Yeah, but none of you will be laughing when Jesus blows up your cities and burns you alive while he smashes down buildings and mountains like Godzilla.

Aha! Jesus is a man in a rubber suit. Why didn't I think of that?

Woah ... I've never had a blog thread cause me to rethink my
assumptions on so fundamental an issue as my own belief structure.

You know why? No trolls! It's all meat and potatoes, leavened (so to speak) with a little wiseguyisms. Ah, the joy.

And as the possible last thought in this thread, I saw a bumper sticker today. It said "God was my co-pilot. But we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him."

That guy is definitely going to hell.

craigie:

With death ray eyes burning like red hot coals of righteousness as he blasts the wicked with another awe-inspiring pulse of gamma radiation ...

Jezilla vs Sathra !

Bob

Yeah, but none of you will be laughing when Jesus blows up your cities and burns you alive while he smashes down buildings and mountains like Godzilla. When the Lord Jesus Christ shoots the hellfire into the office buildings of the Godless and the heathens he will scream and rage at the sinful and the wicked, and the millions will perish calling for mercy.

I hope you didn't just ruin the ending of Left Behind for us.

If we're going with a Norwegian theme for the potluck, we'll be needing a good honey mead to bring good cheer and stave off the fear of being crisped to death by Mecha-Jesus.

Given a wager about whether God exists or not, the only reasonable bet to make is that he does not. It's infinitely more likely that God, like so many other supernatural things, is just a figment of the human imagination. The universe and Earth got along fine without us and the concept of God before we came along, and after we're gone the concept of God will vanish with us.

Bob - I was being a smartass, as is my wont. My kids went to catholic school. My son, now an adult, says (jokingly) that he doesn't like protestants because he hates quitters.

And we need lefse at the potluck, don't you know...

Dang. all this time I thought you were Irish, only to learn you're Norweigan. So it goes.

I'm getting a little depressed here. What's with the piling on? You all do realize that atheism and liberalism are not inseperable? And Christianity and theocratic facism are actually incompatible? Given my earlier failure to reduce Thomistic metaphysics to a paragraph long entry I am not going to get into details, but come on. Believe it or not some of us Christians actually try to practice the gospels, and are fairly intelligent (UCB high honors). So give me a break.

As to any threatened supernatural punishments for us non-believers, haven't theists got anything better to do than make things up to frighten the children? I know that death is merely an end, but Christians and Muslims promise eternal hellfire after death to non-believers, which is just sadistic and terribly manipulative of young naive minds. All you're doing is creating generation after generation of bigots with the claim that your faith is the only "way". The intolerance shown the Jews for thousands of years demonstrates what terrible things are justified for the sake of such theistic claims. There's nothing stopping anyone from living a good life without religion. Nothing at all.

LW Phil:

Oh, I don't think (or certainly hope) that nobody thinks less of you or any believer for your faith. I certainly don't.

Sane religious people are indispensible to fight of the religious right and get the values crowd away from gay bashing and disenfranchising women ...

If the Democrats don't learn how to talk about faith, we'll never start winning national majorities again ...

Bob

Thanks Bob, feeling a little lonely here.

Global:

I am also, as Frank Zappa terms it, an escaped Catholic.

I had one seriously nasty old nun doing our Confirmation prep in CCD, and that's all it took.

"Do YOU know what Jesus did for YOUUUUUU ?" shaking a crooked finger, face in a scowl, dripping with bitterness.

No thank you, ma'am.

Bob

LW Phil:

Well it *is* a thread about atheists and Muslims, Phil :)

But politically, we Democrats seriously need to take back the values themes that the Republicas have exploited. It's not an option.

Bob

You all do realize that atheism and liberalism are not inseperable?

Yes we do. Because otherwise, there wouldn't be many liberals.

Don't be put out - we're just jumping around on the bed, throwing pillows. We don't get to come out much, that's all. People think we're even worse than those crazy Muslims, fer chrissakes!

Phil:

Craigie's right, Phil. It's like a Halloween party or something. Or a gay bar after hours.

We're a marginalized minority in a country where around 70% believe in the literal existence of guardian angels ...

And besides which ... *somebody's* got to take the lead in the plot to steal Christmas from the Christians ...

Bob

I was just blasting Frank Zappa through the lab and getting strange looks from my co-workers. Fortunately the "normal" people leave by 11:30...

Instead of a potluck, lets meet at St. Alphonso's for a pancake breakfast. Pale Rider can steal the margarine (pronounced margarEEN.)

Or a gay bar after hours.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

But politically, we Democrats seriously need to take back the values themes that the Republicas have exploited. It's not an option.

Seriously. I have many friends who hold their noses and vote Republican because of abortion. They hear my rants about Fallouja (sp) and white phosphorus, crony capitalism, and insane divine guidance for an incompetent twit, but cannot reconcile what they feel is murder. I argue that we don't want to return to the days of coat hangars, but it still grates. I may never post here again, but I have to be honest.

Where she abused the sausage patty
And said "why don't you treat me mean?"

Dutta dade daa, do da de da dat da ...

Craziest string of sixteeth notes (synth, horns and xylophone in unison) ever recorded on a rock record. When I first heard that my jaw dropped to the fucking floor.

Nothing else compared .... until ... The Black Page :)

Bob

LW Phil:

Nothing wrong with honesty, bro. Nobody "likes" abortion as if it were a good in itself.

Even us atheist/agnostics who don't have "sanctity of all human life" dictum to jar our consciences. It's a nasty place for anyone to have to be, because we all have ethics and we all believe that society should protect the weak and helpless.

Bob

I was about 14, and a freshman in Catholic school myself. I went to a houseparty and someone played their older siblings copy of Joes Garage and when I heard for the first time, it blew my mind and corrupted me forevermore. Thank a God that doesn't exist!

If we're going with a Norwegian theme for the potluck, we'll be needing a good honey mead to bring good cheer and stave off the fear of being crisped to death by Mecha-Jesus.

If we're going with the Norwegian theme, let's go all out and bring on Ragnarok.

Don't be put out - we're just jumping around on the bed, throwing pillows. We don't get to come out much, that's all. People think we're even worse than those crazy Muslims, fer chrissakes!

Maybe we should tell Amy Sullivan that. She thinks us atheists are too off-putting to Christians to be the sort of Democrats she wants in her party. Shall we then adopt a policy of "don't ask, don't tell" regarding the presence of atheists in Democratic ranks, Amy? Because Amy, you have the good fortune to be able to combine your faith with your politics in public, while I can't without being admonished by the likes of you about it. Maybe it is time for atheists to just stop supporting Democrats instead of being taken for granted and swept under the big tent's rug.

So long as we have plenty of Aqua Vit I can handle even lefse.

Global:

I love the instrumental section of Wet T-Shirt Nite.

And of course, who could forget the plangent strains of Magical Pig:

"Fuck me, you ugly sonovabitch -- you ug-ly son of a bitch"

The best disco parody *ever* conceived :)

Bob

LW Phil,
The abortion question works both ways. There are many people who support the war, hate the poor, hate black people and Mexicans, hate unions and vote Democratic because they support abortion rights. I know some. In fact, when pollsters ask people what their most important issue is, abortion never chimes in at more than 4%. And of those 4%, more vote pro-choice than pro-life. Most people who vote pro-life Republican are pro-life for the wrong reasons - they hate the sexual revolution and the independence it gave women. They don't really care about unborn babies. Note that about 24% of the votes to most Democrats comes from self-described "pro-lifers".

Global

It was a Model XQJ Nuclear Powered Pan-Sexual Roto-Plooker ... it looked like a cross between a chrome piggy bank and a vacuum cleaner with marital aids stuck all over it ...

Bob

A Zappa fan...I just knew I liked you from square one!!!

So long as we have plenty of Aqua Vit I can handle even lefse.

Are you kidding? Lefse is tasty. Have you ever tried lutefisk?

I used to live between Moon Unit and Dweezil. Nice people.

Global:

This is a song 'bout bald-headed John
Dong work for yuda, dong dong
He talks a lot and he's us'lly wrong
Dong work for yuda, dong dong

Bartender, get me a colada 'n' milk
On second thought, make that a waduh -- HTO
Driver -- McDoodle
I wave my bags, you wave your'n?
Well how much did they wave?
I need a dud'n taals so da boys kin take a sheaoh
That girl mus' be pracketing richcraft
I studied with da Dong of Tokyo 'n' th' Oriental Cato
Make way for da ihnnn schashich
That look like that stuff Freckles lets out once a momf ...

Bob

Fish cured in lye? Can't say I've ever had the nerve.

By the way, I've moved beyond Zappa tonight and now I'm freaking out the co-workers with The Hillbilly VooDoo Dolls. Gotta keep 'em guessing.

One of them asked me yesterday "You don't have any Sean Cassidy in your collection, do you?"

I replied that I would rather be set on fire.

It was a Model XQJ Nuclear Powered Pan-Sexual Roto-Plooker

I thought it was a stratocaster with a whammy bar...

Lutefisk? Lefse? Aqua Vit? Jeeze -- this is the stuff of the Annual White Elephant Party in Ballard (Seattle)! Not to mention the Ballard Seafood Festival!!! I knew I was on the right blog!!!!!!!!!!!

You are all sooooooooo much fun. Oh...and smart. Did I say smart???? Smart. Very Smart. :) :)

LW Phil:

Lutefish, OMFG ... my soon-to-be stepsister is Norwegian and her dad runs a catering business ... Lutefish is the most disgusting foodstuff on the face of the planet. The stink is supposed to last for, like, months :(

You actually, like, ran into Moon and Dweezil shopping 'n' stuff? Or did you just know that they lived in the neighborhood?

Valley Girl was amazing. She improvised those rambles pretty much on the spot.

Bag those toenails !

Bob

If you're looking for a good argument that God, as defined in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, does not exist, it's hard to go wrong with the argument from evil.

Namely, evil exists -- much of it evil that can't be traced back to the actions of human beings. For example, there have been many completely innocent babies who have died horrible deaths due to entirely natural causes, such as disease, earthquakes, etc. Clearly if God is omnipotent and omniscient, he would have known about these events in advance and could have stopped them. He did not. Only an evil being would refuse to do so -- we would count a human being who refused to help when he easily might have as the most horrible of monsters. Therefore God Himself must be evil, whence the God of the Judaeo-Christian theology can't exist.

Q.E.D.

Of course, people come to the defense of God here, claiming that He's somehow above all these considerations for one reason or another, but any sensible person will realize that you don't turn evil into good by talking up the perpetrator.

obscure: How can you forget the Fender Champ?!?! (Still the best amp out there!)

According to Douglas Adams, God, confronted with the evidence he did not exist, disappeared in a puff of logic.

According to Douglas Adams, God, confronted with the evidence he did not exist, disappeared in a puff of logic.

And the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is...42!

"Forty-two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"

"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."

You actually, like, ran into Moon and Dweezil shopping 'n' stuff?

Moon lived 1 block west of us. She bought a friend of our's house. Dweezil lived two blocks east. His house was much cooler (elevated tennis court). Neither one was very social. Typical LA. Alex Karras livewd across the street. Lovely man.

LW Phil,

I'm rummaging around for some encouraging words...

Here is a (probably faulty) paraphrase of the great Thomas H. Huxley aka 'Darwin's Bulldog:'

Science concerns itself with the measurable and the provable. The realm of religion, on the other hand, concerns questions of how we should live and how we should treat each other.

Huxley was intimately familiar with the Bible and he wrote some brilliant essays assessing the nature and coherence of the gospels. But afaik, despite his sharp criticism of Christianity as a 'logical story' he remained a Christian himself. He was content to understand Christianity as having little to do with claims of 'truth' and 'knowledge.'

to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."

Pretty much sums up the human condition, don't you think?

And now, duty calls. Damned patients! If they would just listen a lot of us would be (gratefully) unemployed!

Frankly0:

Well, the first big-time solution to the theodicy problem (after the Gnostics) was St. Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin.

Straight from Adam to you, transmitted through semen. Yes, yes, all those horribly suffering innocent babes suffer because Man inherited his Depraved Nature from none other than the first fruit snacker himself.

Of course, Protestants solved the problem with the doctrine of Free Will: Creation is a *test*, you see. Why would God create perfect beings with no evil? He likes to be *entertained*, so he made life a Cosmic Game where the task is to navigate through all this digusting shit and keep your soul (not to mention dignity) intact ...

Either way, theodicy still stands as a problem for me. As I said upthread, God is either tragically flawed or a cosmic sadist.

Bob

Global,

Two more memorable names-of-rock-n-roll-bands:

-Gay Bikers on Acid (my personal favorite)
-The Dog-Faced Hermans

Global:

Well there's always The Lunachicks and their classic disk (actually the cover is what's classic) Babysitters On Acid

And, one of my favorite thrash-funk-punk-jazz outfits, The Screaming Headless Torsos

Bob

I have always been partial to "Walter trout and the Free Radicals" as a name for a band.

Of course, there is Kansas City favorite "Sister Mary Rotten Crotch" with the motto on all of their paraphernelia "If you wanted it tight, you shoulda brought a bigger dick!"

And I think it's official...we have morphed into a music thread.

And a local favorite (of about -- gods -- 20 years ago) Leather Studded Diaphragm

Bob

The absence of trolls on this thread is perhaps the most convincing evidence for a personal God that I've ever encountered.

Is this what heaven is like?

A whole thread and not one answer to my question of the Christians who were being persecuted by atheists.

Though we could show lots of stories about atheists being made to sing Christian carols, read or answer questions about Christian myths, being made to pledge under god, to a god, or to pray to some diety.

There's no difference between saying, 'I won't vote for a black person, because I prefer to vote for someone who shares my values' from 'I won't vote for an atheist, because I prefer to vote for someone who shares my values.'

It's still bigotry.

rmck1,

Yeah, the problem of theodicy really can just be turned on its head and in effect used as an argument against God. That is, theodicy takes the view that God, omnipotent, omniscient, and all Good has, however, allowed for the existence of evil, and tries to account for that fact. But the argument from evil simply takes the argument the opposite direction (kind of a modus tolens), asserting that since evil exists, God can't.

Now the problem for the Judaeo-Christians is that all their "explanations" sound only worse than the thing they're trying to explain away. Original Sin? Blaming an infant who has never done ANYTHING wrong for the evils an ancestor perpetrated? Not cool.

And how does the unnecesary suffering of innocent child ever turn into a good simply because someone somewhere might be "tested" by it? Yeah, they ought to have their faith "tested" by it, since it's so obviously evil what has happened to the child. The problem is that the suffering that that child has endured is simply evil in its own right; it can't be turned to anything else by context or excuses or anything else.

ChixSox:Really? If you mean that you consider it so unlikely that it's not worth thinking about, fine; but how can you not be curious about the (alternative) answer to life, the universe, etc.?

i was curious about the alternative answer to how we got here, and how the universe came into being. and the more i learned about geology, geography, astronomy and physics, the less sense having some diety start the whole thing made to me. i look at pictures from the Hubble telescope (esp the deep field galaxy) and it reminds me what a very very small part of everything any individual human being is. so why would there be a god who gives a crap about me on a day to day basis? but as Bob wrote in his longer post upthread, i'm not about to dismiss any one else's experience. another person can believe what s/he believes and as long as it gives her/him comfort, and s/he doesn't try to kill me cuz i don't share that belief, i'm fine with it.

course, the answer to life the universe and everything is 42

Are you kidding? Lefse is tasty. Have you ever tried lutefisk?

had lefse, only smelled lutefisk. at least they told me it was lutefisk, i didn't come any closer.

Tolerance will never work with these bible thumping shitheads. Atheists don't feel the need to converge under some message handed down through generations of clueless humans. I like to think for myself and wouldn't generally agree on a lot of things with other athestis outside the fact that god doesn't exist. Hence, we are weakened by the nature of the current structure of government/politicial system which is (supposedly) based on popular will. The populus is too easily manipulated and blind to be fair.

frankly0:

Well sure. This is a big part of why I'm agnostic. But it's also less than perfectly adequate to try to understand these issues on a philosophical blackboard. A sociological explanation is the only real way to make human sense of it.

Elaine Pagels is very interesting on Augustine and Origina Sin. Her contention is that Christianity changed after Constantine converted. Now you had all these imperial soldiers slaughtering people, so how do you square it with the official state religion? Original Sin was the perfect excuse. The story of Genesis effectively becomes a story of human bondage -- bondage to Sin -- rather than human freedom, which it was in earlier Christian and Hebrew tradition. Read her Adam, Eve and the Serpent for a fascinating take on how that story evolved through Church history.

As for Free Will, well it squares theodicy but at the huge expense of making God look like an egomaniac narcissist. He creates these special pockets of Hell on Earth for most people just so the small few who can rise above it. Luck helps a great deal here -- but it's rechrisened as Grace. And it's all for the Greater Glory of You Know Who.

I find that morally unacceptible in the worst way.

Bob

Chisoxfan,

You write:

"It's almost as if there's a variety of viewpoints in our 'camp', such that maybe the 99% of us who don't care if you put a Nativity display on your front lawn shouldn't be held responsible for the 1% who do."

The issue for atheists (and adherents of religions other than Christianity) isn't whether you put a nativity scene on your lawn. As you say, probably 99% don't care (check your CC&R's, though).

The issue is whether or not government entities should be endorsing one religion over another by putting a creche on the courthouse lawn or requiring a daily prayer in a public school. I don't think atheists can afford to accede to such state-sponsored establishments of religion, and should indeed be militant about asserting their distinctly minority, but entirely constitutional views.

Even the inclusion of "under god" in the pledge is, by design, a slap in the face of non-Christian or non-religious students. It was legislatively levered into the pledge during the red scare, and if we had a Congress or a Supreme Court with any intellectual honesty it could be levered right out again.

I find it sad that atheists who defend these principles are portrayed as intolerant and rabid attackers of Christianity when, in reality, it is non-believers who are constantly under assault in this society.

Just got here, and spent the last half hour reading this thread from the top. Had to get on my two cents about this atheist v agnostic spat.

Theists believe in a god. They are not gods. Atheists do not believe in a god. They are not non-gods. The epistemology of the word agnostic is: gnostic (knowledge), a (without). So an agnostic is without knowledge of a god. Therefore unless said agnostic is entirely illogical, he (or she) would not believe in a god, and thus must also be an atheist. The terms seem by this analysis to be interchangeable.

For those agnostics in the crowd, are you agnostic about the existence of invisible, immaterial elephants that constantly gnaw on your flesh but reconstruct it so that you don't feel anything?

Negative atheism is the claim that it is, given the balance of evidence, unreasonable to assert that God exists much like it is unreasonable to assert that such elephants exist.

Positive atheism is the claim that the notion of "God is incoherent" and we can be certain in its non-existence.

For example, we can be certain that no triangle has more or less than three sides. It is an incoherent notion (like a square circle, which we also know does not exist).

If it can be shown that the concept of God is such that it is incoherent (like the claim that "that bachelor is married"), then we can be certain that that being, so described, does not exist.

There's no difference between saying, 'I won't vote for a black person, because I prefer to vote for someone who shares my values' from 'I won't vote for an atheist, because I prefer to vote for someone who shares my values.'

Yeah, there is. A religion is at least nominally a collection of, largely, value propositions, whereas a race is not. They might both be wrong, but they are considerably different qualitatively.

As for Free Will, well it squares theodicy but at the huge expense of making God look like an egomaniac narcissist. He creates these special pockets of Hell on Earth for most people just so the small few who can rise above it. Luck helps a great deal here -- but it's rechrisened as Grace. And it's all for the Greater Glory of You Know Who.

Bob,

Your description of life under Free Will bears an uncanny resemblance to American Idol. Narcissist Simon Cowell with his godlike powers makes it hell for select contestants so that others may rise to the final ten. A few lucky performances transmute into a newfound grace, and it's all for the greater glory of...

Kelly Clarkson!

"Hail Kelly, full of hits, the charts are with thee. Blessed art thou among producers and blessed are the music executives getting rich off of thee.

Holy Kelly, Queen of Pop, sing for us now and at the hour of our drive home.

Seacrest out."

I think the truest argument against the death penalty is that imposing it damages the society that employs it. It is really nothing more than the extension of the moral argument against torture, which has the same effect.

The point here is that it's a mistake to think only of what the perpetrator "deserves", based on his crime. Yes, in a very real sense, a murderer may well "deserve" to be put to death himself. But also in a very real sense someone who tortures and maims an innocent deserves to be so tortured and maimed himself. But we understand that to do so by our government would degrade our society.

Why do people blanch at the idea of execution by firing squad, or by evisceration, even in cases in which the murderer himself performed his murder in equally horrible ways? Because it degrades us. We would feel we have stooped to the level of the murderer.

THAT is the argument, precisely, against the death penalty itself.

Patrick:

In a word, yes :)

You can't disprove the elephant if the elephant is so defined (tautologically) as to be invisible.

The best you can do is make inductive claims that support the irrationality of its existence. It's illogical to believe in the elephant (or god), just as it's unwise to believe that the sun won't rise tomorrow.

They're still only inductive claims. They don't definitively prove anything. Read David Hume's evisceration of the Inductive Fallacy -- a classic of early modern philosophy.

They speak about epistemology -- what it is we can know. They are dead-mute on ontology -- what things are in fact.

Bob

Oops, sorry, posted on wrong thread!

Though we could show lots of stories about atheists being made to sing Christian carols, read or answer questions about Christian myths, being made to pledge under god, to a god, or to pray to some diety.

Not to mention that "In God We Trust" is on all of our currency. Maybe that is why Republicans worship money?

Another great band name: The Bastard Sons of Johnny Cash. Not just a great name, a great band. Check them out (www.bsojc.com) Sorry - too busy at work to properly link. Forgive me this once?

also, Screaming Cheetah Wheelies (they actually had a coupla hits on radio)

and barband from my college town that our dishwasher's brother formed: The Yams from Outer Space!

Patrick on December 13, 2005 at 2:22 AM:

For those agnostics in the crowd, are you agnostic about the existence of invisible, immaterial elephants that constantly gnaw on your flesh but reconstruct it so that you don't feel anything?

Elephants don't eat meat. Besides, wouldn't their trunks get in the way? Perhaps they aren't really elephants...

Note that I'm not questioning whether or not something exists beyond my direct experience. I'm only questioning the nature of that 'something'.

I don't know.

Is that an agnostic statement?

Atheism is a dogmatic assertion of a positive ontology?

I think you've got your terms mixed up there, bub, or, to quote Mr. Show, you don't know what words, mean, do you?

So, atheism is dogmatic. Well we'd need some doctrine in the first place, and I'll be honest with you, I've never read a book about atheism in my life, any more than I've read books about breathing. I've read books by atheists, but usually the subject wasn't atheism at all.

Assertion it is not. Attitude or subjective mode, perhaps. Agnosticism, on the other hand is a very positive assertion that human beings are unequiped to either know or not know or even understand theistic questions, which posits a whole structure that, against most philosophical schools of thought and trends, would validate something extrinsic to our bodies, something manichean, some unknowable something that's there, but we can't know anything about it, some out-there reality that might as well be ectoplasm, thus, agnosticism is spread-eagling to weak metaphysics. Metaphysics is messy and prone to wild discourses of domination and hierarchy, I thought we were done with metaphysics?

Assertion. Atheism does not assert; it does not deny. Atheism, which does not exist except to those who cannot understand or conceive of a subjective personhood without inserting their own theoretical lack of theism, is the atheist subject parsing reality in the absence of theistic layer of constructed meaning. You wouldn't define English in the sense that it is not Latin grammar, and go about elucidating its syntax in terms of how it violates Latin declension, conjugation, gender and construction? You could, but you'd be less than clever to do so.

I'm being deliberately obtuse. Atheism is the ground, above it is the whole architecture of superstructural theistic meandering, including agnosticism, sprawls. While that stuff is certainly pretty for you flying buttress-fetish types, it doesn't change the fact that it's all constructed, whereas Atheism is not, that is to say that atheism lacks sustained elaboration for it lacks dogma, tenants, rules, hierarchy, ritual and maintenance. One can certainly lose one's faith, but one cannot lose one's atheism. Atheism is a term for non-atheists to describe what they cannot conceive of, that atheists adopt, as I do now, as in extremis semantic node that is discernable shorthand for what we are positively to those who are what we are not on account of a superfluous cultural construction.

Every child is born an atheist. In the same way that we 'gender' and 'race' children, that we teach them what roles they have to play, who they're supposed to be better than, who they can look down on, we theocize them, too.

Ontological ideas aside, atheism is the only ontology that does not require a metaphysics, appeal to authorities, ancient writ, mystical poems, revelation, speaking in tongues, meditation, ritual sex with temple prostitutes, worship of an iron cross or stones demarking property lines, washing in a filthy river, slitting the throats of girls and rubbing them on trees, resurrection, twisted logic about intelligently-designed watch universes, ley-lines, chi, feng, incense, prayer-flags, tithing, communism, capitalism, agrarianism, spiritualism, protestantism, catholicism, respecting cows, abstaining from pork, embalming your cats and favorite servants, avoiding shell-fish, stoning your neighbor, working out the theocratics of slavery, jihad, crusades, mikvahs, kundalini or magic to discuss it. It exists before refusal or affirmation of these ideas. Atheism is the instinctual 'no thanks' to a bloody history of repression, subjugation and just bizarre, incomprehesible and pre-industrial, pre-scientific belief. It is the mind operating without all the cultural spyware and baggage we're all beset with nearly from birth. But more so than that, it is instinctual. As an ontology, it the phenomenological ontology without apologetics. There is no other human system of thought, being or theism that exists without apologetics. None, all other systematic approachs to reality are just that, systematic and logically strained. The so-called Atheist apologetics that do exist do not address atheism to atheists, but explore how theocratic thought elaborates itself from power-structures completely external to atheist modes of awareness and thus as religious thought proceeds further and further afield it affords itself of an apologetics completely insupportable by logical and positivistic modes of inquiry.

And that, sirs, is how you write a goddamn troll.

Bravo, Brandon. Or in the words of Trapper John McIntire: "What he said!"

Brandon,

Excellent work. Thank you for writing that.

Just to make a point about the significance of the argument from evil I mentioned above.

One of its important virtues is that it doesn't simply claim that the burden of proof lies on the theistic side, and that we should naturally assume atheism until good evidence for God is presented. While that is in fact a very good point, the argument from evil goes an important step further. It tries to demonstrate that the all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition cannot exist because of the existence of evil (or certain kinds of evil).

In effect, it's like a Popperian disconfirmation of the existence of God, which is probably an even more convincing argument than the assertion that there's no positive evidence of God.

brandon
Every child is born an atheist. In the same way that we 'gender' and 'race' children, that we teach them what roles they have to play, who they're supposed to be better than, who they can look down on, we theocize them, too.

I'd agree in the sense that every child is also born without a mother tongue. But I'd differ in that, as children are obviously locked and loaded to learn language, they are also innately predisposed to theism. In short, I think theism is an evolved trait.

Donald E. Brown catalogued a list of Human universals in a book of the same name. He found these present in every culture (but not in everyone in every culture) no matter where, from jungles to ice caps, primitive to modern. Some are...

- belief in supernatural/religion
- magic
- magic to increase life
- magic to sustain life
- magic to win love
- divination
- death rituals
- rituals

frankly0
It tries to demonstrate that the all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition cannot exist because of the existence of evil (or certain kinds of evil).

As an add-on, another human universal is...

- good and bad distinguished

excellent brandon

Lutefisk - texture of jello, smell of vomit, tast of, suprisingly, not much of anything at all.

I've had it, out of a sense of arrogance and "I can eat anything."

I'll be starving before I have it again. Yes, yes, I know it came about as a means of preserving Cod against spoilage.

Thank God for modern refrigeration, I'll eat my Cod as-is.

I believe that "G_D" is;
so (for me) "G_D" is.
You believe that no "G_D" is;
so (for you) "G_D" is not.

Belief is subjective, personal, visceral.
Beyond (above? below?) Words.
Beyond (above? below?) Right & Wrong.
It is in-explicatory.

It is as productive for me to quarrel
with someone about their Beliefs
as about the shape of their nose…

By the way, the generic meaning of agnostic is that one does not care that much. It was the folks who believe in debating God that added the more restrictive, meaning of the word.

"..they [children] are also innately predisposed to theism"

Red State Mike makes a valid point, I believe. You know, a newborn has no concept of distinct humans just like him. To the extent that the new born reacts to the world, his prior assumption is that he is the god of his environment.

Some speculate that much of our religious ritual may be a consolation prize to the human individual when he let's go of the god center point of view. The deep psychological disorders, depression for example, are arrived at from the very young infants being in distress about there helplessness (according to much theory).

A natural example of psychological theism gone bad would be Jimmy Carter, the man who still beleives himself to be the messiah.

shortstop: Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Who's never been found, by the way. But no reason to think a child of God offed her, none at all.

Spelling correct, facts not so much. The dismembered remains of O'Hair, her son and adopted daughter were found buried on a Texas ranch in 2001. O'Hair's remains were identified using her prosthetic hip.

It wasn't God who offed them, but their ex-con employee, David Waters, and his accomplices.

What's never been found is the $500,000 in gold coins that Waters stole from them.

LW Phil: Hope you're not still feeling like odd man out. I like craigie's characterization of standing on the bed throwing pillows and giggling uncontrollably (I added that last part). No ill will or disrespect whatsoever meant, at least from this quarter.

Grumpy! I stand significantly corrected. Thanks for setting me straight; I missed that whole story.

Now how did an atheist manage to accrue a half-million in gold without God's help? Just kidding...not going there.

I've long thought this showed how much right-wingers will lie. Name a single atheist in office anywhere. You can't, so when they complain about how much power we have, what ARE they talking about?

Mike B. I've long thought this showed how much right-wingers will lie. Name a single atheist in office anywhere. You can't, so when they complain about how much power we have, what ARE they talking about?

You need a secret Republican decoder wristband like mine. I'm typing in:

"Atheists have too much power!"

Just a second. (Humming...straightening piles of paper...deleting penis enlargement e-mails...gazing at nails...) Okay, here we go. It says:

"100 percent of the population doesn't believe what we believe. We're fucking oppressed! Waaaaaah!"

These things make ideal Festivus gifts, by the way.

Western religionists, scientists, atheists may disagree on the small things but they agree on the big thing. My way is the only way and everyone who follows another path is a deluded fool.

Most westerners are utterly ignorant of another way of thinking that has grown up on the eastern side of the globe, which I much prefer. All paths are different ways of seeking an Ultimate Reality that is beyond the ability of the thinking mind to comprehend, but is our destiny to one day know in its totality.

India may be poor but its philosophical reach, and therefore its tolerance for all views, is vastly greater than ours. For instance, you could make a case that South India is the most religious place on Earth, but for many years the government of the state of Kerala was Communist.

Interesting aside: Westerners talk about the Kerala miracle---the highest literacy, best medical care, lowest poverty in India---but they rarely mention it was the Communists who were responsible. The Capitalists don't want to admit the Communists ever did anything that worked!

All paths are different ways of seeking an Ultimate Reality that is beyond the ability of the thinking mind to comprehend, but is our destiny to one day know in its totality.

That's just the sort of thinking that gets your lands conquered by a bunch of Brits with bad teeth, ol' chap.

Interesting aside: Westerners talk about the Kerala miracle

Hmmm, I googled it (Google being the closest thing to God we have in our atheist universe) and the first hit I got was 09 Nights / 10 Days Deluxe Kerala Miracle Vacation package

We're not born hardwired to believe religion per se. We're born hardwired to 1-observe our environment and how it effects us, through whatever of our senses are working at the time (this improves), 2-predict what will happen in our environment and how it WILL effect us, and finally 3-try to control what's happening in our environment so that we survive and don't suffer much.

Watch a pigeon in a Skinner box. That's religion.

"Every child is born an atheist. In the same way that we 'gender' and 'race' children, that we teach them what roles they have to play, who they're supposed to be better than, who they can look down on, we theocize them, too."

What?
If ever a pile of words were combined to make a pile of nonsense, this is it.

Red State Mike on December 13, 2005 at 2:37 PM:

That's just the sort of thinking that gets your lands conquered by a bunch of Brits with bad teeth, ol' chap.

And the Brits still rule there to this day!

Ummm...

Google being the closest thing to God we have in our atheist universe

Google might loosely qualify under 'all-knowing', but it's not 'all-powerful'...

...That's Microsoft...

You need a secret Republican decoder wristband like mine

I can usually tell what they're saying, it's just hypocritical sometimes.

Western religionists, scientists, atheists may disagree on the small things but they agree on the big thing. My way is the only way and everyone who follows another path is a deluded fool

And you know this how? Because they "really mean" that? It's entirely possible to think someone else is wrong without thinking they're a "fool". And, that whole argument style, trying to place everything on the same footing just so you can make a smarmy point, doesn't really hold up well.

If we're going with a Norwegian theme for the potluck, we'll be needing a good honey mead to bring good cheer and stave off the fear of being crisped to death by Mecha-Jesus.

If we're going to have a Norwegian theme, we'll be needing some lutefisk. And that should keep any daemons from Hades (or Heaven even) at bay ... they can't abide even a whiff 'o the stuff. But set a place for Loki and Thor....

Cheers,

If we're going to have a Norwegian theme, we'll be needing some lutefisk. And that should keep any daemons from Hades (or Heaven even) at bay

I used some lutefisk to chase out nest of rats from under the front porch. But now I've got a family of Norwegians that I can't get rid of...

I once had an Icelandic roommate who liked to eat slabs of dried cod smeared with butter. This made American suitors head for the exits even though she was 6'0" and gorgeous with racehorse legs. The neighborhood dogs frequently hung out around our apartment door, however.

Well, I have to disagree with you, and I guess you'll just have to kick my ass :)

* And I have come here to do just that.

Agnosticism is the absence of belief. It asserts that the fundamental ontological questions are unknowable.

*Correct but only to a point. Agnostics claim to have no firm belief 'either way' - which makes them atheists (no belief in God), but of a limp and flacid variety.

Atheism is the dogmatic assertion of a positive ontology. It can't be proven or disproven. But some atheists (the one who get the press and write for atheist magazines) argue as if it were a fact.

*Incorrect. Atheism is simply 'no belief in god' (it's latin, look it up). Dogmatism has nothing to do with it.

And that's dogmatism. It partakes of the same intellectual mistake that Christians make when they confuse faith with facts.

*Incorrect. Atheism is defined by the absence of belief - no mistake necessary. We are all born atheists and must be 'educated' to become faithful.

And it can be *very* annoying. Nobody likes smug know-it-alls who in truth can't back up their claims with logic or facts.

*Now you are just name-calling. But hey, being a know-it-all ain't so bad. Better than the alternative.

Agnosticism, contrarily is entirely defensible and doesn't seek to shove anything down anybody's throats. It's just a personal statement.

*However it is a mistake to think agnosticism is separate from atheism.

Unless you're a militant agnostic. There the battle cry is I DON'T KNOW AND *YOU* DON'T EITHER :)

*Given you can't actually 'know' anything supernatural (spirits, auras, god, goddesses, etc.) my view is that atheist are justified in saying they 'know' that they are correct, and that you agnostics are our weak intellectual sisters incapable of standing up for your lack of beliefs.

Antiphon

Here are some definitions all courtesy of dictionary.com

atheism
1. a.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1. b.The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2.Godlessness; immorality

disbelief-Refusal or reluctance to believe.

agnostic-
1. a.One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
1. b.One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

A couple more definitions from dictionary.com.

Dogmatic
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.
2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. See Synonyms at dictatorial

Dogma
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them:

Most westerners are utterly ignorant of another way of thinking that has grown up on the eastern side of the globe, which I much prefer. All paths are different ways of seeking an Ultimate Reality that is beyond the ability of the thinking mind to comprehend, but is our destiny to one day know in its totality.

I don't think it is necessarily beyond the ability of the thinking mind to comprehend -- it is a point on which you might say I am agnostic -- but, despite being very much a "western religionist" (of the Catholic variety), I do think it is beyond the ability of language to communicate with fidelity. Or, IOW, "the Way that can be told is not the true Way".

Red State Mike,

Although Brown asserts in his book that there are certain universals among human cultures, he had to twist the ethnographic data to support such a conclusion.

Every other anthropologist I've ever met has said that there are no universals, but maybe they're all just dogmatically asserting relativism. I don't think so though, otherwise sociobiology might be a working theory in sociocultural anthropology today.

My own research in mortuary practice led me to a couple of hunter-gatherer cultures in Africa that don't believe in an afterlife and have no death rituals (though I can't remember the names of those groups right now, hmm I'll find them though)

antiphon:

> "Well, I have to disagree with you, and I
> guess you'll just have to kick my ass :)"

> And I have come here to do just that.

Well you didn't do a very good job, as I'm still standing :)
I'll deal with you before I take on the insufferable brandon --
who exemplifies all the qualities I detest in strong atheists.

> "agnosticism is the absence of belief. It asserts that
> the fundamental ontological questions are unknowable."

> *Correct but only to a point. Agnostics claim to have
> no firm belief 'either way' - which makes them atheists
> (no belief in God), but of a limp and flacid variety.

That's weak agnosticism, which as I stated in an earlier message
isn't all that different from weak atheism. It's noncomittal and
personal. But I think it has the virtue over atheism of humility.
I'd much rather say "I don't know" than "it doesn't exist" if I
can offer nothing but inductive arguments that it doesn't exist.

> "Atheism is the dogmatic assertion of a positive ontology. It can't
> be proven or disproven. But some atheists (the one who get the
> press and write for atheist magazines) argue as if it were a fact."

> Incorrect. Atheism is simply 'no belief in god' (it's
> latin, look it up). Dogmatism has nothing to do with it.

Sure it does. Your post, for instance, rests on unstated
dogmatic assumptions about the First Cause. They may
well be accurate assumptions. Or they may well not.

You can't prove it either way. You can't create a
falsifiable hypothesis that god doesn't exist and test
it in the real world. So like the flipside argument that
underpins, say, Intelligent Design, the assertion is essentially
meaningless, at least by scientific standards of truth.

This is called ignosticism, btw. It's
why so many scientists are agnostic.

> "And that's dogmatism. It partakes of the same intellectual
> mistake that Christians make when they confuse faith with facts."

> *Incorrect. Atheism is defined by the absence of
> belief - no mistake necessary. We are all born
> atheists and must be 'educated' to become faithful.

Well, once again, there are two basic flavors of atheism disparate
enough to enttail a qualitative difference. Weak (or negative)
atheism is the absense of belief -- which may or may not be bolstered
by the various arguments that stronger atheists use to discredit
belief. Strong (or positive) atheism is the assertion that
these arguments are good enough in themselves to seal the deal.

As Kant famously demonstrated, they are not. You're still
left with the First Cause. But strong atheists carry on as
if they had won the argument. They destroyed an edifice
without replacing it with anything. We, after all, exist.

And you have zero ability to address the question of why that is so.

> "And it can be *very* annoying. Nobody likes smug know-it-alls
> who in truth can't back up their claims with logic or facts."

> Now you are just name-calling. But hey, being a know-
> it-all ain't so bad. Better than the alternative.

Well, it was meant to be provocative. Certainly I wouldn't
characterize Arne as being one of those sorts. But that was
nothing, you'll admit, like brandon calling me a troll :)

> "Agnosticism, contrarily is entirely defensible
> and doesn't seek to shove anything down anybody's
> throats. It's just a personal statement."

> However it is a mistake to think
> agnosticism is separate from atheism.

Oh, they're very much related. They both imply (weak and strong)
a lack of positive belief. It's the difference between making
statements about what is vs making statements about what we can know.

> Given you can't actually 'know' anything supernatural (spirits,
> auras, god, goddesses, etc.)

It's also, of course, entirely possible to be a believer without
requiring any supernatural trappings at all. The entire history
of liberal Protestantism from at least the time of the Higher
Critics is the history of the de-supernaturalization of the bible.

> my view is that atheist are justified in saying they 'know'
> that they are correct,

And this, of course, is nothing more than a dogmatic assertion :)

> and that you agnostics are our weak intellectual sisters
> incapable of standing up for your lack of beliefs.

Not really. Strong agnostics have a very powerful critique of
positivist epistemology, which cites quantum mechanics and some
of the debates in cognitive science to problematize the scope
of human knowledge. We stand up for the principle that what
the mind can construct is only a model of what truly exists.

We're the anti-metaphysicians in this debate.
We make no unprovable ontological assertions.

Bob

Global Citizen:

In other words, agnosticism is a cop-out.

Quick, GC, what's in my left hand as I type this? You say you don't know? That you can't possibly know?

What a cop-out.

shortstop: I once had an Icelandic roommate who liked to eat slabs of dried cod smeared with butter. This made American suitors head for the exits even though she was 6'0" and gorgeous with racehorse legs. The neighborhood dogs frequently hung out around our apartment door, however.

You don't still have her number, do you? As a northern European I'm fairly immune to dried cod, and I'll do anything, anything at all for racehorse legs....

rmck1: As Kant famously demonstrated, they are not. You're still left with the First Cause.

Buddha taught that there is no "first cause" -- reality is more like a web of causality in which all phenomena ("dharmas") arise from -- or are "caused" or "conditioned" by -- all that is.

Buddha might indeed be considered by some to be an "atheist", since he taught that everything is impermanent and that nothing has an independent or enduring self-nature. That would seem to preclude "God" as I understand the concept of "God" in Middle Eastern monotheistic religions.

shortstop: I once had an Icelandic roommate who liked to eat slabs of dried cod smeared with butter.

Stefan: As a northern European I'm fairly immune to dried cod

As a vegan, I don't find dried cod smeared with butter to be particularly more unappetizing than any of numerous things that I see Americans eating all the time. Greasy fast food chicken with extra salmonella on the side? Hot dogs stuffed with the scrapings from the slaughterhouse floor? Please.

It's surprising some of the things that people eat, that they get very upset with you if you start talking about what those things actually are and where they come from while they're eating them. "Stop talking to me about what I'm eating, you're making me sick!"

Stefan: You don't still have her number, do you?

In fact, I do, but she's now married with three kids and runs a Reykjavik flower shop. If you think you can convince her to chuck it all and start over with you (she loves New York), may I suggest postponing your visit until the spring? I've been to Iceland in December--the four daily hours of weak daylight will creep you out. Go in June, when it's light all the time.

Strong agnostics have a very powerful critique of positivist epistemology, which cites quantum mechanics and some of the debates in cognitive science to problematize the scope of human knowledge. We stand up for the principle that what the mind can construct is only a model of what truly exists.

We're the anti-metaphysicians in this debate.
We make no unprovable ontological assertions.

I tend to intuitively agree with the strongest agnostics as to what is, in fact, actually knowable. I just don't equate "I believe X is true" with "I believe X is true and knowable."

One need not believe a proposition to be knowable to believe the proposition itself. If one defines agnosticism purely in terms of epistemology, then it is orthogonal rather than alternative to atheism or many possible forms of theism.

> Atheism is a dogmatic assertion of a positive ontology?

Strong (or positive) atheism, yes. You're going to attempt
to conflate strong atheism with weak atheism. Just watch :)

> I think you've got your terms mixed up there, bub, or, to
> quote Mr. Show, you don't know what words, mean, do you?

And you're a pompous asshole who exemplifies everything I despise
about smug, self-certain, vain, in-love-with-your-own-empty-rhetoric
strong atheists. All you can do is ad-hom and reductio, my man.

So forgive me if I chuck a little back from whence it came, eh?

> So, atheism is dogmatic. Well we'd need some doctrine in the first
> place, and I'll be honest with you, I've never read a book about
> atheism in my life, any more than I've read books about breathing.

There are journals of atheism. I read a few in the library a couple
years ago. They are dogmatic, shrill, obnoxious and prove nothing.

> I've read books by atheists, but usually
> the subject wasn't atheism at all.

Then how would you know that they're atheists?

> Assertion it is not. Attitude or subjective mode, perhaps.

Do you demonstrate anything in your post here? Aside that
you're a ham-handed blowhard, I mean. I mean, do you
demonstrate the validity of an argument? Hmmm ... let's see ...

> Agnosticism, on the other hand is a very positive
> assertion that human beings are unequiped to either
> know or not know or even understand theistic questions,

Or Deistic questions, for that matter.

> which posits a whole structure that, against most philosophical
> schools of thought and trends, would validate something
> extrinsic to our bodies, something manichean, some unknowable
> something that's there, but we can't know anything about it,

Ahh, the ol' atheist straw man. Agnostics are so weak-minded
they won't allow themselves to deny the mumbo-pocus of religious
metaphysics. Since agnostics are squarely on the side of the
scientific method, they'd most happily acknowledge any empirical
proofs that demonstrate the non-existence of ghosts, auras,
out-of-body experiences, the afterlife, ecotplasm, etc.

What we do recognize is the *subjective realities* of some of
these experiences for the people who sincerely believe in them.

> some out-there reality that might as well be ectoplasm,
> thus, agnosticism is spread-eagling to weak metaphysics.

We're just not arrogant fucks enough to denigrate people
who have these experiences. We'd like to understand the
truth, but we realize that what's real is what's real in
its consequences. I have no access to anybody else's
subjective mental state and neither, my friend, do you.

> Metaphysics is messy and prone to wild
> discourses of domination and hierarchy,

Postmodern metaphysics, maybe. A silly, short-lived French fad.

> I thought we were done with metaphysics?

Read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. After the headaches have
worn off and you've upped the prescription for your reading
glasses, consider the fact that Kant caused more suicides
among clerics in his day because he demonstrated more clearly
than any before that the existence of god was unknowable.

And Kant founded a metaphysics properly-understood (the
underlying structure of reality grounded in perceptual
necessity) that serves theoretical science well to this day.

> Assertion. Atheism does not assert; it does not deny.

Atheism denies the existence of god, sheesh. Is
this intellectual dishonesty ... or just stupidity?

> Atheism, which does not exist except to those who cannot
> understand or conceive of a subjective personhood without
> inserting their own theoretical lack of theism,

WTF kind of jibberish is this?

> is the atheist subject parsing reality in the
> absence of theistic layer of constructed meaning.

What an empty load of obscurantist verbiage. Let
me guess ... you've read a lot of Foucault recently :)

> You wouldn't define English in the sense that it is not
> Latin grammar, and go about elucidating its syntax in terms
> of how it violates Latin declension, conjugation, gender and
> construction? You could, but you'd be less than clever to do so.

And WTF is the point of *this* idiotic straw man?

> I'm being deliberately obtuse.

Gee .. I wonder why you'd feel the need
to resort to *that* rhetorical strategy? :)

> Atheism is the ground, above it is the whole
> architecture of superstructural theistic
> meandering, including agnosticism, sprawls.

Bullshit. Read Kant, you pretentious jackwad.

> While that stuff is certainly pretty for you flying buttress-
> fetish types, it doesn't change the fact that it's all
> constructed, whereas Atheism is not, that is to say that
> atheism lacks sustained elaboration for it lacks dogma,
> tenants, rules, hierarchy, ritual and maintenance. One can
> certainly lose one's faith, but one cannot lose one's atheism.

Well, that's certainly not true. Kids who grow up in atheist
families often react by finding faith for themselves. Or maybe
you're this know-it-all teenager who read some *really neat
arguments* on an atheist website, and then one day in college
realized that they never even addressed the fundamental question,
let alone disproved it. Atheist doctrine (and I do mean doctrine)
is a great wrecking ball. Occam's Razor is a wonderful discerning
tool. But it leaves nothing in its place. Inductive arguments are
intuitively compelling but not definitive. The mystery remains.

> Atheism is a term for non-atheists to describe what they cannot
> conceive of, that atheists adopt, as I do now, as in extremis
> semantic node that is discernable shorthand for what we are
> positively to those who are what we are not on account of
> a superfluous cultural construction.

It's flat-out blathering pseudo-intellectual jargon
because you apparently can't just write a straightforward,
logically consistent paragraph defending atheism.

Immanuel Kant would kick your ass so far down the block ...

> Every child is born an atheist. In the same way that
> we 'gender' and 'race' children, that we teach them what
> roles they have to play, who they're supposed to be better
> than, who they can look down on, we theocize them, too.

You really *are* some wretched refugee from a post-
structuralist cultural studies program, aren't you? ROTFL !

> Ontological ideas aside, atheism is the only ontology that does not
> require a metaphysics, appeal to authorities, ancient writ, mystical
> poems, revelation, speaking in tongues, meditation, ritual sex with
> temple prostitutes, worship of an iron cross or stones demarking
> property lines, washing in a filthy river, slitting the throats of
> girls and rubbing them on trees, resurrection, twisted logic about
> intelligently-designed watch universes, ley-lines, chi, feng,
> incense, prayer-flags, tithing, communism, capitalism, agrarianism,
> spiritualism, protestantism, catholicism, respecting cows, abstaining
> from pork, embalming your cats and favorite servants, avoiding
> shell-fish, stoning your neighbor, working out the theocratics of
> slavery, jihad, crusades, mikvahs, kundalini or magic to discuss it.

And this has something to do with a logical
argument that disproves god's existence ... how? :)

> It exists before refusal or affirmation of these ideas.
> Atheism is the instinctual 'no thanks' to a bloody
> history of repression, subjugation and just bizarre,
> incomprehesible and pre-industrial, pre-scientific belief.

Don't forget flush toilets and the internet :)

> It is the mind operating without all the cultural
> spyware and baggage we're all beset with nearly
> from birth. But more so than that, it is instinctual.

Well, since every culture in the entire world has a
spiritual tradition -- including those untouched by modern
civilization (atheism is product of the Enlightenment) --
you're going to have to, umm, demonstrate that assertion.

Congrats. The first testable statement you've made all post :)

> As an ontology, it the phenomenological
> ontology without apologetics.

Without apologetics? What do you think your post is, then?

Straightforward rational argument? :)

> There is no other human system of thought, being
> or theism that exists without apologetics. None,

And many that exist without barely coherent bullshit :)

> all other systematic approachs to reality are
> just that, systematic and logically strained.

Atheism is constrained by a dogmatic
imperative to positively refute the possibility
that we were created by an intelligent being.

The tools you use are the tools of rational argument. If atheism
was the default state of humanity, you'd have to explain why
cultures that have no formalized systems of metaphysics or
logics arrive at the same conclusion that we were created.

> The so-called Atheist apologetics that do exist

What a shameless bullshit artist you are. You start out by saying
that atheism has no apologetics. Must've sounded good at the time :)

> do not address atheism to atheists, but explore how
> theocratic thought elaborates itself from power-structures
> completely external to atheist modes of awareness and thus
> as religious thought proceeds further and further afield it
> affords itself of an apologetics completely insupportable
> by logical and positivistic modes of inquiry.

You know, I've read this sentence about four times.
It gets less coherent each time. I give up :)

> And that, sirs, is how you write a goddamn troll.

Thank you for that, good sir. You clearly demonstrate how
atheists are crypto-theocrats who co-opt the forces of cultural
domination to suppress a point of view with which they disagree.

I'm a troll. Ooh ooh, negative peer pressure.

What a laughable putz you are.

Bob

Read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. After the headaches have worn off and you've upped the prescription for your reading glasses, consider the fact that Kant caused more suicides among clerics in his day because he demonstrated more clearly than any before that the existence of god was unknowable.

Or just from the headaches; disambiguation of cause there is non-trivial.

I used some lutefisk to chase out nest of rats from under the front porch. But now I've got a family of Norwegians that I can't get rid of...

Good one!

cmdicely:

> "Strong agnostics have a very powerful critique of positivist
> epistemology, which cites quantum mechanics and some of the
> debates in cognitive science to problematize the scope of
> human knowledge. We stand up for the principle that what the
> mind can construct is only a model of what truly exists."

> "We're the anti-metaphysicians in this debate.
> We make no unprovable ontological assertions."

I tend to intuitively agree with the strongest agnostics as to
what is, in fact, actually knowable. I just don't equate "I
believe X is true" with "I believe X is true and knowable."

That's perfectly fair, cm. And I think that part of the critique
of positivism entails reaffirming other ways of valuing knowledge.
SecularAlarmist notes that Buddha bypasses the entire debate on
cause-and-effect (in favor of "webs of dharma") and can thus be
construed as an atheist philosopher in the strictest sense, or
perhaps the first phenomenologist. Or a late Heraclitean :)

I'd argue, though, that the Buddha has a (very abstract
and Deistic) concept of the Divine, because the neture
of ultimate reality -- attained through correct mindful
perception -- is definitely superior to earthly existence.

> One need not believe a proposition to be knowable to
> believe the proposition itself. If one defines agnosticism
> purely in terms of epistemology, then it is orthogonal rather
> than alternative to atheism or many possible forms of theism.

I'd agree. While wiki notes that there's a dispute whether
"theistic agnosticism" can actually qualify as agnosticism,
I'd dispute that. I think the religious reaction to rationalism
entailed an assertion of pure faith as the way to know god, in
a way strikingly different than, say, the Scholastics, who always
tried to rope in reason to support faith. The result of was an
untenable metaphysics (e.e. tripartite schemes for everything
because the number three echoed the Trinity) that Kant destroyed.

Ironically enough, the fundamentalist reaction to rationalism
and the Scientific Revolution resulted in a reaffirmation of
pure faith because it lost the war in metaphysics. In this
sense, the strictest fundies would also have to qualify, strictly
speaking, as theistic agnostics in the epistemological sense.

But gods forbid don't tell them that :)

Bob

> Bravo, Brandon. Or in the words of Trapper
> John McIntire: "What he said!"

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 13, 2005 at 5:46 AM | PERMALINK

> Brandon,

> Excellent work. Thank you for writing that.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 13, 2005 at 7:30 AM | PERMALINK

> excellent brandon

Posted by: synecdoche on December 13, 2005 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

Why in god's grey earth are you giving brandon praise fort that post?

Did you actually try to read it?

It was blithering pseudo-intellectual idiocy.

Bob

It was blithering pseudo-intellectual idiocy.

No--that's what you produce in abundance. An abundance we don't really need. But, hey--maybe someday someone will pay attention to you.

As for me, I'll praise talent when I see it.

Pale Rider:

Summarize his argument.

:)

Bob

Pale Rider:

You know Windhorse and I have become good buddies, right?

Bob

rmck1,

Summarize his argument.

:)

No.

You know Windhorse and I have become good buddies, right?

You made a friend? Well, good for you.

Let me check my calendar...

Nope, still don't care.

Pale Rider:

Dude, you *can't* summarize his argument. If a squadron of resurrected North Vietnamese zombies had you tied up on a stake and were poking you with bayonets to get you to summarize his argument -- you stil couldn't do it.

I doubt that even *he* could do it. His point was to annoy with poststructuralist jargon, not attempt to make anything that you and I might call "sense."

What makes you such a sourpuss, anyway? Cmdicely doesn't seem to have much of a problem with the philosophical lingo. Why should you let it make you feel so threatened?

Bob

Let me go to the inbox...

Nope. Still don't care...

But hey--if cmdicely and Windhorse are your friends, I guess the music has stopped and there isn't a chair for me to sit down on.

Darn the luck...

Awwww ... I think somebody needs a big ol' hug.

Rider, Bob -- we're all on the same side here and I think both of you know it.

Don't make me come over there. I'll stop this car right now.

None of us here agrees with every jot and tittle of the others' beliefs; that would be dumb, and if it were the case we'd be Redstate.org. But most of us are in pretty rare and spectacular agreement over the larger and important issues, and that includes both of you guys, whose biggest problem is that you're both too smart for your own britches and neither of you can resist a good argument.

But one thing I think we all can agree on -- Cheney is a masturbatory toad.

Let us find fellowship in that if nothing else. ;)

Back to the topic at hand...

You wouldn't define English in the sense that it is not Latin grammar, and go about elucidating its syntax in terms of how it violates Latin declension, conjugation, gender and construction? You could, but you'd be less than clever to do so.

Yes, in fact you would do this if the whole world spoke Latin and had always spoke Latin and you were showing a native Latin speaker how English was different. That is the more apt analogy to analyze how modern atheist belief stands in contrast to historial theistic belief.

I'm aware from painful personal experience that atheists convulse at hearing it said they treat their "lack of belief" in the same way that others treat their beliefs. Unfortunately social context is inescapable, and atheists have no choice but to define themselves in contradiction to societies of people who on the whole believe all sorts of metaphysical ideas. Religious attitudes are so pervasive that at every turn an atheist is forced to say to himself, "well, here's how I'm an atheist in this situation, here's how my perspective differs from local custom or belief." A cadre of situation-specific beliefs and postures develops out of necessity for the atheist. You said it yourself that atheism was an instinctive "no thanks" to the bloody legacy of theism.

By doing that you are defining yourself in direct contrast to something else, and thereby deriving a whole set of attitudes, beliefs and behaviors out of this wholesale rejection.

It's like a rebellious teen who says, "I'm not going to be anything like my Dad, that guy is an ass." And so he sets about taking his native potential and defining a persona and belief system around "not being that other thing."

That's not a zero state, that's a dialectic.

Modern atheism is a product of reason having a failed relationship with religion; you might say it's the bastard child of the Enlightenment and western religious belief. Atheism is not a ground state, nor is it natural to humans as history shows. It did not spring forth fully formed from the head of Zeus. If humans had progressed without religion from the dawn of time, that atheism would of necessity be different than the atheism practiced today, because it wouldn't have evolved as a counterbalance to some other thing. There's no way of telling how different we'd be today had that happened; we might be Buddhists or Stoics, Aesthetes or hunter-gatherers, or the world might be one big police state. All are just as likely. There's no reason to doubt it would have still been filled with bloody wars over resources or geography. Warlords have existed quite happily from the beginning of time without needing religion to justify their avarice or brutality. Rivalries between towns and sides of rivers and states and countries happen without someone feeling their god has been blasphemed. Culture and language and physical differences provide plenty of ammunition for conflict.In fact, many items on your laundry list of things atheists don't have to do (ley lines, meditation, chi, slavery, communism) could and probably would exist on a planet of atheists. Just because a people didn't believe in gods doesn't mean that they wouldn't engage in speculative science, orstill their minds in meditation, or view property as communal.

I have nothing at all against atheists; to the contrary I understand and sympathize with their beefs against the shortcomings and defects of religious belief and even stand in solidarity with them on many issues, even though I do believe in spiritual realities. I have good friends who are atheists and great people. It's them I'm worried about, though; it's the potential for revolutions or movements that embrace "godlessness" as an excuse to throw out the baby of human values with the bath water of religion in favor of the whore of brute force and callous indifference toward our fellow man.

(Although to be clear, I worry about fundamentalist religion in this regard much, much more.)

And that's why I just think it's important to be honest and precise about modern atheism as a positive set of doctrines regarding unbelief in a Supreme Being that has arisen in opposition to religion -- not to discredit it at all, but so that when and if it is ever used to abuse people in the same way that religion or class has been used to abuse them, we can point to the situation and say -- "oh, the problem in that case is due to an abuse of atheist doctrine" and do something to fix it.

It's useful in the same way as when we look at certain negative social realities for women and say that patriarchy has caused them; defining the problem allows us to create a remedy. I'm sure the patriarchal-minded men (and women) think that their state is the ground state because of biblical revelation or tradition or dominant behavior in mammals -- but in reality they possess a set of doctrines as well.

Miss Emily,

You can't hug a crabby bear. Grr!

Windhorse,

Wha...? Since when do I come down on the side of boring?

rmck1, Bob

So sorry.

Windhorse straightened me out.

I was a Deaniac too.

Ye shall receive no rebukes nor trouble from me, only loyalty. Shoulder to shoulder will we march against these troll-like things and slay them. Their blood will foul the rivers and streams and their screams will be heard all the way to Reno...

I am your humble servant and your most apologetic and chagrined fool.

Will you find it in your heart to forgive me? Long have I fought these animals and long has it been since I knew which way was up (what with my Hockey team in last place and all.)

Damn dude--don't stop posting here.

Wha...? Since when do I come down on the side of boring?

Never! I'm sure you've mistaken something I've said. Did I not mention your pugilistic nature?

Check your inbox for one of your classics.

The problem with atheists isn't that they're bitter troublemakers. The problem is that they're not. It wasn't until I was in graduate school that I found out I'm not the only one out there --- that's how many bitter atheists -- or atheists of any kind -- most people run into. And that's because atheists are like the kind of wussy Democrats we've had in Congress in the 1980s and 1990s --- not willing to stand up for their own beliefs, apologetic about being members of the ACLU, running onto the Capitol steps to sing God Bless America when a "bitter atheist" suggested that having "under God" in the Pledge was unconstitutional. Did you know an Episcopal minister in 1831 complained that all of the presidents up until then (that's all the ones through Jackson) were infidels who weren't Christians. And he was right -- they weren't. Lincoln wasn't, either. Yet atheists are such wusses that they let Christians insist this country was founded on Christianity without any noticeable protest. We're scared of all those people who would rather vote Muslim than Atheist. And until we stop being scared of them, those people will never learn that we even exist as something other than bogeymen.

I doubt Nixon's faux Quaker-ness bought him a single vote let alone the (less than) 50% he polled in 1968 (George Wallace ran that year and Nixon barely won with 43%). He certainly didn't fool the Quakers, who, I believe, eventually effectively kicked him out of the church.

Windhorse:

An absolutely blisteringly brilliant rebuttal to brandon.

I'd add "bravo" but the alliteration would get too arch :)

You addressed the full sense of his post; I got lost in the
weeds of his rhetoric, which amounted to a sucker punch by
default. His intent was to piss me off and he succeeded.
But you cut through the post-structuralist nonsense to nail the
nub of his argument: that atheism is a pristine pre-existent
state unsullied by the corruption of religio-metaphysical ideas.

Conforting words for Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

We can't escape social context, truer words never said. Atheism
is not found among the surviving hunter-gatherers. It is not a
ground state, a tabula rasa somehow separable from culture. As you
so trenchantly put it, Athetism is the bastard child of European
Enlightenment and religious belief. It is a dialectical reaction.

To call atheism "the one ontology without apologetics" beggars
credulity. The entire litany of skeptical thought since the
Reniassance is a long, carping point-by-point refutation of
Church doctrine. A strong atheist is nothing without his trusty
toolkit stocked with Occam's Razor, critiques of theodicy and
the First Cause. Far from existing in an arcadia unbesmirched
by the taint of metaphysics, an atheist becomes by necessity an
adept in the rough-and-tumble art of philosophical rebuttal.

An atheist is, in fact, defined against the metaphysical structures
s/he wishes to deconstruct, which, like Iraqi insurgents, persist
in provoking an endless game of whack-a-mole over a few persistent
unfalsifiables. The structure never collapses, people continue
to believe, ethics continue to find a grounding in truths which
people feel more comfortable considering to be externally given.

The explanation: The rest of us are brainwashed, of course. It
has nothing to do with atheists being incapable of delivering that
final blow to the structure. We're propping it up out of prejudice,
tradition, superstition, stubbornness, neophobia. We deny the truth.

Or maybe the atheist just hasn't made the case to our satisfaction.

Or to the satisfaction of logical proof. Take your pick.

Bob

Here's something for you atheists to think about.

What if the reason plenty of people believe in God due to a personal experience, but you have never experienced anything like this and don't benefit from the reassurance a loving God is real, is because God gives you what you have asked for - which is isolation?

If atheism is hated? And all religious belief is stupid? Why do you actively try and spread your system of belief?

Why do you?

You gotta love the moral of Americans.

Pale Rider:

Hey, don't sweat it, bro. I get cranky and am prone to overread and overreact, too. I like your messages and agree with others here that you bring a lot of good military experience into these debates.

Sometimes you take the troll-vanquishing to an extreme -- but then again, sometimes so do I. We're human. We take ideas seriously. So shoot us :)

I was Miss Emily, btw -- in case you didn't guess. I had a great image in my head from the movie Office Space, where one of the obnoxious corporate-minion coworkers responds to a gripe of the protagonist in a skin-crawlingly insufferable baby-talk voice:

"Awwww, I think he's just got a case of the Mun-dayyyz ... "

Bob

rmck1,

My apologies, again. We must stand shoulder to shoulder against these evil bastards and fight the good fight.

"Cheney" is back at it on the Death penalty thread above--I used one of your responses to his spam attack--

Get this: he's threatened to do it again and says he wasn't spamming us.

I love going 60 rounds on semantics, but its not that helpful. These are my definitions of the words, and I think theyre half-decent.

the apathetic says- "I dont care about god"

the agnostic says- "god is subjective. Though I have no knowledge of him, others do. Maybe theyre right, maybe theyre wrong."

the weak atheist says- "Science, occam's razor and/or the suffering in the world (+other things) strongly suggest that god does not exist.

the strong atheist says- "God cannot possibly exist. It is inconcievable for an entity with those traits to exsist.

Those are my definitions.
You are free to your own, but debating the exact meaning of words endlessly doesnt actually get us closer to the truth.

Bob et al.,

You purport to demonstrate that, because atheism is widely defined today in terms of its opposition to religion that it must therefore have originated in reaction to religion.

I contend that, au contraire, religion and magical thinking arose in response to the human's innate sense of purposelessness and isolation - a primitive existential atheism, if you will, that still exists in each of us at bottom, despite the accretion of centuries worth of self-deceiving layers of theological rationalizations and mystical mumbo-jumbo.

Instead of arguing the relative merits of various theological and philosophical systems, this thread could have benefitted greatly from a look at the actual historical origins of religion, the study of which makes it difficult indeed to support the validity of religion in general, let alone the existence of "one true religion." In short, religion is historically born of some admixture of ignorance, fear, politics, and deception.

Religion would not exist but in reaction to the existential angst that still gnaws at the "soul" of even the most faithful among us.

yourfriendsteve:

Your definitions are for the most part fine, but I'd strongly disagree with your take on the agnostic, although I know what you were trying to get at.

But the notion of god being "subjective" is incoherent. God either created us, or his didn't. He didn't create Tommy and Sue, but didn't create Brian because Brian is the ass child of Satan or something.

A weak agnostic might say such silly, incoherent things, because weak agnosticism is a wimpy, noncomittal position that's unwilling to make any generalizable assertions. "Hey man, if you believe it, that's okay." And then the Taliban breaks down his door and burns him at the stake. Because their reality is just as valid as his.

A strong agnostic argues rather that the *knowledge* of god is subjective, because unlike the knowledge of, say, scientific phenomena, it is not trans-observable. This carries the implication that people who go around acting as if the knowledge of god (or for atheists, non-god) was objective, that we should damn well know it the way that they do (and attempt to burn you at the stake metaphorically [when not literally] if you don't) are arrogant assholes in the very worst way. Militant Agnostic: I don't know and YOU don't, either.

Strong agnostics try to offer respect to the subjective knowedge and experiences of other people. We wouldn't mock or trivialize somebody's sincere religious belief the way we we wouldn't mock or trivialize somebody's experience with death or alcohol abuse, even if we didn't share them. But we don't deny that objectivity exists, either.

Bob

athos:

> You purport to demonstrate that, because atheism is widely
> defined today in terms of its opposition to religion that
> it must therefore have originated in reaction to religion.

This is not an assertion. It's the anthropological and historical
record. I'm not going to do the essentialist/sociobiological thang
and try to hammer out a list of universal human qualities, but I
don't know of any "primitive" culture without a spiritual tradition.

Belief, a sense of connection to something greater
than oneself, is the default state of humanity.

> I contend that, au contraire, religion and magical thinking
> arose in response to the human's innate sense of purposelessness
> and isolation - a primitive existential atheism, if you will,
> that still exists in each of us at bottom, despite the accretion
> of centuries worth of self-deceiving layers of theological
> rationalizations and mystical mumbo-jumbo.

This is the sort of thing beloved of grad student TAs who grind
away teaching 100-level English courses and have read just a
little too much Foucault, but it's completely unsupported. You
want primitive existentialism? Try the Gnostics, who Hans Jonas
links to Descartes' and Heidegger's senses of being utterly alone in
the world. You needn't dispense with god to get there -- although
the Gnostics believed that god created only human consciousness.

> Instead of arguing the relative merits of various
> theological and philosophical systems, this thread
> could have benefitted greatly from a look at the actual
> historical origins of religion, the study of which makes
> it difficult indeed to support the validity of religion
> in general, let alone the existence of "one true religion."

Except that the issue of religious validity is addressed by neither
comparative religion nor anthropology. This is not to allow that
the origins of religion didn't have truck with humankind's baser
impulses -- but that is in fact the point; religion channeled them
to keep them from wrecking the human bonds which sustain society and
culture. Take it from that old atheist poster boy, Sigmund Freud.

> In short, religion is historically born of some
> admixture of ignorance, fear, politics, and deception.

The great totalitarianisms of the 20th century, which murdered
millions and provoked a world war, were borne of an admixture of
ignorance, fear, politics and deception. And they were atheist.

I'd shudder to imagine the evolution of human civilization without
religion to hold our baser impulses in check -- yes, factoring in
all those religious wars and stake burnings. Stalin, Hitler and Pol
Pot certainly didn't need to invoke god to square their inhumanity.

> Religion would not exist but in reaction to the existential angst
> that still gnaws at the "soul" of even the most faithful among us.

Well, it's an interesting theory, but again, it's unsupported by
the anthropological evidence. It's much more likely that people
were born with a sense of purpose*ful*ness, of awe and wonder and
a burning curiosity about the world, and this is the spark that
produced the religious impulse. Loss of connection to the world
came about as science bled away the awe and wonder, and advancing
modes of rational inquiry deligitimated strong intuitions and
commonplace inductive conclusion-drawing that underpin belief.

As for existential angst, well, Kierkegaard squared that with
Christianity as well. Existential angst arose with modernity and
the fundamentally alienating nature of industrial urbanization.

Bob

Bob,

You seem determined to willfully misinterpret my arguments. I guess Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin comprise a slate of straw-men too tempting for you to resist, but nowhere did I state or imply that the human condition would necessarily be improved by the absence of religion from its evolutionary arc.

But to argue, as you do, that "without
religion to hold our baser impulses in check" the world would definitely be in worse shape is simply insupportable, unless you have a time machine stashed in your garage.

My argument is simply that religions or spiritual systems were present from the most primitive stages of human development because humans, as thinking animals, have always had questions about their own origin and purpose.
Initially, these questions were unanswerable without recourse to magical thinking. Thus, it is not spirituality that is innate, but "merely" our capacity to question the premises of our own existence.

By the way, feel free to denigrate me further as a "grad student TA," but be advised that I dropped out of graduate school, and have never read Foucault. But please refrain from trying to turn me into some kind of apologist for every tin-pot atheist tyrant who has come down the pike.

athos:

> You seem determined to willfully misinterpret my arguments.
> I guess Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin comprise a slate of
> straw-men too tempting for you to resist, but nowhere did
> I state or imply that the human condition would necessarily be
> improved by the absence of religion from its evolutionary arc.

Well, you did say that the religious impulse was borne of an
admixture of some of the worst qualities of humanity. And that
a study of the historical origins of religion, by revealing these
qualities, would challenge the "validity" of religion. Well, if
you're on those grounds and away from the validity of belief systems
per se, you're judging religion in terms of its social utility.

Now ... are those rotten qualities intrinsic to religious doctrine,
the religious impulse or inherent in religious societies -- or are
they problems that are just part of the general baggage of being human
beings? A scientist would try to isolate out the religious variable.
Well, the 20th century provided an example of new social orders that
explicitly rejected religion. And those rotten qualities remained.

To say the least.

> But to argue, as you do, that "without religion to
> hold our baser impulses in check" the world would
> definitely be in worse shape is simply insupportable,
> unless you have a time machine stashed in your garage.

Well, that was just an assertion; that's why I prefaced it with
"I shudder to think." One obviously can't prove a historical
counterfactual. But I stand by it nonetheless. We've already had
examples of advanced modern societies that dispensed with religion.

> My argument is simply that religions or spiritual systems
> were present from the most primitive stages of human
> development because humans, as thinking animals, have
> always had questions about their own origin and purpose.

No argument there, certainly.

> Initially, these questions were unanswerable
> without recourse to magical thinking. Thus, it is
> not spirituality that is innate, but "merely" our
> capacity to question the premises of our own existence.

Well it's always tricky when you try to talk about what is "innate"
in humans. But when you're talking about "premises" you're already
pretty far afield of what could be innate, because premises imply a
belief structure to begin with. It's much simpler than this. The
fundamental intuition is that we're all somehow connected. I think
this explains the ubiquity of spiritual traditions across human
culture. And this is directly opposed to what I read to be your
idea, which is that beneath all of our religious baggage there's
a fundamental alienation, a "primitive existential angst" out of
which religion arises as a way of masking or somehow ameliorating.

I think the existential angst or alienation arises much later
as a consequence of both changing material conditions and the
reification of premises which then become necessary to question.

> By the way, feel free to denigrate me further as a
> "grad student TA," but be advised that I dropped out
> of graduate school, and have never read Foucault.

Well that really wasn't directed at you and I apologize if you took
it that way. It was provoked from my own experience. That the
human condition is fundamentally one of alienation and all social
structures arise to perpetuate the myth this isn't so, is an idea
beloved by postmodernists, and I think it's a bunch of hooey :)

> But please refrain from trying to turn me
> into some kind of apologist for every tin-pot
> atheist tyrant who has come down the pike.

All I wished to say by that example was that religion isn't the
only social receptacle for crummy ideas, values and actions.

Bob

Credit cards are practically
a must in today's electronic society. You need one to rent a car or to make
reservations at a hotel. If you shop
online, credit cards are the safest way to buy. And, they are ever so convenient.
These plastic cards come in a variety
of shapes, sizes and colors, from a small rectangle that you can dangle on your
key chain to a personalized credit card with your photo gracing the front. Credit
cards also come in a variety of price ranges , some with no annual fees, some
with big annual fees , some with fixed rates, others with variable rates. Credit
cards are a great financial tool, offering many benefits:

• They can be safer and more convenient to use and carry than cash


• Credit
  cards offer the ability to buy goods and services now and pay for them
  later


• They have valuable consumer protections under the law


• Major credit cards are accepted
  by merchants around the world


• They may provide a source of cash or payment in an emergency


• Credit cards can guarantee hotel or travel
  reservations


• If you are not happy with a purchase you made using a credit
  card, you may have the right to withhold payment until the problem is
  resolved.

To qualify for a credit card you must be at least 18 years old and have a regular
source of income. Despite invitations from credit
card issuers, you will still have to demonstrate that you are a good risk
before they grant you credit.
The proof is in your credit report. Before you submit a credit
card application, you may want to obtain a copy of your credit
report to make sure it is accurate. Credit
cards by type could be following:

0% Intro & Low APR credit cards - 0% Intro & Low APR credit cards
,

Rewards credit cards - Rewards credit cards ,

Instant Approval credit cards- Instant Approval credit cards,

Airline Miles Cards - Airline Miles Cards,

Business Credit Cards - Business Credit Cards,

Gas Credit Cards - Gas Credit Cards,

Student Credit Cards - Student Credit Cards ,

Low Interest Credit Cards - Low Interest Credit Cards, ,

American Express credit cards ,

Bank Of America credit cards - Bank Of America credit cards,

Chase credit cards - Chase Manhattan credit cards,

CitiBank credit cards - Citibank credit cards

Columbus Bank credit cards - Columbus Bank credit cards,

Discover credit cards - discover credit cards

HSBC Bank credit cards,

New Millennium Bank credit cards - Millennium Bank credit cards, and

U.S. Bank credit cards

Calculator
Mortgage - calculator free mortgage, calculator mortgage rate

Mortgage
Calculator calculator interest mortgage, mortgage interest calculator, calculator
mortgage.

Read more about personal
finance , earnings,
stock
markets and economy
at online business news.

can be found at credit cards
offers. credit cards, rewards
credit cards

Visa credit cards visa credit
cards

Visa gift card visa gift card

Visa platinum visa platinum

Chase visa chase visa

Aspire visa Aspire visa

Aspire visa Card Aspire visa Card

Visa Master card Visa Master card

Royal bank visa Royal bank visa

Capital One Visa Capital One Visa

Prepaid Visa Prepaid Visa

Bank of America Visa Bank of America
Visa

Visa Gold Visa Gold

MBNA visa MBNA visa

Visa student credit card Visa
student credit card

Secured visa Secured visa

Visa credit card application Visa
credit card application

Bank One Visa Bank One Visa

Prepaid visa credit card Prepaid
visa credit card

Chase Visa card Chase Visa card


Worldperks Visa Worldperks Visa

Bad credit visa card Bad credit
visa card

Visa debit card Visa debit card

Dish Network Satellite,
dish network satellite

Dish Satellite, Dish satellite

Dish Satellite TV, dish
satellite TV

Dish TV, Dish TV

Dish main Dish Main

and dish network satellite
TV dish network satellite TV.

If you are looking for best online insurance quotes, you might be interested
in the following:

Auto Insurance Quote auto
insurance quote

Car insurance car insurance

Car insurance quote car
insurance quote

Car
cheap insurance car cheap insurance

Auto
cheap insurance Auto cheap insurance

Car
insurance rate Car insurance rate

Car
insurance online car insurance online

Car
insurance online quote car insurance online quote

Car
company insurance car company insurance

Auto
insurance online auto insurance online

Auto
insurance company Auto insurance company

Auto
insurance progressive auto insurance progressive

Car
cheapest insurance car cheapest insurance

Car
geico insurance car geico insurance

Online
car insurance Online car insurance

Auto
discount insurance auto discount insurance

Auto loans auto loans

Car loans car loans

Vehicle loans vehicle loans deals

motorcycle
insurance motorcycle insurance

Insurance company Insurance company

Insurance quotes insurance quotes

Insurance Broker Insurance Broker

travel insurance
insurance travel

home insurance
home insurance

insurance
recreation vehicle insurance recreation vehicle

farmer insurance
farmer insurance

allstate insurance
allstate insurance

geico insurance
geico insurance

progressive
insurance progressive insurance

dental insurance
dental insurance

medical insurance
medical insurance

insurance life insurance life

dog health
insurance dog health insurance

insurance quote insurance
quotes

life
insurance quote insurance life quotes

health
insurance quote health insurance quotes

Term
life insurance quote term life insurance quote

Online insurance quote Online
insurance quotes, insurance online quote

Free insurance quote Free
insurance quotes

Home
owner insurance quote home owner insurance quotes

Allstate insurance allstate insurance
quotes

allstate insurance company allstate
insurance company

allstate
auto insurance allstate auto insurance,

allstate
car insurance allstate car insurance,

allstate insurance agent allstate
insurance agent,

allstate
home owner insurance allstate home owner insurance,

allstate
home insurance allstate home insurance,

allstate
life insurance allstate life insurance

Home equity loans Home
equity loans

Home loans Home loans

Loan mortgage mortgage loans

Equity loans equity loans

home
improvement loan home improvement loans

home equity loan rate home
equity loan rates

consolidation
loans consolidation loans

fast loans
fast loans

unsecured
loans unsecured loans

refinance
loans refinance loans

florida
home loan florida home loans

bad
credit home loan bad credit home loans

real estate
loan real estate loans

bad
credit home equity loan bad credit home equity loan

california
loan mortgage california loan mortgage

loan
mortgage refinance loan mortgage refinance

california
home loan california home loans

home equity loans home equity
loans and mortgages

Debt consolidation debt consolidation,
debt counseling, debt reduction

Bad credit debt consolidation
Bad credit debt consolidation

online debt consolidation online
debt consolidation

credit card debt consolidation
credit card debt consolidation

debt consolidation loan debt
consolidation loan

debt consolidation services
debt consolidation services

free debt consolidation free
debt consolidation

debt consolidation program debt
consolidation program

bad credit debt consolidation loan
bad credit debt consolidation loan

debt consolidation counseling
debt consolidation counseling

personal debt consolidation loan
personal debt consolidation loan

debt consolidation help debt
consolidation help

debt consolidation mortgage
debt consolidation mortgage

debt consolidation credit counseling
debt consolidation credit counseling

credit debt consolidation credit
debt consolidation

credit card debt consolidation loan
credit card debt consolidation loan

debt
consolidation quote debt consolidation quote

debt consolidation information
debt consolidation information

consumer debt consolidation
consumer debt consolidation

debt consolidation mortgage loan
debt consolidation mortgage loan

personal debt consolidation
personal debt consolidation

debt consolidation financing
debt consolidation financing

debt consolidation refinance
debt consolidation refinance

debt consolidation home loan
debt consolidation home loan

business
debt consolidation business debt consolidation

free debt consolidation services
free debt consolidation services

debt consolidation and management
debt consolidation and management

Home equity loan Home equity loan

Home loan home loan

Home equity
loan rate Home equity loan rate

Home equity
loan rates Home equity loan rates

Bad
credit home equity loan Bad credit home equity loan

Home equity loan online Home equity
loan online

California home equity loan California
home equity loan

Florida home equity loan Florida
home equity loan

Home equity loan calculator Home
equity loan calculator

Texas home equity loan Texas home
equity loan

Home equity loan refinancing Home
equity loan refinancing

Refinance home equity loan Refinance
home equity loan

Home equity loan company Home
equity loan company

auto loan auto loan

bad credit car loan
bad credit car loan

new car loan new car
loan

used car loan used
car loan

car loan calculator
car loan calculator

car title loan car
title loan

refinance car loan
refinance car loan

online car loan
online car loan

car loan chicago
car loan chicago

car loan houston
car loan houston

car loan rate car
loan rate

car loan refinancing
car loan refinancing

car loan pittsburgh
car loan pittsburgh

car loan washington
dc car loan washington dc

car loan st louis
car loan st louis

no credit car loan
no credit car loan

car loan los angeles
car loan los angeles

car loan detroit
car loan detroit

car loan interest
rate car loan interest rate

car loan minneapolis
car loan minneapolis

car loan boston
car loan boston

car loan dallas
car loan dallas

car loan oakland
car loan oakland

car loan philadelphia
car loan philadelphia

bankruptcy car loan
bankruptcy car loan

used car loan rate
used car loan rate

low rate car loan
low rate car loan

car loan phoenix
car loan phoenix

gmac car loan gmac car loan

cheap car loan cheap
car loan

car loan for people with bad credit car
loan for people with bad credit

car loan
payment calculator car loan payment calculator

car loan value car
loan value

car loan uk car loan
uk

student car loan
student car loan

bad credit
used car loan bad credit used car loan

car loan riverside
car loan riverside

new car loan rate
new car loan rate

car loan new york
car loan new york

used car auto loan
used car auto loan

car finance loan
car finance loan

car loan fort worth
car loan fort worth

car loan seattle
car loan seattle

car loan financing
car loan financing

car loan baltimore
car loan baltimore

car loan austin
car loan austin

auto car loan auto car loan

car loan san antonio
car loan san antonio

car loan indianapolis
car loan indianapolis

car loan columbus
ohio car loan columbus ohio

car loan denver
car loan denver

car loan after
bankruptcy car loan after bankruptcy

atlanta car loan
atlanta car loan

car loan
finance calculator car loan finance calculator



Affiliate programs are
the best way to make your web site profitable. There's a huge range of web
affiliate programs available now, so each webmaster could find affiliate
program suitable to his/her web site category. Check out web affiliate
resources section for the best information on affiliate events and how to
set up your own affiliate program
or tools to help affiliates.

Affiliate
networks Affiliate networks

Top affiliate program Top
affiliate program

Free affiliate program
Free affiliate program

Best affiliate program
Best affiliate program

Pay
per click affiliate program Pay per click affiliate program

Casino
affiliate program Casino affiliate program

Online affiliate program
Online affiliate program

Affiliate
software Affiliate software

Affiliate
program software Affiliate program software

Affiliate
sales program Affiliate sales program

Web
master affiliate program Web master affiliate program

Adult
affiliate programs Adult affiliate programs

Get paid surf get paid
surf

Get paid to surf get paid
to surf

Paid to surf paid to surf

Paid to autosurf Paid to
autosurf

Get paid to autosurf Get
paid to autosurf

Online travel reservation, travel
reservation, cruise travel, discount
travel, discounted travel, Cruize travel, Last
minute travel, Travel Asia. The best place to book cruise travel tickets
for

Alaska Cruises, Bahamas
Cruises, Bermuda
cruises, Canada
Cruises, Caribbean
cruises, Eastern
Caribbean Cruises, Western
Caribbean Cruises, Southern
Caribbean cruises, Europe
Cruises, Norwegian
Cruises, Western
European Cruises,Western
Mediterranean Cruises, Eastern
Mediterranean Cruises, Mexico
Cruises and Hawaiian
Cruises is here. discount hotels Las
Vegas discount hotels las vegas

Gold Coast gold coast las vegas, discount
hotels New York discount hotels new york, discount
hotels Orlando discount hotels orlando, discount
hotels Chicago discount hotels chicago, discount
hotels Atlanta discount hotels atlanta, discount
hotels London discount hotels london, discount
hotels Boston discount hotels boston, Discount
Hotel Rooms discount hotel rooms, Discount
Car Rentals discount car rentals. Hotel
reservation - hotel tickets -
online travel reservation

hotel, cheap hotel,
las vegas hotel, discount
hotels, new
york hotels, london
hotels, hotel reservation, orlando
hotels, hotel
chicago, hotel visitor, hotel motel, hilton hotel, san
francisco hotels, hotel deals, cancun
hotels, paris hotels,
habbo hotels, new
york city hotels, rome
hotels, hotel accommodation, hotel
california, boston
hotels, reno hotel, hawaii
hotels, miami hotels,
hotel rooms, sheraton
hotels, san
diego hotels, amsterdam
hotels, radisson hotel, discount
hotel rooms, singapore
hotels, prague
hotels, bangkok
hotels, hotel search, doubletree hotel, best western hotel, toronto
hotels, dubai hotels,
las vegas
hotel reservation, disney hotel, discount vegas hotel, venice
hotels, hotel car, choice hotel, tokyo
hotels, washington dc hotel, malaysia
hotels, westin hotel, beach hotel, atlantic
city hotels, hotel
atlanta, seattle
hotels, hyatt hotel, wyndham hotel, los
angeles hotels, bellagio hotel, dublin
hotels, hotel lodging, new
orleans hotels, vancouver
hotels, las vegas hotel discount, mgm grand las vegas, thailand
hotels, montreal
hotels, hong
kong hotels, niagara falls hotel, bahamas
hotels, clarion hotel, barcelona
hotels, hotel
san antonio, eck green hotel line mecklenburg pomerania schaefer west, cheap
hotel rate, casino hotel, bali
hotels, hotel dallas,
sydney hotels,
travel hotel, hotel
philadelphia, holiday inn hotel, italy hotel, palm
springs hotels, new orleans louisiana hotel, florida hotel, renaissance
hotel, mexico hotels,
phuket hotels,
w hotel, maui hotels,
hotel resort, canada hotel, hotel management, manhattan
hotels, intercontinental hotel, florence
hotels, omni hotel, myrtle
beach hotels, south
beach hotels, four season hotel, discount hotel rates.

European vacation European
vacation

European vacation packages
European vacation packages

cheap european vacation
cheap european vacation

european vacation tours
european vacation tours

European vacations european vacations

european cruise travel vacations
european cruise travel vacations

vacation
package discounts vacation package discounts

vacation
package specials vacation package specials

cheap
vacation packages cheap vacation packages

family
vacation packages family vacation packages

Travel Europe travel europe, europe
travel

cruise
vacation packages cruise vacation packages

ireland
vacation packages ireland vacation packages

European vacation european vacation

france
vacation packages france vacation packages

vacation
package deals vacation package deals

italy
vacation packages italy vacation packages

europe vacation packages
europe vacation packages

spain
vacation packages spain vacation packages

new
years vacation packages new years vacation packages

discount airfare discount airfare

discount air tickets discount air
tickets

discount airline tickets discount
airline tickets



weight loss weight loss

weight loss pills weight
loss pills

weight loss products weight
loss products

fast
weight loss fast weight loss

quick
weight loss quick weight loss

weight
loss plans weight loss plans

weight
loss supplements weight loss supplements

weight
loss online weight loss online

natural
weight loss natural weight loss

weight
loss information weight loss information

green
tea weight loss green tea weight loss

herbalife
weight loss herbalife weight loss



weight loss pills and products weight loss pills, tips, products - YerbaSlim
ingredients, Why
YerbaSlim works - Why YerbaSlim works? - Weight loss pills YerbaSlim Weight
loss pills YerbaSlim



Movie posters, movies posters, best
movies posters available at MoviesHelp.

Movie rental movie rentals

Movie online rental Movie online rental

Movie rental online Movie rental online

DVD movie rental DVD movie rental

DVD movie rental video DVD movie rental
video

Movie rental review Movie rental review

DVD movie rental online DVD movie rental
online

family movie rental family movie rental

Phone services Phone services

Phone system phone system

Office phone system Office phone system

Business phone system Business phone
system

VOIP phone system VOIP phone system

Small Business Phone system Small Business
Phone system

Panasonic phone system Panasonic phone
system

Avaya phone system Avaya phone system

Toshiba phone system Toshiba phone system

wireless phone system wireless phone
system

small office phone system small office
phone system

used phone system used phone system

home office phone system home office
phone system

BMG music service BMG music service

BMG music club BMG music club

BMG music service online BMG music service
online

BMG music BMG music - 12 for 1 deal!

Heavy metal heavy metal

Power metal power metal

Melodic power metal melodic power metal

Lyrics Lyrics

Song Lyrics Song lyrics

Find song lyrics find song lyrics

Sports tickets sports tickets

Cheap sports tickets Cheap sports
tickets

Cheap tickets cheap tickets

Concert tickets concert tickets

Help desk software help desk
software

Help desk solution Help desk
solution

Help desk help desk

Tax software tax software

Tax preparation software tax preparation
software

Income tax software income tax software

Free tax software free tax software

Professional tax software professional
tax software

Tax software tax software download
online

Merchant accounts merchant accounts,
accept credit
cards, apply for a merchant account

Internet merchant account internet
merchant account

Merchant account merchant account

Credit
card merchant account credit card merchant account

Online
merchant account online merchant account

Merchant
account provider merchant account provider

Merchant
account services merchant account services

ecommerce
merchant account ecommerce merchant account

free merchant
account free merchant account

international
merchant account international merchant account

small business merchant account
small business merchant account

best merchant
account best merchant accounts

Bachelor degree online bachelor
degree online - apply for a bachelor
degree online!

Online bachelor degree program
Online bachelor degree program

Online bachelor degree education
Online bachelor degree education

Bachelor degree Bachelor
degree

Distance
learning bachelor degree Distance learning bachelor degree

Bachelor
degree program Bachelor degree program

Bachelor degree on line Bachelor
degree on line



Best web hosts best web host, best
web hosting

Reseller hosting Reseller hosting

web site templates web site templates

web templates web templates

photoshop templates photoshop templates

Domain name registration
domain name registration, domain name registry, register
domain names

Buy domain names buy domain names,
domain names for sale, register
domain name

domain name domain name,


domain name registrations
domain name registrations,

business commerce domain e
name business commerce domain e name,

internet
domain name internet domain name,

domain
name register domain name register,

domain name
search domain name search

web
site domain name web site domain name

buy domain name buy domain name

domain
name registration and hosting domain name registration and hosting

domain
name registrar domain name registrar

internet
domain name registration, internet domain name registration,

registering
domain name registering domain name

personal
domain name personal domain name

cheap
domain name registration cheap domain name registration

low
cost domain name registration low cost domain name registration

domain
name registration service domain name registration service

domain name
for sale domain name for sale

low cost
domain name low cost domain name

low cost
domain names low cost domain names

buy web domain
name buy web domain name

domain
name search web domain name search web

web
domain name registration web domain name registration

purchase
domain name purchase domain name

domain name r, domain
name r

sell domain name,
sell domain name

domain
name registry, domain name registry

expired domain
name, expired domain name

domain
name check, domain name check

available
domain name, available domain name

available
domain names, available domain names

transfer
domain name, transfer domain name

web
space domain name, web space domain name

domain
name uk, domain name uk

free
domain name hosting, free domain name hosting

web domain
name, web domain name

canadian
domain name, canadian domain name

discount
domain name, discount domain name

domain
name canada, domain name canada

free
web hosting domain name, free web hosting domain name

bulk
domain name registration, bulk domain name registration

cheap
domain name register, cheap domain name register

new domain name,
new domain name

low
price domain name registration low price domain name registration

web hosting web
hosting

web hosting
provider web hosting provider

affordable
web hosting affordable web hosting

cheap web hosting
cheap web hosting

business web
hosting business web hosting

web hosting
company web hosting company

ecommerce
web hosting ecommerce web hosting

small business
web hosting small business web hosting

web hosting
solution web hosting solution

linux web hosting
linux web hosting

web design
and hosting web design and hosting

best web hosting
best web hosting

web hosting
directory web hosting directory

windows web
hosting windows web hosting

business
web site hosting business web site hosting

php web hosting
php web hosting

frontpage
web hosting frontpage web hosting

web hosting
reviews web hosting reviews

low cost web
hosting low cost web hosting

web
site design and hosting web site design and hosting

small
business web site hosting small business web site hosting

professional
web hosting professional web hosting

cheap
web hosting package cheap web hosting package

web server hosting
web server hosting

personal web
hosting personal web hosting

web hosting plan
web hosting plan

web hosting
web space web hosting web space

small
business web hosting services small business web hosting services

uk web hosting
uk web hosting

affordable
web hosting for small business affordable web hosting for small business

discount web
hosting discount web hosting

low
cost web hosting services low cost web hosting services

web
hosting company for small business web hosting company for small business

ecommerce
web site hosting ecommerce web site hosting

domain name
web hosting domain name web hosting

shared web hosting
shared web hosting

web site
hosting directory web site hosting directory

budget web hosting
budget web hosting

e commerce
web hosting e commerce web hosting

web hosting
package web hosting package

web hosting
packages web hosting packages

inexpensive
web hosting inexpensive web hosting

unix web hosting
unix web hosting

dedicated
server web hosting dedicated server web hosting

reliable web
hosting reliable web hosting

web
hosting domain registration web hosting domain registration

fast web hosting
fast web hosting

internet
web site hosting internet web site hosting

small
business web hosting plan small business web hosting plan

managed web
hosting managed web hosting

cheapest web
hosting cheapest web hosting

christian
web hosting christian web hosting

company
web site hosting company web site hosting

virtual web
hosting virtual web hosting

web
hosting service provider web hosting service provider

personal
web hosting services personal web hosting services

best web site
hosting best web site hosting

mysql web hosting
mysql web hosting

web site
hosting provider web site hosting provider

ecommerce
hosting solution web ecommerce hosting solution web

top web hosting
top web hosting

web hosting
comparison web hosting comparison

commercial
web hosting commercial web hosting

shared web
site hosting shared web site hosting

web hosting
shopping cart web hosting shopping cart

professional
web site hosting professional web site hosting