wrote: "The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up, held their torch high for a time, but it burned out and they sit in twilight now or have vanished.

All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?"

This is an amazing fact of history...I've quoted this often. Yes I know Twain was a non-believer but even he recognized an amazing Truth...

All in all I think this is a very well balanced article and I honestly don't see why a non-believer would view it as misleading...

Silly superstitious ritual observers love to hijack common law, science, morality, and other nice words....It is not for an atheist to disprove the bullshit....it is up to the theist to prove there delusion.....

Obviously the writer has been brainwashed beyond sanity...

Life is a wonderful thing...without its progress to date...I'd be not...The evidence is clear that life has been around for and will continue for time we cannot even appreciate....I need know easy answer of a supreme being....a dangerous answer that supersedes logic, common sense and yes...morality...killing life in the name of a supreme being is a gross disrespect of life....

F the stupid believers and their notion that they need faith to live respecting life.....

I find it very interesting that when we discuss how the religious claim we are immoral, we instantly go to violent sins. What they actually mean are those things they make up as sinful. So when accused of immorality, I always answer "you are damn right." I have read Grapes of Wrath and Slaughter House Five. I listen to John Coltrane on an almost constance basis along with Miles Davis and Ornette Coleman (who just received this year's Pulitzer Prize for music.) As a matter of fact, I wouldn't know what movies to watch, what music to enjoy, or books to read without the religious telling me it is sin to listen to or read or watch. I'm a sinner and plan to stay that way.

From the article:

How inspiring can it be to wake in the morning, look in the mirror, and see an accident of evolutionary history — the end product of the random collision of molecules?”

You could simply put up a sticky note saying "I am a great person".

This is the same attitude where childeren aren't supposed to be on a losing team and every kid gets a medal. Sure, they feel good about themselves, but the don't learn anything about real life.

phreedm - I agree with you; this article was in no way misleading.

What I find interesting is no one here has refuted the statements of the article. Instead, it's turned to Christian bashing, name calling, and mud slinging. It would seem to me if the article's claims were so easy to refute, that's what you would do first. Seriously.

Christianity causes mental illness. Removing christianity is the first step toward fixing the problem. Deprogramming the victim won't be successful if the christianity is not removed first.

Christians suck. Seriously.

A universe that isn't God-centered becomes ego-centered. People come to see choices through the prism of self: what promotes the individual's well-being and happiness. Such a worldview does not naturally lead to benevolence or self-sacrifice.

Excuse me? I see no one more ego-centered than the self-proclaimed pastors of the United States. Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? James Dobson? no egos there, huh?

There are no secularist counterparts to Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa, William Wilberforce (the evangelical responsible for abolition of the British slave trade), Martin Luther King Jr., or the Christians — from France to Poland — who rescued Jews during the Holocaust.

I happen to see each and every one of us as the counterparts to these religious persons today. We're trying our best to 'rescue' our country from the religious zealots intent on taking our freedoms away!!!!

A bit of humility might make their case more convincing. Then again, humility is itself a religious concept.

O REALLY? I don't see many humble religious leaders - could you point them out for me?


Finally, if their god is all that's keeping them from murder, then I say they should keep their imaginary friend. Better that than having all these loving christians running around with their guns and imposing death on all non-believers!

Coincidentally, I had an opinion column published today, on the subject of religion and morality, questioning the common assertion that one must believe in god to be moral.

For anyone interested, it can be found here:
"Ungodly goodness"
http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=40768

Quote from the article:
“There are no secularist counterparts to Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa, William Wilberforce (the evangelical responsible for abolition of the British slave trade), Martin Luther King Jr., or the Christians — from France to Poland — who rescued Jews during the Holocaust.”

Quote from phreedm:
“Can anyone prove this statement as inaccurate...?”

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are both atheists and they have donated billions of dollars to Africa to help with the AIDS epidemic. Bill Gates and his wife Melinda even have a foundation that collects money for different charities. This is a link to their foundation:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

Wilson Gildee is an atheist and a philanthropist who has donated large amounts of money to help poor children from single parent homes get a better education. http://forum.cygnus-study.com/archive/index.php/t-4052.html

Andrew Carnagie was an atheist. He is probably one of the best known philanthropists. He started the Carnegie Corporation of New York in 1911 to promote “the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding.” http://www.carnegie.org/

“Perhaps the most openly free thinking living philanthropist is George Soros, who openly stated that he did not believe in God on the December 20, 1998 broadcast of 60 Minutes. Building on the philosophy of an "open society" espoused by Karl Popper, Soros founded and has donated more than $5 billion to the Open Society Institute (OSI). The OSI aims to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights and economic, legal and social reform.” This taken from: http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=252&article=0

“Ted Turner, creator of CNN and TBS, is an atheist philanthropist who was named the 1990 Humanist of the Year. Turner has used his fortune to create foundations that support international cooperation and protect the environment. Perhaps his most well-known effort is the United Nations Foundation, which Turner created in 1998 with a commitment of up to $1 billion. The UN Foundation works to educate opinion leaders, policy makers and the general public on the work of the UN and to build global cooperation (while also encouraging the United States to pay its dues.” This taken from the same site as above.

Gee phreedm, that’s seven people (including Melinda Gates) who have all done major philanthropic works all without the fear of some afterlife torture and without the hope of happiness in the afterlife. These people donated their time and money simply out of the kindness of their hearts and the empathy for the human plight. I guess that proves you and the article to be wrong.

One could go through the article and refute all of the author's opinions. Unfortunately, it is mind numbingly hollow. To suggest that one could find anything approaching the profound in the writing demonstrates the existence of considerable cranial void.

Fortunately it is just an opinion and a silly one at that.

Quote from the article:
“A universe that isn't God-centered becomes ego-centered. People come to see choices through the prism of self: what promotes the individual's well-being and happiness. Such a worldview does not naturally lead to benevolence or self-sacrifice.”

Quote from phreedm:
“This is a very profound statement...I'd be curious to know how a non-believer might disagree with this statement...”

So you and the writer of the article think that it is more ego-centered to believe in nothing having created you than to believe that some supernatural, super powerful being created humans in his image and loves you personally and created this entire universe just for humans?

RNA said, "Christianity causes mental illness."


I think religion as a whole is itself a symptom of mental illness. Consider how an adult person who had no concept of religion would react when confronted with the absurdity of it? Somehow we all know a child's imaginary friend is imaginary, but when it comes to an invisible man in the sky, millions of otherwise intelligent adults believe in it. It truly is childish and absurd.

Honestly, how would you react if I told you I have an imaginary friend? Yeah, he's really powerful, too. Just yesterday I asked him for some money, and he sent me a pop-up ad for Monster.com so I could get some! He's so awesome, you guys. If you send me some money, he'll do stuff for you, too. I'm writing a book about him because I think everyone should talk to him and ask him for stuff. And basically if you keep not doing what you're already not doing (you know, not killing people and stuff), he'll take you to Hawaii when you die. My imaginary friend is so cool.

I left my two-cents worth. It'll probably just be ignored, but it's something I had to say.

TIM,
Indeed, your imaginary friend is awesome, but mine's better. He takes credit whenever something goes right, and then whenever things get really shitty he blames it on his imaginary arch enemy. He also makes me bow down to him and talk to him when no one is around so people think I'm crazy, but really I'm just talking to my imaginary friend. And he loves me. I know he loves me because he sends plagues upon me. He's just playing hard to get. ;)
He also says I shouldn't have sex until I get married, but he raped a virgin and got her pregnant. You know, he doesn't even pay child support. Come to think of it, my imaginary friend is an asshole!

Comment from: evilatheistconquerer

While it's great to give some wealth away for noble causes I believe you've missed the point entirely.

Name an atheist who has dedicated their life to improve the lives of others...one who has gotten down in the trenches and has personally sacrificed to improve the lives of others...not one who has only written a check from their surplus but one who has given ALL...

Fragilex – I find two major problems with your op-ed piece.

1. What is your definition of “good”. Your very first line is a question that it seems you attempt to answer, “Can we be good without belief in god(s)?” What does it mean to be “good” and where do you derive that standard?
2. Or do you answer the “good” and “behave morally” question when you say “… nonbelievers who adhere to social and personal moral standards.” In other words, there is no such thing as absolute and unchanging good and evil in the world, as it is based on social and personal standards. If that is the case, then the rest of your article is moot.

“Regardless of the source of our ‘moral sense’” … ah, therein lies the rub.

Remy - "One could go through the article and refute all of the author's opinions. Unfortunately, it is mind numbingly hollow." That's fine and totally your business. I just find it interesting that when a Christian writes an opinion piece about morality and atheism the atheist responses on this blog were to attack Christianity, Christians, and resort to name-calling. In that way, you've adequately proven his point ... have you not?

phreedm,
Are you kidding me? I did cite people. Bill and Melinda Gates themselves have dedicated their lives to it! Sure, they didn't start when they were infants, but he even quit his job so he could focus only on the foundation. He's giving most of his money to the foundation; he's only giving his kids a small amount of it. And Carnagie gave most of his money too. Did you even read a damn thing in those links?

Comment from: evilatheistconquerer

“A universe that isn't God-centered becomes ego-centered. People come to see choices through the prism of self: what promotes the individual's well-being and happiness. Such a worldview does not naturally lead to benevolence or self-sacrifice.”

Quote from phreedm:
“This is a very profound statement...I'd be curious to know how a non-believer might disagree with this statement...”

So you and the writer of the article think that it is more ego-centered to believe in nothing having created you than to believe that some supernatural, super powerful being created humans in his image and loves you personally and created this entire universe just for humans?

In short...Yes. Why would a humanist give ALL to make life a better place for their fellow humans...? A believer finds their purpose to life externally. A non-believer can only find their purpose life from within. I've heard it many times from this board that there is "no purpose" to life. Life just happened...

phreedm...

Who created the Red Cross?
An atheist.

phreedm,
So then the person that finds their reason for helping humanity from within rather than externally from god would be the more morally correct since they aren't trying to get anything out of it like eternity in heaven.

Mother Theresa hurt more people than she helped. Why do people think she was such a good person? People are stupid, and turn a blind eye to the truth.

phreedm
I wish you would pay more attention.
Before you even asked

This is a very profound statement...I'd be curious to know how a non-believer might disagree with this statement...

Merryatheist had already made this statement:

In his own words he reveals just how small his god really is. He speaks of an "ego-centered" atheist universe replacing one that is god-centered, but what he clearly misses is the humility that arises when one confronts the reality of a universe without any "centeredness" at all.

This atheist's world is special because of the wonder it provokes every day, and the joy I feel in living life as a free, liberated human agent. His world is special only to the extent that it includes a god that cares about him and watches his every move. Tell me again, whose is the ego-centric worldview?

Having to believe that one is the object of affection and direction of an imaginary being, just in case no one else loves you is totally egocentric, as opposed to believing one is simply a part of the natural world.

That's fine and totally your business. I just find it interesting that when a Christian writes an opinion piece about morality and atheism the atheist responses on this blog were to attack Christianity, Christians, and resort to name-calling. In that way, you've adequately proven his point, have you not?

No... Article has many misinformed "points"... Didn't mention Christianity... Said the article was hollow... My opinion.... Epithet aimed at one who deserves it... When I do use name calling it is from a position of last resort and I am in a continual state of ultimate recourse when it comes to theists.

Oops, Only 'many, was to have been bold.

remy - I need to apologize. That was not meant as an attack on you personally. I quoted you and then meant to speak to the wider group of "you" not individually "you".

My apologies for not being more clear.

In googling Don Feder, it appears he is Jewish. For those of you on this blog who have bashed Christianity and Christians specifically for the words of this man, perhaps you should reconsider. Statements such as "Removing christianity is the first step toward fixing the problem." are clearly blind-sighted.

An atheist like Bill Gates has done more to alleviate human suffering than any religious figure ever has. Not only does his charity work make a difference but his hand in creating computer technolgy has changed our world for the better in innumerable ways. Atheistic scientists have created the modern world we live in and thanks to them we have modern medicine, health, and an improved standard of living. If the xians had their way we would all still be living short and brutal lives fearful of a vengeful sky daddy. Fuck that.

interesting:
Here, I'll field this.

1. What is your definition of “good”. Your very first line is a question that it seems you attempt to answer, “Can we be good without belief in god(s)?” What does it mean to be “good” and where do you derive that standard?

Okay, translation is, "Define your terms a little more pedantically."
I can't speak for Fragilex, but I'm guessing it's pretty much the agreed upon standard.
Hollow question #2:

2. Or do you answer the “good” and “behave morally” question when you say “… nonbelievers who adhere to social and personal moral standards.” In other words, there is no such thing as absolute and unchanging good and evil in the world, as it is based on social and personal standards. If that is the case, then the rest of your article is moot.

Translation: "I'm sure you're a moral relativist, let's play word games."
I'm a moral naturalist, so there are specific forms of good & evil (for me) - specifically doing harm on an individual or groups.

“Regardless of the source of our ‘moral sense’” … ah, therein lies the rub.

Translation: "Let's give religion the credit."
What rubbish.

I just find it interesting that when a Christian writes an opinion piece about morality and atheism the atheist responses on this blog were to attack Christianity, Christians, and resort to name-calling. In that way, you've adequately proven his point ... have you not?

Here's the problem (& as you seem to be woefully misinformed on the back story) - these op-ed pieces (of crap) never ever bother to investigate. The bulk of them make un-researched assumptions, & sally forth from there.
There's simply no effort made, in the piece under discussion, or in many, MANY others to discuss/investigate the other side of the coin.
Instead, they all seem to spew up the same boilerplate crap: point to communism, folderol about not being able to 'absolutely prove or disprove the existence of', & a pile of other fallacies & common misperceptions.
Let me put it in perspective: if YOU were a member of a minority, & YOU kept running into newspaper articles that spouted a load of running crap (all untrue) about YOUR minority, I'm betting you'd be a little less than civil about it.
It gets old pretty darn toot sweet.

fragilex:

Your opinion column is excellent. Thanks for the link.

interesting:

Uh, no you're not.

Belief in christianity causes the believer to remove themselves from reality, that causes them do disassociate from the true meaning of life, which is to try to improve the living environment on earth. Christianity demands that its followers think in terms of fantasy after death which distances them from real life on earth.

The source of the problem is christianity, by removing christianity the mental illness of its followers will heal.

Christians know within themselves that their god is nothing more than an idea. All of a christians thoughts of living with their god idea after they die are purely selfish and self-centered, by definition they are only acting to save themselves.

Christians are stupid.

Krystalline Apostate – I appreciate your response to my post. For the record - No. If I were in the minority and continually read "newspaper articles that spouted a load of running crap (all untrue) about YOUR minority" I would battle it with ideas, facts, and expose misconceptions … in a calm manner. I don't tend to resort to name-calling when I am wanting to have my ideas to be heard and received. ala "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt.

And I'm not trying to play word games with you. I'm trying to understand the conclusions that you come to as naturally as the ones I come to, albeit on opposite ends of the field.

You wrote, “Okay, translation is, "Define your terms a little more pedantically."
I can't speak for Fragilex, but I'm guessing it's pretty much the agreed upon standard.”

You’re guessing?!! I have issue with this definition of good being up to the “agreed upon standard”, and frankly I think you do too. WHO is agreeing on this standard? So, Nazi Germans were doing “good” in regards to the Jews because it was, afterall, the “agreed upon standard” … at least for the ruling party. You haven’t defined “good” in any objective way. Nor have you objectively given me any idea of where and how you come to this conclusion of what is good and what is not.

“Hollow question #2:”

I did not deserve that.

“Translation: ‘I'm sure you're a moral relativist, let's play word games.’
I'm a moral naturalist, so there are specific forms of good & evil (for me) - specifically doing harm on an individual or groups.”

Okay. You're not a moral relativist, but a moral naturalist. a. What is that? And b.What is the difference? Especially since you added the "for me" qualifier. Again - how do you come to the conclusion of what is good and what is evil?

“Here's the problem (& as you seem to be woefully misinformed on the back story) - these op-ed pieces (of crap) never ever bother to investigate. The bulk of them make un-researched assumptions, & sally forth from there.
There's simply no effort made, in the piece under discussion, or in many, MANY others to discuss/investigate the other side of the coin.
Instead, they all seem to spew up the same boilerplate crap: point to communism, folderol about not being able to 'absolutely prove or disprove the existence of', & a pile of other fallacies & common misperceptions. “

Perhaps. Or perhaps we should take note that they’re ALSO categorized under “Opposite the -EDitorial” page where OPINIONS and VIEWPOINTS are expressed. It is in the categorizing that we see this is OPINION … an EDITORIAL. So, if you think the opinion is silly and comes to erroneous conclusions, then challenge the IDEAS presented. Or, alternately, IGNORE the opinion. But at least acknowledge it for what it is – it’s not being offered as news. If people can not differentiate between the two, then that is their problem.
... Now if I can just learn how to do those fancy block quotes, this might be easier...

Ignorance did not invade USA Today. It runs USA Today. Many of us are old enough to remember when News sources reported news. While we were all sleeping the game changed. News is a very loose term these days. The meaning of the word is not the same it once was. Moon landing deniers are given equal voice as if their claims were equal. The bible is taught as real history on the History channel. We lost a major component of our democracy, and most still don't know it has gone the way of the DoDo bird.
A world where money means more than truth is dangerous, without the critical thinking skills people can lose all grip on reality. Sad but true.

interesting:
You say that if you were part of a minority that kept getting falsely accused of things it has no involvement in, that you would discuss it calmly and rationally.
First off, you can't know because you have no idea how it feels for us.
Second, I doubt that you could be calm, because we (atheists, agnostics, etc.) have been pushed around to the point that we have our backs against the wall, and the only option at this point is to come out swinging.
The reason for this backlash is because of believers, much like yourself. We have been constantly lied about- mostly by men of the cloth. Then, believers who refuse to think for themselves and do a little research, compound these lies, and it spreads.
Give me one good shred of evidence of atheists acting immoral, as a whole group or standard. You can't, because we are some of the most caring people in the world.
Why?
Because we know in our hearts that this is the only shot we get on this planet (or anything else), and we cherish it and the people around us. We don't do good things for people just to get heaven brownie points. We do good things for people because we love how it makes them feel, and it's the right thing to do.

Continuing to spread lies is immoral, and the wrong thing to do.
Why?
Because it HURTS people.

interesting:

For the record - No. If I were in the minority and continually read "newspaper articles that spouted a load of running crap (all untrue) about YOUR minority" I would battle it with ideas, facts, and expose misconceptions … in a calm manner.

Advice easily given when you’re not on the receiving end.

I don't tend to resort to name-calling when I am wanting to have my ideas to be heard and received. ala "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt.

More advice easily given when you’re not on the receiving end. It would be nice if the other side of the field were as high-minded as you insist we should be.

And I'm not trying to play word games with you. I'm trying to understand the conclusions that you come to as naturally as the ones I come to, albeit on opposite ends of the field.

A little more questions, more research, & less judgment then, if you please.

You’re guessing?!! I have issue with this definition of good being up to the “agreed upon standard”, and frankly I think you do too. WHO is agreeing on this standard? So, Nazi Germans were doing “good” in regards to the Jews because it was, afterall, the “agreed upon standard” … at least for the ruling party. You haven’t defined “good” in any objective way. Nor have you objectively given me any idea of where and how you come to this conclusion of what is good and what is not.

Of course I’m guessing. Do I know you? No. You may be the 21st CE’s answer to Charlie Manson, for all I know. Not saying you are: example only.
I can’t give you an ‘objective good’, because, alas, I’m only human, & it goes thru a speciocentric filter. It’s sufficient to say, that I consider evil to be whenever 1 person forces upon another person against their will.

I did not deserve that.

I’ll be the ‘objective’ judge of that, thanks. (hehehehe)

Okay. You're not a moral relativist, but a moral naturalist. a. What is that? And b.What is the difference? Especially since you added the "for me" qualifier. Again - how do you come to the conclusion of what is good and what is evil?

A moral naturalist, in my subjective definition, is ““Moral naturalism is a form of cognitivism derived from applying evolutionary game-theory to ethics. Rather than interpreting morality as the result of negotiations between members of a large group of free moral agents, moral naturalism sees morality as an emergent phenomenon arising as an unintended side-effect of the interaction of those agents in smaller groups.”
My definition of good & evil is – see above.

Perhaps. Or perhaps we should take note that they’re ALSO categorized under “Opposite the -EDitorial” page where OPINIONS and VIEWPOINTS are expressed. It is in the categorizing that we see this is OPINION … an EDITORIAL. So, if you think the opinion is silly and comes to erroneous conclusions, then challenge the IDEAS presented. Or, alternately, IGNORE the opinion. But at least acknowledge it for what it is – it’s not being offered as news. If people can not differentiate between the two, then that is their problem.

Wow. This is a culture of sound bytes & word bytes. Many people come to their opinions in a lazy, haphazard manner.
For the record, I HAVE indeed attacked the IDEAS. It’s difficult in the ‘talk-show’ environment of America to NOT attack the messenger. I prefer to go after the concepts presented. However, when you see someone like say, Coulter or Schlussel going absolutely apeshit on the airwaves or the internet, blathering cognitive dissonance (& getting taken seriously, no less!), ad hominems come very easily.
I for 1 get tired of folks trying to hold us to a standard that they don’t abide by.
“Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us. “ - Thomas Jefferson
& you also miss the point entirely: for instance, I ridiculed your position, & you took it as a personal slight. Hard to get past that: if I attack your IDEAS, are you going to get all wobbly about it every time?

... Now if I can just learn how to do those fancy block quotes, this might be easier...

http://css.nu/examples/blockquotes.html

interesting,

KA and others have answered you well. I will simply add that I have been coming here for only 7 months or so and have had to defend against the same tired, ill-informed statements made in the article again and again. As a consequence it often seems futile to respond in a "calm manner". One individual in particular, deserves no respect, and to argue with him is beyond reason.

About Feder's imaginary Mother Theresa...A better hagiography...

Hitchens, Christopher. The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice....(1995)

Hitchens:Yes, she's a poster girl for the right-to-life wing in America. She was used as the example of Christian idealism and family values, of all things, by Ralph Reed - the front man of the Pat Robertson forces. That's a symptom of a wider problem that I call "reverse ecumenicism," an opportunist alliance between extreme Catholics and extreme Protestants who used to exclude and anathematize one another.

In private Pat Robertson has nothing but contempt for other Christian denominations, including many other extreme Protestant ones. But in public the Christian Coalition stresses that it is very, very keen to make an alliance with Catholics. There is a shallow, opportunist ecumenicism among religious extremists, and Mother Teresa is quite willingly and happily in its service. She knows exactly who she is working for and with. But I think she is happiest when doing things like going to Ireland and intervening in the Divorce Referendum, as she did recently.

By the way, there is an interesting angle to that which has not yet appeared in print. During the Divorce Referendum the Irish Catholic church threatened to deny the sacrament to women who wanted to be remarried. There were no exceptions to be allowed: it didn't matter if you had been married to an alcoholic who beat you and sexually assaulted your children, you were not going to get a second chance in this world or the next. And that is the position that Mother Teresa intervened in Ireland to support.

OT:
In Texas public schools we are forced to observe a minute of silence after the Pledge so kids can pray. I tell my preschoolers to observe a minute of silliness. Everyone giggles for sixty seconds. I have yet to be jailed.

Barbiebrains,
I love that, a moment of silliness. My high school history teacher told me that the moment of silence was illegal and just to ignore it (the school wanted you to stop whatever you were doing).
Could you clarify, was Mother Teresa for or against remarried women receiving the sacrament?

Greetings,

To me, the most revealing aspect of Mr. Feder's idiotic, but so typical, rant comes from his first sentence. - "Oh for the days when one could SAFELY stroll into a bookstore without tripping over the latest atheist title."

Well, Mr. Feder, what are you afraid of!

Evilatheist,

The Catholic Church refuses the sacraments to anyone who is remarried because according to Canon Law the couple is not really married but only cohabiting=fornicating. Fornication is a mortal sin which means that if you die with a mortal sin on your soul, you go straight to hell. You cannot receive the sacraments until you are absolved by a priest through the sacrament of reconciliation/penance. The only way to "remarry" is to annul your first marriage...ie, you must prove to the Catholic Church that your first marriage never existed...the marriage never took place. Homosexuality or the inability or unwillingness to bear younguns constitute reasons to annul a marriage in the eyes of the Church. Only Catholic marriages are "valid" for the Church...all other arrangements are fornication...even marriage by the State. Technically, both partners are precluded from receiving the sacraments. I am not sure why women were singled out by the Irish Catholic Church and Mother Theresa. I apologize if my answer is long-winded...I teach preschool, blocks and playdough all day... :)

I have one thing to say, sense when does having faith have anything to do with morality? INFACT it discourages it. Last time I checked with christianity, to reach salvation all you need is faith, not good works; the second great awakening said nothing about good works, and there hasn't been very much change sense then.

I'm pretty sure I am not the only atheist to think this way, it is not the belief in god that bothers us at all, believe in god I don't care, but how can you honestly think any book has gone through "him." The faith in a certain religion is what is retarded, not the faith in god. You can't disprove god or prove it, I'll give it that much, but science and common sense disproves every religion that exists today. Come on now.

Interesting

"If I were in the minority and continually read "newspaper articles that spouted a load of running crap (all untrue) about YOUR minority" I would battle it with ideas, facts, and expose misconceptions"

Hmm. maybe you should change your monihker to Naive or Quaint.

"A universe that isn't God-centered becomes ego-centered."

Gawd is a prime example of ego-centricity. "WORSHIP ME, OBEY ME, MAKE ME YOUR MASTER, OR DIE!" he says. If that's not ego-mania then I'll eat my hat.

cry4turtles (I do) wrote:

Gawd is a prime example of ego-centricity. "WORSHIP ME, OBEY ME, MAKE ME YOUR MASTER, OR DIE!" he says.

Even worse is the great and vast majority of christians that think they are the proxy of their god idea. Such as little bush (the master of all christians), just to give one shiningly obvious example among millions.

Lite comments for a lite paper.

Where does an atheist get their ethics then? Do we look to Nietzsche and say we can create our own? Do we look at Dewey or James and say whatever works for most of us? What stops one from creating an ethical system that attacks the dignity of the human person that many of you claim to believe in yet have no grounding for? Just a question from a theist...

Barbie Brains,

Ignorance is bliss. Why take out prayer and add giggles? Why take the time to go against the grain? Think about that. Atheism is becoming to be what causes Virginia Tech's situation...not christianity.

atheistsrock1,
Why do you give a crap? Does what Barbiebrains does with those kindergarteners directly affect you? No. So why bitch about it? And atheism doesn't lead to the VT tragedy. The social stigma associated with having mental illness is what causes those kinds of horrific events. If people didn't attach such a negative connotation to mental illness more people would seek the help that they need instead of pretending everything is ok. I believe then we would no longer see these things happen in our society.

Starting the day off with a moment of silliness or giggles is very healthy.
There are actually classes where you can go to now to just laugh. Laughing releases endorphins.

I applaud Barbiebrains for applying this principle. With preschoolers, is is also very practical.They have no idea what to do with a moment of silence, but a moment of giggles is very beneficial. The only problem is limiting them to a moment.

Remember the "All I Ever Needed to Know, I learned in Kindergarten"?
More truth there than is appreciated.

atheistsrock1
I don't see how you connect atheism to what happened at VT. Care to expalin yourself?

What would a world without God look like?

Exactly like the world we live in.

Next?

How inspiring can it be to wake in the morning, look in the mirror, and see an accident of evolutionary history — the end product of the random collision of molecules?”


How inspiring can it be to wake in the morning, look in the mirror, and see an see a creature damned upon their death to a hell of eternal torture, because she/he is born evil, awful and full of sin, unworthy of Gawd's love, unless you're one of the lucky ones Gawd elects for salvation?

Jacob23 wrote;

Where does an atheist get their ethics then? Do we look to Nietzsche and say we can create our own? Do we look at Dewey or James and say whatever works for most of us? What stops one from creating an ethical system that attacks the dignity of the human person that many of you claim to believe in yet have no grounding for? Just a question from a theist.

Ethics come from peoples brains, you would know that if your brain hadn't be washed with lies from your christian gang leaders.

Christians certainly don't get ethics from their religion, at least not ethics that any decent society would consider good.

Christianity encourages people to kill and attack others. Christians don't know what ethics are let alone where ethics come from.*

* Excepting spanders as usual, of course.

Karen,

A moment of silliness works wonders...you get them to stop giggling by pulling a "Simon Says" routine when you want the kiddoes to settle down. They respond to the authority of "Simon Says"... :)

Atheistsrocks1,

Going against the grain takes guts...Yes, it lands you in a heap of trouble and ruins your personal relationships but the alternative is chilling. If it weren't for "going against the grain", I would be driving a Lexus and wearing glittery kitten sweaters to a "Women's LIGHT Meeting (LIGHT=Ladies Involved in Giving, Helping, Touching...a psychotic Baptist organization) . Groupthink is evil. Giggling does a world of good...my kiddoes have a lifetime to become dour and miserable Xians...let them laugh. Atheism does not cause violence...9/11 was a faith-based initiative.

"Why won't god heal amputees?"