General Feedback re: the Secular Web

I think it's good to educate yourself. I like to think of myself as a "free-thinker." I have taught myself much. Information is a very good thing. As far as thinking you can "destroy" an entire religion which has been around for eternity, keep dreaming. People who know God do not give a damn what you say about their religion. You are all preaching crap to people who live in piles of crap. If you are truly "atheists," why do you spend all your time thinking about God? Maybe you don't spend ALL your time doing so, but you are sure fooling me... Stop trying to hurt other people by attacking their religion and you might find that life is fun and beautiful. If you put negative out, you will almost always get negative back. Try putting some positive waves out there, like telling people about how great your life is without a "god" to tell you what to do. Believe me, I am a christian, and I have read most of the garbage you have all written here. I am not searching my soul for answers because of what you have written. I guarantee that no other Christians will either. Unless you all just want the satisfaction of knowing that you said something on the internet which sounded semi-intelligent, quit attacking my religion, please.

[Richard Carrier]

I get a kick out of people who act so astonishingly stupid when they claim to be dispensing wise advice. Imagine someone going to a website about venerial disease and asking the site staff "Why do you spend all your time thinking about venerial disease? Maybe you don't, but you could have fooled me!" Okay, Mr. Wherethehellami.

In case you didn't notice, our very mission is to show people, just as you say, "that life is fun and beautiful" (indeed, it is the epitome of bizarre that you would think we were not in agreement about that: see our mission statement (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/)). Indeed, we have found, from direct experience and from an examination of history, that it is religion that has, in many of its forms, denigrated and denied this fact and prevented people from understanding it, much less appreciating it. Thus, we aim to tell the truth about religions that lie or distort or err or spread false or self-defeating values, and to answer the slanders and attacks upon us levelled by the religious.

Contrary to your arrogant pessimism, you swim in an entirely different religious atmosphere now because of people like us. Indeed, in Europe the war has almost entirely gone to our side. Even in America, most people no longer believe in the literalism of the Bible--few even read it; most are distrustful of every religious authority--and consequently the church has lost almost all the power it once had; blasphemy laws have been stricken, church and state have been separated, science and rational historical method reign triumphant as the ideology most widely embraced by the political and economic elite. Skepticism is almost universally hailed as a virtue, and by and large people look first to technology and human action, rather than prayers to the divine, for the solutions to all real problems. Wake up. We've practically won. The United States is akin to the last Western front in the War, and battles rage on. The Middle East, in contrast, with Islamic fundamentalism as the ultimate outcome of your own desire that religion prevail against all criticism and reason, may be lost. Yet I doubt you would want to live there. You no doubt prefer the world us humanists created here in the Secular West. Isn't that funny?

In the end, you should make some effort to understand us before assuming you have us pegged. You ask us to say positive things--and in doing so you prove that you didn't even check to make sure we didn't. Lo and behold, maybe you should spend some time in our Secular Humanism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/secularhumanism/), Morality and Atheism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/morality-and-atheism.html), and Faith and Reason (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/reason/) sections, and some of our past featured essays, such as Of Love, Brunettes, and Biology (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/carrier1.html), not to mention numerous inspirational works drawn from our freethinking heritage in our Historical Library (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/). Yet the truth is simple and uniform. It is the lies that are complex and multifarious, and thus combating them takes a great deal more work. Contrary to your hope, a great many Christians read our works, and several whom I have personally known have changed their views as a result (who knows how many more there are). Indeed, the better part of our own staff and writers were once Christians who found freedom and truth here at the Secular Web, or in the authors we cite or link to. And we intend to go on rescuing people from superstition, teaching them reason and independent thought, and refuting the lies and slanders, and correcting the errors and abuses, of those act in the name of God. Shame on you for not joining so noble a mission.

posted April 22, 2001 09:36 PM

The Secular Web is maintained and operated by the Internet Infidels, a group of dedicated
nonbelievers who volunteer their time and effort to further our stated mission: "to defend and
promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is, a
closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself."

You state that our natural world is all that there is. By the many theories worked out within science, this is, proveably false. Our current time and space are paralleled by an imaginary time and space. This is called imaginary not because it is made up but after the number line in math known as imaginary numbers. An example of imaginary numbers is thus: +2 X +2 = +4. What, then is the square root of -4? The answer is 2i. The imaginary number line is similar to another dimension of our number axis. It is much like the fourth dimension, time, in that it cannot be visualized. The ultimate point is that there is/are parallel universes that are not connected to our material universe. They exist on a separate plane. You can find a more apt description of this in Stephen Hawking's book. It is also empirically proven myriad other places, although I can't recite them off the top of my head.
Email: JustAWright@AOL.com

[James Still]

Hi Mike,

Your comments are fascinating and demonstrate that our world is far more complex than anyone ever imagined. However, unlike the ancient Greeks we infidels neither suffer from horror vacui nor do we have an aversion to the infinite. Multi-dimensional space, string theory, quantum singularities, and Hawking's notion of imaginary time are all right at home here because they all belong to the natural world. In short, we do not impose a necessary structure onto the world; we wait for the world to reveal itself to us. I think your error is in equating metaphysical naturalism with a strict realist materialism. We do not hold to a naive view of the universe as that which exists only as matter in three dimensional space. The mind, for instance, is an emergent property of brain states and nothing is gained by reducing it to the material. Nor do we wish to reduce concepts like justice or freedom to the material.

What room them for God as Sagan said? When believers make the supernatural an evidential matter and something known through the facts of the world, then they have fashioned a proposition the truth of which we deny. However, if believers remain noncognitive and treat the supernatural as a matter purely for faith, then we are respectful of their worldview even though we do not share it. I hope this makes our philosophical position clearer.

James

[Bill]

Dear Mike:

I'd like to add a few words to what Jim has said, above.

I've received training as an electrical engineer, and I recognize the imaginary number axis (i = the square root of -1) as being quite useful in modeling the properties of electromagnetic wave propagation. It is usually visualized as being 90 degrees out of phase from the "real" axis. Thus, when the signal on the "real" axis is crossing the axis (at its "zero" point), the signal on the imaginary axis will be at its maximum. In the design of electronic equipment, we frequently have circuits to handle both the "in phase" ("real") and "quadrature" ("imaginary") signals. In that sense, these signals are not really "imaginary", but do have a very real existence inside of various sorts of electronic equipment.

As for your "ultimate point" about "parallel universes that are not connected to our material universe," I think you will find that we are not unfamiliar with this sort of thing. I would invite you to read my own essay, At the Intersection of "Metaphysical Naturalism" and "Intelligent Design" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/crsc.html), which explores such matters as the implications of higher-dimensional realities as are required for "string theory" to be found to be true.

The ultimate point of my essay, above, is that even proof of the existence of some "intelligent designer" of our universe would not disprove "metaphysical naturalism," nor would it prove the existence of the triune God of Christianity, or any God(s) of any other religion(s).

I think you will find that our minds are quite open to matters of proven fact. It is only matters of pretty-well-discredited alleged "facts" of the past which draw our greatest skepticism.

== Bill

[Richard Carrier]

Having a belief is not closed minded. Nor is defending or promoting what you believe--unless you think only apathetic people who profess no beliefs at all are open minded.

A freethinker is, as Webster's says, "a person who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority or tradition." To have an open mind is "having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments" or to be "unprejudiced; unbigoted; impartial."

We certainly meet all of these qualifications. Our opinion, that metaphysical naturalism is true, is based on reason and evidence, independent of authority or tradition. We are also open to new ideas or arguments. We listen, and examine them all in the light of reason and evidence before dismissing them out of hand. And we are impartial: unlike Christian websites, for example, we link to all rebuttals of the papers we publish, and we link to several major websites promoting Christianity, the most popular religion in the West. We treat everyone equally on the objective merits of their argument and evidence.

Those are the values of inquiry and conviction that we stand for.

Let me start by making clear where I stand on the issue of religion. I have no religious belief whatsoever. I could be called an atheist, in the sense that I have no positive belief in God. However, I find that II.org has serious problems if it aims to be a resource for nonbelievers across the globe.

My issues with the Secular Web fall into two main categories, one more serious than the other:

(1) Inaccurate information and laughable arguments.
(2) An assumption that all II users live in the United States.

Problem number (1) begins at the II frontpage, which asserts that "to disbelieve in the gods...is at the same time to affirm life, purpose and beauty". It is nothing of the sort. The lack of a belief in God does not automatically carry with it any affirmation of "life, purpose and beauty". Nihilists, philistines and suicidal people are all quite capable of disbelieving in God. It could be argued that the positive belief in God invariably entails a rejection of life, purpose and beauty, but even that claim is on very shaky ground.

But let's move on from the frontpage, which admittedly is really a portal to the site rather than a repository of arguments, and look in the Library, which is concerned with detailed intellectual exchange. Take, for example, 'New Testament Contradictions' by Paul Carlson, which can be found here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

It claims, for instance, in relation to Matthew 26:15, that "There were no "pieces of silver" used as currency in Jesus' time - they had gone out of circulation about 300 years before." This really is a laughable argument that only serves to provide apologists (such as the esteemed Mr Holding/Turkel) with ammunition. Despite official Roman currency being in circulation, there were provincial coins minted at Antioch and Tyre, and the local Jewish money being used (which happened to include silver coins). Hence the money-changers in the temple.

If II wants to establish itself as a serious intellectual site, then it cannot afford to have stuff such as the above in its 'Library'.

Now, let's look to problem number (2), which, again, you need look no further than the frontpage to see demonstrated. What is the point of putting quotes from Newdow v. Congress there? It is not concerned with the existence of God, or with the truth of a particular religion. It is concerned with the technical legal question of whether the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution covers the words 'under God' in an Act of Congress. That decision is not final (it is subject to en banc rehearing by the 9th Circuit and/or appeal to the US Supreme Court, where it is likely to be overturned purely on the basis of Newdow's lack of standing) and it is of no interest to the 19/20 of the world's population which lives outside the US.

I hope that this feedback is useful.

[-DM-]

Yes, your feedback is at least somewhat useful. Certainly there is at least an element of truth in many of your criticisms. I have asked members of the Internet Infidels Board of Directors to take a look at your feedback. Perhaps one or more of the others might want to respond. In the meantime, a few comments from me.

--

(1) Inaccurate information and laughable arguments.
There is bound to be some inaccurate information on the Secular Web given that it includes thousands of documents written by numerous different authors. We do not claim that our work is infallible and inerrant.

Just as with any library, we provide information that we think might be useful in connection with our mission, which is to defend and promote a nontheistic worldview which holds that the natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of a supernatural explanation and sufficient unto itself.

It is up to the reader to decide what is and is not useful. It is also up to the reader, to at least some extent, to sort out what is and isn't accurate. What is and is not laughable, of course, is largely a matter of opinion.

--

(2) An assumption that all II users live in the United States.
This is incorrect; we know for a fact that many of our users live outside the United States. We also know for a fact, however, that the vast majority of our users do live in the United States. Further, inasmuch as Internet Infidels is itself based in the United States, inasmuch as most of the authors who submit articles for publication live in the United States, and inasmuch as all members of the Board of Directors live in the United States--it is the United States with which we are mostly concerned.

--

Problem number (1) begins at the II frontpage, which asserts that "to disbelieve in the gods...is at the same time to affirm life, purpose and beauty".
Obviously, this is a generalization which does not always apply in individual cases. It is a generalization which we nevertheless believe is generally true. Generally speaking, nontheists recognize that humans will have to solve human problems without reliance on a supernatural being. This recognition affirms life, this life, and purpose, purpose during this life. By contrast, religious belief systems such as Christianity tend to emphasize the next life, viewing this life only as a preparation for the eternal life to come. Instead of coming to grips with reality, such belief systems tend to look to a supernatural being to rectify human problems here on earth. Further, to begin, as does Christianity, with the assumption that humans are born with an evil nature, is, so far as I am concerned, the opposite of affirming beauty. As an ex-Christian, I, for one, believe that Emma Goldman was right.

If you are interested, you can learn more about Emma Goldman (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/emma_goldman/index.shtml) by clicking on the preceding link.

--

Take, for example, 'New Testament Contradictions' by Paul Carlson, . . . .
I have notified Paul Carlson of your feedback. You might want to check back from time to time for a response from him (in this thread).

It is possible, of course, that he is mistaken. If so, then this particular "contradiction" should be revised or eliminated. On the other hand, it would be intellectually myopic to dismiss a whole library as lacking intellectual quality simply because some claims made by some authors were erroneous. I think that you will find, if you become sufficiently familiar with the Secular Web Library (http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml), that much of the content meets very high standards.

The Secular Web is the foremost site of its kind in the world. In my opinion, it rivals any of the apologetic websites, including that of Turkel (a.k.a. J. P. Holding).

--

What is the point of putting quotes from Newdow v. Congress there [on the front page]?
The point of putting quotes from Newdow v. Congress on the front page is that they are of interest to many of our readers. There are many matters related to religiosity other than just the matter of the existence or nonexistence of a god and/or the truth or untruth of a given religion which are of importance to the Internet Infidels. The separation of church and state is one of those matters of importance. The quotes are of interest for the opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court regardless of the eventual outcome.

Although 19/20 of the world's inhabitants may live outside of the United States, it is probably a safe bet that about 17/20 of visitors to the Secular Web live in the United States.

-Don-

[Bill]

I will chip in a few things here:

1. The Secular Web Library has literally thousands of articles, essays, book chapters, and other paginated works in it, and represents the collected work of over 70 historical authors (who wrote before 1970) and over 100 modern authors (who wrote since 1970). I am absolutely certain that there are false and questionable claims made within those works. For example, you can refer to Richard Carrier's recently updated disclaimer about Kersey Graves (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html). When we detect errors, we will either fix them, note them (and note why they are not being corrected), remove the piece in question, or otherwise address issues of this sort.

Against that background, I hardly view a single claimed error within a single web page that has never (so far as I can recall) been challenged before as being anything more than the ordinary sort of a problem that we deal with as they come up.

=====

2. It is impossible for us to determine exactly what our user mix is, but one in 20 comes from .au, .nz, .ca, or .uk. And, since we only present our information in English, it is a safe bet that most of the foreigners who read our site are at least somewhat interested in the United States. We are a 501(c)(3) charity that is organized and operated within the United States, and most of the people who pay us money are located in the United States, so it is reasonably fair for us to target the bulk of our message at residents of the United States.

=====

3. But the choice of the recurring Newdow quotes is really a matter of a lack of volunteer help around here. I need somebody to take the old quote file and format it properly to use with the new technology quote generator. Or else, I need a new way to generate the quotes that doesn't change every time we move from one server to another. Either way, somebody needs to "do something" and I just don't have the time to do it myself (in spite of the fact that I'm spending virtually all of my waking hours sitting in front of this computer).

Do you wish to volunteer to help us out with the quote generator? If so, please send a message to infidels@infidels.org and let us know!

== Bill

Hi Don Morgan (and everyone else),

I had some questions concerning The Secular Web in general, and thought this would be the best place to post them (since I'm curious what the people who run the show think and not curious what the people in the forums think). So, my apologies ahead of time if this doesn't meet Feedback standards, but I am looking for responses by Don Morgan, J. Lowder, R. Carrier, etc.

First, it is often claimed atheism can be both a "lack of belief" and a "positive assertion". My question is simply, does it really make sense to say one lacks a belief in something? While one can say "yeah, I lack a belief in God" in an argument, is it even possible to assume that these people don't go around saying "i don't believe in God" or thinking to themselves "there is no God"? While it makes sense from a scientific and philosophical viewpoint, it seems to actually say to someone "i lack a belief in something" is a little odd. Negative atheism (for me as well) is very popular, mainly, I think, because it let's the atheist off of a very big hook, and ultimately it's a hook that needs to be dealt with. But, I also think there is something rather fishy (pardon the fishing metaphors) about one claiming they "lack a belief in something".

Second, it is often claimed that one cannot dispute reason, since to do so requires using reasoning, and thus the reasoner wins hands down. However, it seems to me the opposite is well as true. In order to justify reason as the greatest method to truth one must assume reason, and thus beg the very question. What, according to the Secular Web people, is the foundation of reason? If one were to say we "observe reason to work", is observation then more important than reason? Is there even a foundation to reason?

Third, how does it make sense to argue the natural universe is all there is? How can one possibly know that? Following McGinn, isn't it more realistic to suggest we probably will never know (and in fact can't know based on cognitive limitations) what may or may not be "beyond" the universe (if anything), as well as a host of other things? Do the powers that be at The Secular Web think there are any limitiations concerning understanding the universe, mind, whether a God exists, etc.?

Four, The Secular Web doesn't seem to deal with the problem of skepticism at all. What is the viewpoint concerning whether something is "really out there"? How do we know something is "out there"?

My overall question concerns the foundations of metaphysical naturalism or the beliefs of individual members (who run The Secular Web). Thanks in advance for any comments.

Mark

[jlowder]

I used to subscribe to the definition of atheism as "the lack of theistic belief." I no longer use that definition. I realized common usage does not support that definition. According to common usage, agnosticism is "the lack of theistic belief" while atheism is "the belief that God does not exist." Since I believe it is important to pick one's battles and since I believe it is a waste of time to argue about definitions, I decided to adopt the common usage definition. On this subject, Ted Drange's essay, "Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html)" summarizes my viewpoint quite nicely.

Independently of the issue of what to call "the lack of theistic belief," there is the issue of whether there is any oddity in truly lacking belief. I don't think there is anything odd about a person saying they both lack a belief that some proposition is true and lack the belief that some proposition is false. That simply means the person is undecided. I can think of all sorts of examples of a person being truly undecided on an issue.

As far as "letting the atheist off the hook," I think that hook can be handled without resorting to a revisionist definition of atheism. See my debate with Phil Fernandes (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/video/lowder-fernandes.html), where I give multiple lines of evidence for metaphysical naturalism and against theism.

Your third question is based upon a misconception of metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is NOT the view that the natural universe is all there is. Metaphysical naturalism is the view that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of the universe can affect it. Metaphysical naturalism is compatible with the existence of all sorts of non-natural or non-physical entities that do not have the ability to affect the universe. For example, metaphysical naturalism is compatible with abstract objects, including numbers, sets, propositions, etc. Metaphysical naturalism is also compatible with objective moral values.

I'm going to skip over your second and fourth questions as I lack any interest in discussing them. I hope this is at least somewhat useful to you, though!

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[Richard Carrier]

Regarding your third and fourth questions, I have a book in review at a publisher now that covers them in detail. When it is released it will certainly be widely announced here at the Secular Web.

For now, regarding the ground of reason, or at least of logic, I have discussed this issue peripherally before, as part of a larger book review:

Nash on Naturalism v. Christian Theism (www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/3b.html)

See also the Secular Web rebuttals to the Transcendental Argument for God (www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/transcendental.html).

Regarding the basis for asserting naturalism (and versions thereof, like materialism, physicalism, and objectivism), dozens of books have been released in the past ten years. Check out the Secular Web Bookstore (www.secweb.org/bookstore/books.asp) for some of the best (Taner Edis, for example, is the latest author to contribute). Check subject "materialism" and then also authors "Edis" and "Nielson" for a tip of the iceberg. We have a few essays online, too, though not as comprehensive (Keith Augustine's treatise is a good place to start, though). See the Secular Web's sections on Naturalism (www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/) and Materialism (www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/materialism/).

[theophilus]

In case I've never done it, I want to thank the people who sponsor and maintain this site.

The fact that I disagree with the fundamental thesis does not relieve me of the obligation (yes, moral obligation) to recognize and appreciate your work.

No response is expected or necessary unless others want to express their appreciate.

[-DM-]

theophilus:

Thank you very much for the positive feedback. We sincerely appreciate it!

Regards,
-Don-

[Secular Pinoy]

Are there any paper, article, debate or essay by Paul Draper that is available from the Secular Web? I've seen him referred to in numerous articles by other authors, yet there is no article from him here.

[-DM-]

It is always dangerous to state with certainty what is not, but so far as I can tell, Draper has no articles or debates here on the Secular Web.

-Don-

[yther]

A quick Google search did not reveal anything, so I'm not sure if anyone is paying attention, but while watching the anime "Mahoromatic", season 2, episode 4, at 00:10:12 the first two paragraphs of Examination of the Prophecies (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/examine_prophecies.html) are displayed as if they were a communiqu� to the secret organization, The Keepers. Naturally, the Keepers are a behind-the-scenes organization similar to the Illuminati, bent on making sure that the world, and all who step on it, walk according to their particular map.

Anyway, I thought this was very funny, so I figured I should give you some feedback to let you know that you have been indelibly, if unnoticeably, inscribed in pop culture of the animated sort. :D (Ok, depending upon how one phrases the search, either (infidels) Examination of the Prophecies (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/examine_prophecies.html) or (vanallens) Examination of the Prophecies (http://www.vanallens.com/exchristian/proph.php) comes up first. To be fair, I should mention that both sites are somewhat odd. I hope that will suffice by way of a disclaimer.)

LL&P!

[justsumner]

This site seems very active. I am wondering who I would need to contact to advertise on this site? I have ads on a few other atheists/freethought forums and they work well, as the members generally have the same interests that I write about.

Any ifo would be great.

Thanks

[-DM-]

Thank you for your interest in advertising on the Secular Web. For information, please send an e-mail inquiry to: infidels@infidels.org

-DM-

[makhpyina_luta]

My name is Sara and I am from Italy; I've found your website very interesting, expecially Donald MOrgan's articles. I ask you if you would appreciate translations into italian of his and other writer's articles. Let me know.

[E-mail address deleted to preclude harvesting by the spambots. -DM-]

Sara

[-DM-]

[Posted and e-mailed]

Hello Sara,

Thank you very much for your interest in my articles and other articles on the Secular Web. And thank you for asking whether or not we would want them translated into Italian. Unfortunately, some people don't ask at all and we sometimes find Secular Web articles posted on other websites--in violation of copyright laws--in which case we insist that they be taken down.

Would we want Secular Web articles translated into Italian? Perhaps, if those translations would then be posted on the Secular Web. We would have to decide on a case by case basis.

Would we want Secular Web articles translated into Italian and posted elsewhere? No. One problem is that Secular Web articles are sometimes updated and revised, and it is difficult to keep track of articles posted elsewhere in order to see that they are also updated and revised. Another problem is that it is difficult to control the content of other websites and they sometimes end up including content that we would not want them to include.

Regards,
-Don (Morgan)-

[jlowder]

There are currently no articles by Draper on the Secular Web. Draper has indicated he may eventually start his own independent website; all of his previously published articles would go there. If and when that happens, the Secular Web would of course link to that site.

Draper is the editor of a "Great Debate" that will be hosted on the Secular Web. We'll announce the details when we get closer to publication, but we will be publishing some material by Draper on the SW as a result of his involvement in that project.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[Mike101]

Heya, I have been trying to get the site about amongst my friends, but quite a few seem to have an opposal to it. One of them went as far as to say I was being blasphemous and would be punished by God for being anti-christian :(. Oh well. Sorry, I should have clarified what I meant earlier, I find that where I am atheist seems to be something of a dirty word, some people go so far as to convert me, and blame my problems on not having faith. :( Hey ho, I do try and argue my point, and I tried to get a freethought group together, but I can't find enough willing people. We did a survey the other day, and out of my class of 30, I was the only atheist, with 2 who claimed to be agnostic. My parents aren't helping either :p

[Earl]

I'm not complaining, of course, but I'm curious why within the last couple weeks or so there have been so many new links to writings at the Secular Web. Some years ago there were equally many writings added each day and then there was a drop-off. Now there seems to be a new high point and I wonder why this is so.

[-DM-]

Hello Earl,

Yours is a legitimate question. In a nutshell, the answer is that it depends on who is available to do what, as well as what needs to be done. (Note that there is almost always quite a lot that needs to be done, so we use a kind of priority system to decide what to do next.)

There are some of us who are almost always doing something. Sometimes what gets done is behind-the-scenes and does not warrant an announcement; sometimes it is more noticeable and/or does warrant an announcement. Right now, Jeff Lowder and I (but especially Jeff) are working to bring author and subject pages in the Library up to our current HTML standards so that there is consistency between one page and the next.

In addition, there are sometimes dry spells in terms of material submitted for publication either in the Library or the Kiosk. At other times, there is almost a flood of such material.

Regards,
-Don-

[-DM-]

To be published on the Secular Web, either in the Library (http://www.infidels.org/library/) or in the Kiosk, (http://www.secweb.org/kiosk.asp) an article must be submitted following the Submission Guidelines & Instructions (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/submit.html). Were an article on Christian Dominionism (which is what I assume you had in mind) to be submitted, it would receive the same attention that any submission would receive. Without such a submission, however, there can be no article.

Regards,
Don
---
Donald Morgan
Feedback, Kiosk, & Site Editor
http://www.infidels.org
---
*** The Secular Web needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html
---

[William in Colorado]

I live in the mountains of Colorado. There are many churches but no humanistic or atheistic organizations in many, many miles. It is not safe to philosophize with those who adhere to any of world's religions or superstitions. So, very unfortunately, I teach my children to 1) think for themselves and 2) be very wary or espousing their beliefs (or, as importantly, their disbeliefs).

So I rely on the Internet. It is so refreshing to read Infidels or the very few other such sites. It seems so clear.

Why do we not band together more? There are a few scattered and lonely organizations such as the Ethical Society. But generally there is no concentrated voice, no lobby, no organization to represent a much maligned, even hated, group...those who espouse humanism, atheism, or even agnosticism.

I read in the various moderated or un-moderated forums of the tiring voices of reason. They do not fatigue due to doubt but to the un-ending usually irrational friction of superstition.

Even in the recent debate organized by Infidel the two sides, both seemingly very erudite, sling accusations of “begging the question.” How can we move beyond this?

Many of you have similar questions. I hope someday there is a better answer. One thought might be to reinstitute teaching logic in the schools. It was removed from all US curricula long before my time. Perhaps it would help?

There are glimmers of hope, e.g., the occasional study showing atheism is the fastest growing “belief system.” But it still seems rabid demagoguery wears down or out-breeds rationalism. I do try to take the long view. Over the last, say, thousand years, we have come oh so far. Perhaps another thousand?

Anyway, thank you. It is deeply soothing to find a rational voice in the chaotic sea of superstitions.

[Ropyro]

Greetings all,

After somewhat briefly glossing this site I'm left wondering why such time and effort would be put forth to condemn belief in a god that the contributors to this site don't believe exists. I came to the conclusion when I was quite young (around 7 my mother tells me) that god doesn't exist and when I got older (late teens/early 20s) I, too, spent time arguing with people many of the same points expressed in this site. Through my own reasoning and historical studies I found countless faults in theism, in general. Then, at some point, I calmed down a bit and realized that it's just as silly to claim to know there is a god as it is to know there isn't. So, I sided with the agnostics and then I got over it -- meaning, I moved on with my life.

This post is not meant, at all, to criticize anyone. It's a sincere inquiry of why atheists/agnostics spend time arguing such things. If you really believe there is no god or if you're agnostic then shouldn't it just be a non-issue? It's as if atheists are really anti-theists. I see a big difference between the two. For the atheist, it should simply be a non-issue. If it is an issue, then you're more of an anti-theist -- which is perilously close to being a theist, if you think about it.

I can't imagine what my life would be like if, after truly internalizing that god doesn't exist, I spent such a great amount of time arguing against the theists and the existence of their god. At that point it seems to be motivated by ego.

Anyway, I could go on -- but how about not.

I'm interested to know what others think about this subject.

Best Regards

[-DM-]

I'm left wondering why such time and effort would be put forth to condemn belief in a god that the contributors to this site don't believe exists ... If you really believe there is no god or if you're agnostic then shouldn't it just be a non-issue?I disagree that it should necessarily be a nonissue. For many of us who truly believe that there is no god it seems not only important--but even our responsibility--to provide evidence and argument for that belief. After all, there are many religious belief systems which claim to be the one true religion, and at least a few of those spend a good deal of time, effort, and money promulgating and perpetrating their beliefs (not to mention proselytizing for converts). Both sides of the story need to be heard if we are not to be empty-headed about this issue.

It's as if atheists are really anti-theists.Some atheists are, for various reasons, antitheists (just as some theists are anti-atheists), but most atheists who participate here are probably more inclined to be antitheistic rather than antitheist. And, in any case, it needs to be kept in mind that there are many agnostics who participate here, as well.

For the atheist, it should simply be a non-issue.You are entitled to your opinion, but obviously there are many of us who feel differently. In fact, I would say that your opinion is no more valid than is the opinion that for an agnostic it should be a nonissue to come here and tell atheist/agnostic Secular Web authors and Internet Infidels Discussion Board participants that, for example, the existence of "God" should be a nonissue for them.

If it is an issue, then you're more of an anti-theist -- which is perilously close to being a theist, if you think about it.Hardly.

I can't imagine what my life would be like if, after truly internalizing that god doesn't exist, I spent such a great amount of time arguing against the theists and the existence of their god. At that point it seems to be motivated by ego.I think it is safe to say that, for most of us, what we consider to be truth is important. In addition, we think that the world would be a much better place if humankind were to embrace naturalism and learn to depend on human resources rather than expecting supernatural intervention in human affairs, that either agnosticism or atheism (almost any brand of nontheism) would be preferable to theism.

I'm interested to know what others think about this subject.Others are welcome to chime in.

Regards,
-Don-

*** Internet Infidels needs your tax-deductible financial support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[Ropyro]

-DM- Thanks for your thoughtful response. I should state in the beginning here that my original post was never meant to be accusatory or judgmental -- it was meant to be simply a sincere inquiry. When I said "For the atheist, it should simply be a non-issue" I should have something like "..., don't you think?" at the end of the sentence. My bad.

I will go on to say, though, in response to your first point that I can appreciate, in a certain sense, the feeling of wanting to "share the gospel" of your beliefs, so to speak -- to try to debunk something that you believe is incorrect or even harmful. But I think it is naive (judgment, sorry) to think that there are only 2 sides to the story, as you implied in your response. By focusing so hard on the non-existence of another's god, you are limiting yourself to merely having the position of the opposite of that which you are arguing against. How self limiting! Are you a seeker of truth? Or, merely, a debunker of another's faith?

An extreme position is a weak position. Theism is very similar to atheism in that you are both clinging to a belief so strongly that you are less likely to entertain other ideas because you're so busy hanging on to your respective beliefs. It's a polarized, two-dimensional existence. You both (the theist and the atheist) took sides in an argument -- drew a line in the sand, as it were.


When I look at both of you, I feel like the 3-dimensional sphere passing through Flatland (a book -- read it here: http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/ )

It's a sad existence "arguing" atheists must have -- to be forever bound, in a sense, to that which you don't believe exists.

I'm sure you'll find lots of ways to pick apart what I'm saying. And, you'll be right, I'm sure. But anyone with a modicum of intelligence can pick something apart. In fact, most every belief can be picked apart until there's nothing left....and that's what keeps me up at night. Nothing.

Good luck with your infinite loop -- your "arguments" against gods. Victory is there for your taking.

[-DM-]

... I think it is naive (judgment, sorry) to think that there are only 2 sides to the story, as you implied in your response.That may be your inference, but it is not necessarily my implication.

By focusing so hard on the non-existence of another's god, you are limiting yourself to merely having the position of the opposite of that which you are arguing against.Hardly.

How self limiting! Are you a seeker of truth? Or, merely, a debunker of another's faith?I am a very knowledgeable ex-Christian. I am both a seeker of truth and a debunker, as are many others here. There is nothing necessarily limiting about having quite thoroughly investigated a subject and having then formed an opinion. What matters is one's willingness to entertain new truths. In fact, debating a topic is often a good way to learn new truths.

An extreme position is a weak position.Not necessarily, but assuming for the sake of argument that what you assert were true, it seems obvious to me that yours is the extreme position; you make dogmatic assertion after dogmatic assertion as if you were the arbiter of ultimate truth.

Theism is very similar to atheism in that you are both clinging to a belief so strongly that you are less likely to entertain other ideas because you're so busy hanging on to your respective beliefs.Unless you were omniscient, you could not possibly know with certainty the validity of your assertion. In fact, you don't even know whether I am an atheist or not. And, in any case, the fact is that there are many theists and many atheists who do not cling so strongly to their belief that they are less likely (than what? agnostics?) to entertain other beliefs. For that matter, you certainly seem well-entrenched in your belief.

It's a polarized, two-dimensional existence.It seems to me that you have a very narrow view of what is necessarily involved in atheism and/or theism. The word "atheism" can mean no more than no belief in a god or gods.

You both (the theist and the atheist) took sides in an argument -- drew a line in the sand, as it were.That is more true of some theists and atheists than it is of others. It is certainly not universal.

When I look at both of you, I feel like the 3-dimensional sphere passing through Flatland (a book -- read it here: http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/ ).Perhaps you need to keep in mind how others might look at your agnosticism. As an example:

---
"Agnosticism is not a third position. It is the evasion of a position ... Fear of choices and decisions is a basic symptom of mental illness.." - Nathaniel Branden, The Psychology of Self-Esteem
---

It's a sad existence "arguing" atheists must have -- to be forever bound, in a sense, to that which you don't believe exists.Your assertion is, so far as I can see, not supported by the available evidence. In fact, I would say that it is not as sad to be an "arguing" atheist as as it is to be bound to no opinion about whether "God" exists or not--and then to go around touting that as somehow a superior existence.

I'm sure you'll find lots of ways to pick apart what I'm saying.True. And if I thought it worth it, I could put more effort into it and do a much more thorough job of it.

But anyone with a modicum of intelligence can pick something apart. In fact, most every belief can be picked apart until there's nothing left.Not necessarily. There are plenty of beliefs for which evidence is so firmly established that they do not lend themselves well to being picked apart.

Good luck with your infinite loop -- your "arguments" against gods. Victory is there for your taking.I could be wrong, but this strikes me both as mistaken and as condescending.

-Don-

[Ropyro]

I should say that while you "could put more effort into it and do a much more thorough job of it", I could, as well. I realize that my posts are not as cogent as they could be. Such is the nature of message boards -- especially when we're posting from work, as we both may be.

You said: "you certainly seem well-entrenched in your belief". I don't think I said a lot about my beliefs. I stated mostly opinions/frustrations about people's approach to atheism. As far as beliefs go -- the base of my only belief pertaining to atheism is that there must exist further levels of knowledge in this life beyond the realization that theism is, in the least, misguided. Take, for example, the people who spend time showing contradictions in the bible. Given all the facts about the bible (the language and mode of speaking was very metaphorical at the time of its writing, it's been translated many times, many accounts weren't really first hand, etc.) it's simple to see that contradictions would exist -- a lot of them. And, really, so what? When I see people continuing to be stuck on showing these inconsistencies, I feel frustrated because finding contradictions is so easy to do that I wonder why anyone even wastes their time. I haven't seen a new idea in the field of atheism (if it can be called a 'field') in thousands of years of literature. Really, where can one go with it once they realize god doesn't exist or that the bible contradicts itself? I mean doesn't anyone want to talk about what they see that "is" rather than what "isn't"?

No offense to you or anyone else, but a majority of the more vocal atheists I've met are people who have broken away from their church at some point. Yet, to me, they seem to replace one religion with another. And they hold onto atheism the same way they held onto their theism in that it occupies their mind. that's what I meant when I said that theists and atheists are, in a way, similar.

Is there anyone on this message board that just wishes to be done with the argument? Personally, I just became tired of the whole subject, so I stopped caring either way. In doing so, I felt liberated. I'm just wondering why more people don't do that.

I admit I know nothing about your beliefs, DM, and I apologize for personalizing any of my previous statements. I meant my comments to apply to those whom the shoe may fit -- which for all I know is nobody. But from what I see on all of the atheist sites I've bumped into recently I think there may be quite a few.

All in all, I agree it's important to have information available to those who seek it regarding the atheist position. I'm just scratching my head as to why atheists care to argue the same points over and over.

DM, you can accuse me of having an arrogant tone to my last post and I'll own that but I don't see it as any more arrogant than you simply writing "Hardly." to a point someone makes.

Condescending and dismissive, you were.

The only reason I ended up on this site, if you're wondering, is because I have Stumble installed on my browser and one of the subjects I clicked was Atheism/Agnosticism -- thought maybe I'd see something interesting. But after stumbling into site after site of Atheist site, I become increasingly frustrated at seeing the same old crap.

As an agnostic, I guess I just don't like the way most are represented on the Web -- intolerant, self assured/justified, judgmental, etc. really, not much different from the religions they attack. I mean, I know I can be as judgmental as anyone -- I think it's human nature. But, I try very hard not to be.

One more belief I have is that it's belief itself that is to blame (nice statement, huh:-) So, Christians believe one thing, Muslims another, Nazis still another -- all of them believing they are right -- thus lending itself to intolerance...the line in the sand. Is Atheism really any different just because it's a minority group? Why make such a strong assertion? GOD DOES NOT EXIST. That's really quite a statement. I, personally, see no stronger reason to take that position than claiming he/she/it does exist because. How can one say with certainty that he/she KNOWS god doesn't exist anymore than he/she can say god DOES exist?

I can see why people might think that agnosticism is "not a third position. It is the evasion of a position". But actually having a position on something that you have good knowledge on is the easy road. It's easy, and human nature, to grasp for one position or another on a topic that is so hotly debated. It's much more difficult, and I think accurate, to suspend judgment on a subject thats so arguable.

Anyway, I don't know how I ran off in this direction. It's really, ultimately, not that important.

With all sincerity, I wish you all luck with this -- and respect to you, DM.

[-DM-]

You said: "you certainly seem well-entrenched in your belief". I don't think I said a lot about my beliefs.You expressed that you are an agnostic. From my point of view, everything that you have said so far indicates that you are well-entrenched in your agnosticism.

Take, for example, the people who spend time showing contradictions in the bible ... it's simple to see that contradictions would exist -- a lot of them. And, really, so what?The Bible has been promoted, perpetrated, and perpetuated as "The Word of God" by some. Some fundamentalists go so far as to say that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, and plenary "Word of God." Not only that, but this "God" is allegedly perfect and omnipotent. Such a god could see to it that no contradictions existed in "His Word," either through inspiration, copying, translation, or interpretation. Thus, the presence of such contradictions should at least dispel the notion that the Bible, at least in its present form, is "The Word of God," yet apologists will nevertheless argue otherwise.

When I see people continuing to be stuck on showing these inconsistencies, I feel frustrated because finding contradictions is so easy to do that I wonder why anyone even wastes their time.Have you ever attended a fundamentalist Bible church?

I haven't seen a new idea in the field of atheism (if it can be called a 'field') in thousands of years of literature. Really, where can one go with it once they realize god doesn't exist or that the bible contradicts itself? I mean doesn't anyone want to talk about what they see that "is" rather than what "isn't"?I wonder if you are confusing the Internet Infidels Discussion Board with the Secular Web in general? There is a difference. This site promotes naturalism as what is.

Is there anyone on this message board that just wishes to be done with the argument?Please note that this is the Secular Web Feedback Forum. Discussions of the Internet Infidels Discussion Board belong there, not here. The Secular Web Feedback Forum is intended for feedback to articles published on the Secular Web, either in the Kiosk or the Library.

Personally, I just became tired of the whole subject, so I stopped caring either way.Obviously you felt caring enough to come here and elucidate your point of view.

In doing so, I felt liberated. I'm just wondering why more people don't do that.Your milage may vary. Obviously others find what they are doing as liberating.

I admit I know nothing about your beliefs, DM, and I apologize for personalizing any of my previous statements.OK.

I meant my comments to apply to those whom the shoe may fit -- which for all I know is nobody. But from what I see on all of the atheist sites I've bumped into recently I think there may be quite a few.Yes, quite a few. There are plenty of arrogant theists, arrogant atheists, arrogant agnostics, and arrogant "nothingists."

All in all, I agree it's important to have information available to those who seek it regarding the atheist position. I'm just scratching my head as to why atheists care to argue the same points over and over.One possible reason: theists keep arguing the same points over and over again, and many of their points are erroneous.

DM, you can accuse me of having an arrogant tone to my last post and I'll own that but I don't see it as any more arrogant than you simply writing "Hardly." to a point someone makes.The assertion in question is erroneous, therefore "hardly" is an appropriate response.

Condescending and dismissive, you were.Dismissive, yes. Condescending, debatable. But if you see it that way, so be it.

The only reason I ended up on this site, if you're wondering, is because I have Stumble installed on my browser and one of the subjects I clicked was Atheism/Agnosticism -- thought maybe I'd see something interesting. But after stumbling into site after site of Atheist site, I become increasingly frustrated at seeing the same old crap.Wouldn't you expect to see "the same old crap" on either theistic or atheistic sites?

Have you perused the articles on agnosticism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/reason/agnosticism/) in the Secular Web Library?

As an agnostic, I guess I just don't like the way most are represented on the Web -- intolerant, self assured/justified, judgmental, etc. really, not much different from the religions they attack. I mean, I know I can be as judgmental as anyone -- I think it's human nature. But, I try very hard not to be.From what I have seen in the past few weeks here in the Secular Web Feedback Forum, Christians seem the most "intolerant, self assured/justified, judgmental" and agnostics come in second.

Is Atheism really any different just because it's a minority group?Not different because it is a minority group, but different because of its naturalistic/humanistic outlook.

Why make such a strong assertion? GOD DOES NOT EXIST."Atheism" does not necessarily mean what you seem to think it does. There is an element of belief which you have left out. In other words, you have taken a very narrow viewpoint and then criticized atheists and atheism based on a less-than-inclusive definition.

---

American Heritage:
1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Dictionary.com:
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Dictionary of Philosophical Terms:
Belief that god does not exist.

Encarta:
unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities

Infoplease:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

LookWAYup:
1. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
2. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

Online Plain Text:
The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
a disbelief in the existence of deity
b the doctrine that there is no deity

Ultralingua:
1. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine or belief that there is no God;

Wikipedia:
Atheism is the condition of being without theistic beliefs, or the disbelief in the existence of deities.

Wordnet:
1. atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
2. atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

Wordsmyth:
the belief that there is no God.

---

In other words, belief is an integral qualifying aspect of the more-inclusive definition.

It's much more difficult, and I think accurate, to suspend judgment on a subject thats so arguable.Many theists of various brands have taken the easy road by suspending judgment and simply going along with the religious belief system in which they were first indoctrinated. There is nothing difficult about that.

-Don-

[Ropyro]

On many accounts, I stand corrected. You are a man with many answers. I'll look into the many things you suggested.

I appreciate your time.

[-DM-]

Ropyro:

Thanks! And you are welcome.

Regards,
-Don-

*** Internet Infidels needs your tax-deductible financial support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[Steven Mading]

If you really believe there is no god or if you're agnostic then shouldn't it just be a non-issue?
(Or if you use the actual, non-strawman-fallacy definition of atheist that allows for weak atheism to exist, your question still stands.)

Anyway, the reason it's an issue is because the believers MAKE it an issue. Any time someone says theism is a prerequisite for being a good person, they've just made it an issue. Any time someone puts forth the view the morality must necessarily be tied to belief in god, they've just made it an issue. Any time someone pushes legislation through designed to give advantage to religion, they've made it an issue. Any time someone uses their religion to decide US foreign policy, they've made it an issue.

Religion has its fingers firmly entrenched in politics. Banning embryonic stem cell research funding. Trying to force people to not teach evolution in schools. Deciding that religious ethical convictions allow one to dodge a draft while non-religious ethical convictions do not. In a world where the believers weren't using their religion to influence government policy, it wouldn't be an issue.

[-DM-]

Religion has its fingers firmly entrenched in politics.True. Of possible interest: On Tuesday, the Center for Inquiry held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington to issue a declaration urging that public policy be based on science rather than faith. The declaration was signed by a number of leading scientists.

In a world where the believers weren't using their religion to influence government policy, it wouldn't be an issue.It would probably be better to say that it might not be as much of an issue in a world where the believer's weren't using their religion to influence government policy. It would still be an issue with me, however, for the reason that I see what I consider to be unfounded belief as undesirable and potentially harmful for humankind.

Regards,
-Don-

*** Internet Infidels needs your tax-deductible financial support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[clamantis_vox]

In a world where the believers weren't using their religion to influence government policy, it wouldn't be an issue.[/QUOTE]

Remember, it was believers who founded this system of government that allows you to express your non-believer position. Its what makes us American. Theistic involvement has always played a part our system. What bothers me is not your contempt for the institution of God, but your attempt to change our governing philosophy that has served us, theist and atheist alike, very well over the years.

If you dont like God in goverment, go get some of your athiest buddies, and everybody from the ACLU for that matter, and start your own thing somewhere else. Stop trying to redefine government and family and sexual relationship and whatever else it is you like to do.

[-DM-]

Most of our founding fathers were, in fact, believers of one kind or another, but many were deists: believers of a different kind than are the Christians today who would intermingle government and religion. And whether Christian or not, our founding fathers were wise enough to know that intermingling government and religion is not good for either. That is the reason that you not only find nothing promoting any one religion in the U.S. Constitution but instead you find in Amendment I the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." That is why there is considered to be a wall of separation between church and state. This being the case, I would say that if you like the idea of "God" in government, then start your own theocracy and stop trying to redefine the U.S. government.

-DM-

P.S. One nation under "God": Iran.

[clamantis_vox]

Its not me or my view you discount. Its the founding fathers you have a problem with and misquote. You quoted Amendment 1 as the basis for the "wall" between church and state, which is found nowhere in the Constitution by the way. The quote "seperation of church and state" came from corespondence between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist in Massechusettes. Your point is founded in ignorance of history and, therefore, flawed in reasoning. Its impossible to use the first amendment as basis for your arguement, anyway! Its reasoning works agianst us both equally.

I dont have a problem with anybody who remonstrates any point of view about any particular thing. But don't argue your point expecting me not to have prior knowlegde of the thousands of personal writtings of the founding fathers which clearly testify to the inclusion of God and theistic philosophy in the development and maintenance of our governmental system. It is the mistake of liberals to, in the face of reasonable and contradictory evidence, demand their point of veiw be accepted.

You think I write these words because I don't like what you stand for. But we are exactly the same. As I understand your atheistic philosophy as a movement, you would destroy our system of government by changing it to acknowlegde your point of view and disallow mine. As I understand it, your movement is not about equal footing; its about rejection and removal of what I stand for. This is what makes your philosophy antiAmerican. If your point of veiw is superior, win people to your side by legitamate and rational reason.

For that matter, I believe scientific atheism is flawed in several different areas but has points of merit. I am not afraid of your point of view but believe there are other intangible ways of experiencing the universe we occupy. If you have kids you know what I am talking about. Love cannot be measured with any device but millions of poeple can tell it is a real and driving force. Even Carl Sagan could admitt this as an atheist.

Being dangerously close to lecturing you I will withdraw.

P.S. I dont understand your P.S.

[-DM-]

Its not me or my view you discount. Its the founding fathers you have a problem with and misquote.I did not quote a founding father, or "the founding fathers," nor do I have a problem with the founding fathers, therefore your response is a straw man.

You quoted Amendment 1 as the basis for the "wall" between church and state, which is found nowhere in the Constitution by the way.I did not do that either. I quoted Amendment I and added that this is "why there is considered to be a wall of separation between church and state." I did not go into further detail about how the wording "wall of separation" came about or who first mentioned those very words. Still, the concept is present in the First Amendment, so far as I am concerned, just as the concept of the Trinity is said to be present in the Bible even though the word itself is not.

The quote "seperation of church and state" came from corespondence between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist in Massechusettes.Yes, I know. This is the origin of the wording in question, though the concept seems to have already been in place.

Your point is founded in ignorance of historyYour point about my alleged point is a nonpoint based on a misunderstanding of my point.

and, therefore, flawed in reasoning.Inasmuch as each of your responses so far is a straw man, your reasoning is flawed.

Its impossible to use the first amendment as basis for your arguement, anyway! Its reasoning works agianst us both equally.I disagree on both counts.

I dont have a problem with anybody who remonstrates any point of view about any particular thing.You do have a problem: you jump to unwarranted conclusions and then engage in straw man arguments based on those unwarranted conclusions. In addition, you seem to me to be unnecessarily belligerent. To me, it seems that a free exchange of ideas, done in a civil fashion, should be an easy matter.

But don't argue your point expecting me not to have prior knowlegde of the thousands of personal writtings of the founding fathers which clearly testify to the inclusion of God and theistic philosophy in the development and maintenance of our governmental system.Unless you are omniscient, you could not possibly know with certainty what I expect in the way of your knowledge, or lack of knowledge, about the writings of the founding fathers. But for your information with regard to this particular point, the likely extent of your knowledge, or lack of it, regarding the writings of the founding fathers is not something that crossed my mind.

It is the mistake of liberals to, in the face of reasonable and contradictory evidence, demand their point of veiw be accepted.I tend more toward the traditional than toward the liberal. I don't demand that my point of view be accepted. It looks to me, however, as if you likely expect yours to be.

You think I write these words because I don't like what you stand for.Given your willingness to make unfounded assertions, you might likely discount it when I tell you that the idea that you write what you write because you don't like what I stand for did not cross my mind. What I thought, however, was that you seem to be angry, and have a bone to pick, based on what you think you understand that I or Internet Infidels stand for.

But we are exactly the same.Based on what has been said here, I disagree.

As I understand your atheistic philosophy as a movementYou don't know whether or not I am an atheist.

you would destroy our system of government by changing it to acknowlegde your point of view and disallow mine.You certainly are not talking about me. I am a strong supporter of our system of government. Nor am I interested in disallowing anyone's point of view. What I would do is present my opinions and my reasons for those opinions. That is exactly what Internet Infidels does as a whole; the Secular Web Library (http://www.infidels.org/library/) publishes rebuttals to its nontheistic material, and the Internet Infidels Discussion Board (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/) welcomes discussion on all sides of an issue.

As I understand it, your movement is not about equal footing; its about rejection and removal of what I stand for.Your understanding, as demonstrated by the many unfounded assertions in your two posts, likely misses the mark. And inasmuch as I do not know with any degree of certainty exactly what it is that you stand for, there is no possibility, at this point, that I would want to reject and remove what you stand for.

This is what makes your philosophy antiAmerican.You don't know enough about my philosophy to warrant such a conclusion.

If your point of veiw is superior, win people to your side by legitamate and rational reason.In my experience, people who issue such dictums are quite often those most in need of practicing what they preach.

I dont understand your P.S.I'm not surprised.

-DM-

[Steven Mading]

It would probably be better to say that it might not be as much of an issue in a world where the believer's weren't using their religion to influence government policy. It would still be an issue with me, however, for the reason that I see what I consider to be unfounded belief as undesirable and potentially harmful for humankind.

The device through which that harm is delivered, though, is the religious influence on government.

[Steven Mading]

Remember, it was believers who founded this system of government that allows you to express your non-believer position. Its what makes us American. Theistic involvement has always played a part our system.
Your statement is self contradictory. The fact that the believers who set up the government did so in a fashion that allows me to express my non-believer position is explicitly because they said their theism should NOT play a part in the system.

[-DM-]

The device through which that harm is delivered, though, is the religious influence on government.I don't disagree that harm can be and has been delivered through religious influence on government, but what I had in mind is that even if that influence were to end and that source of harm were to end, it is nevertheless harmful for humankind in general to believe in that which is false. And, after all, we have several mutually exclusive and allegedly revealed religions, each of which claims to be the one true religion. Obviously, at best only one of them can be true and at worst, they are all false (which is what I believe to be the case).

Differences in religious belief have been, and apparently will continue for the foreseeable future to be, very divisive. The current divide that exists between radical Islam and fundamentalist Christianity is, although a deplorable situation, a good example.

Regards,
-Don-

*** Internet Infidels needs your tax-deductible financial support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

[Steven Mading]

I don't disagree that harm can be and has been delivered through religious influence on government, but what I had in mind is that even if that influence were to end and that source of harm were to end, it is nevertheless harmful for humankind in general to believe in that which is false.
Yes, but just *how* harmful would it be? I don't think it would be that bad because in most fields of study the majority of the human race is largely ignorant or unlearned. What percentage of humans know how to program a computer? What percentage of humans know how to perform a carbon-dating analysis of an archeological find? What percentage of humans know quantum physics? People specialize because we have to - there's too much to know for one person to know all of it. The problems only crop up when those who are not that knowlegable about a topic try to force their interpretation onto those that are. And that takes politics. For example, if most people are ignorant of any details of evolution but still allowed the science teacher to teach it instead of invoking school politics to get the teacher to stop, then the fact that their religion disagrees with it wouldn't be causing that much harm.

In fact, I firmly believe that if religion stays out of politics, it will wane in membership.
But I do admit that it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. Since religion is all about one's views of reality and one's views of right and wrong, it will always be a part of politics so long as it exists.

[-DM-]

Yes, but just *how* harmful would it be?Obviously, any answer to that question involves a lot of speculation. But the fact is that, regardless of political involvement on the part of religion and religionists, it seems apparent to me that the world, humankind as a whole, would be much better off if it came to grips with the inevitable: namely, that mankind will have to solve the problems of mankind, without expecting supernatural "help."

It's that kind of harm that I have in mind, the harm that comes from believing that one can be helped by the shaman, the medicine man, Tlaloc, "God," or the coming of the "Messiah." Christians and Muslim, of course, both expect the coming of the "Messiah"--or that they will go to "heaven" if they should die before "His" coming. There is less incentive to take responsibility for correcting social ills, for example, if one believes that all will be made right either in "heaven" or with the coming of the Messiah.

In fact, Muslim extremists believe that the Apocalypse will bring about the coming, thus they want to bring about the Apocalypse. These kinds of things do not necessarily require involvement of religion in government.

Regards,
-Don-

P.S. I have said what I want to say about this, but feel free to have the last word.

[GordonHide]

Religion has been variously blamed for:-

Aggravation of some mental conditions
Aggravation of racial and cultural differences
Assisting in the suppression of more enlightened forms of government
Child abuse
Concealment of history
Cruel and unusual punishments and executions
Cruel means of animal slaughter
Destruction of historical artefacts and documents
Destruction of Knowledge
Forced religious conversion
Genocide
Massacre
Misogyny
Mutilation of the genitalia
Opposition to rationalism and the scientific method
Overpopulation and environmental degradation
Retardation of philosophical advancement
Retardation of medical advance
Retardation of scientific investigation
Sexual repression
Slavery
Strong support for faulty or out-of-date moral values
Suicide bombings
Supporting despotism
The lack of organs available for transplant
Torture
Wars
Xenophobia

I am sure this is not a comprehensive list. I am also sure that most theists will not recognize their own religion as participative in any of the above. Nevertheless, I think many atheists will find the above list contains good reasons to oppose theism. Of course, this is especially true for those such as women and homosexuals who find there human rights curtailed or under threat from theists.

[Steven Mading]

In fact, Muslim extremists believe that the Apocalypse will bring about the coming, thus they want to bring about the Apocalypse. These kinds of things do not necessarily require involvement of religion in government.

Ah - then our difference is one over just what constitutes being involved in government and what does not. I would put groups trying to bring about war and Apocalypse squarely inside the definition of religion being involved in government. How exactly does one go about starting Apocalypse without doing something kind of "governmentish" (yeah, not a word but it should be). Influencing whom goes to war with whom is certainly government influence.

[Salvation2theBlind]

I'd just like to take the opportunity to thank you guys for what you are doing. The articles on the website really inspire me. As the son of a minister, it just kills me to see my father, an extremely intelligent man, waste his life (well, that's my perception anyway).

If only they would stop looking to god to find something that more than likely does not exist and instead concentrate on improving that which does.

Thanks so much for continuing to elevate reason and science above supersitition and dogmatic tradition.

[Hartke]

There is no neutrality in any area of life. We all inject our presuppositions and learned thoughts from life's sources; school, parents, friends, media, ad infinitum. We impose these learned paradigms upon any particulars or 'facts'. In regards to the main topic, the actions of one or many adherents of a religious system does not determine the truth of that said system(s). This is commonly known as a composition fallacy in logic. We must examine the one as well as the many in any analysis of a given ideology.

Cheers,

Hartke

[Henry Charlesworth]

I simply cannot stand it when people dismiss the possibility of a God as ridiculous, whilst putting forth theories of evolution and the big bang as logical alternatives. Explain to me how it is logical to believe that there was nothing then suddenly there was a huge explosion which created everything. It is about as illogical as anything can possibly be. It's like saying a tornado hits a scrap yard and assembles a fully working Boeing 747.

I'm not saying any gods created by any one religion are real, however if you look at the world around you, the way everything in the world seems to be in perfect balance, the way everything works so well, surely at least the basic systems must have been designed? If there is a God why does he have to be all loving and all knowing? Maybe he isn't at all.

People talk about promoting logic, however we don't live in a completely logical world. We are not machines, our emotions are not necessarily logical. Problems cannot always be solved logically, we humans have to use common sense, which machines cannot do. To me it is not logical that my life is so insignificant as science would have be believe. Perhaps it is but I find it rather depressing to accept and believe it, even if it is. I can't see the disadvantage of believing in a God, and believing that after you die everything is just over. As far as I'm concerned, the world exists only through my eyes and so if when I die it just ends I find that horrible. It is an incomprehensible thought, so what have you got to lose believing in something after death?

Also, you can ridicule religion as much as you like, but the truth remains that if it weren't for religion then mankind would have moved nowhere. Everything we have now is largely because of religion. It has inspired humans to do some incredible things throughout history, and although it has caused many evil things as well, it is a necessary thing for humans to have.

[Minimalist]

It has inspired humans to do some incredible things throughout history,


The less spoken of many of them the better, Henry.

[Lazarus Long]

I simply cannot stand it when people dismiss the possibility of a God as ridiculous, whilst putting forth theories of evolution and the big bang as logical alternatives. Explain to me how it is logical to believe that there was nothing then suddenly there was a huge explosion which created everything. It is about as illogical as anything can possibly be. It's like saying a tornado hits a scrap yard and assembles a fully working Boeing 747.



If you are really interested in an explanation of these things, why not join this site as a member, and have a discussion with people knowledgeable in this area in the Evolution/Creation forum (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=66)? Before doing so, you may want to read up on the Tornado argument (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Tornado_argument) and understand where the thinking i that analogy has gone seriously astray. Pay attention to the comment which states that tornados lack the ability to reproduce themselves with modifications, and lack an environment which provides for natural selection.



if you look at the world around you, the way everything in the world seems to be in perfect balance, the way everything works so well, surely at least the basic systems must have been designed?


Sounds like an appeal from credulity to me.



Also, you can ridicule religion as much as you like,

There is a difference between ridiculing religion, and exposing its' fallacies, illogical foundation, deceptions and shortcomings.



but the truth remains that if it weren't for religion then mankind would have moved nowhere. Everything we have now is largely because of religion.

Do you count all the wars, death, violence, weapons of mass destruction, etc, as being part of that accomplishment?

LL

[JPD]

I simply cannot stand it when people dismiss the possibility of a God as ridiculous, whilst putting forth theories of evolution and the big bang as logical alternatives.

I find it amazing that anyone can get so wound up about it. If God exists do you really think that it cares how it is perceived? Do you think it keeps a feedback spreadsheet somewhere in readiness for the preparation of its next Gantt chart?

Evolution isn't a logical alternative - evolution happens. It says precisely diddly squat about supernatural agents.

If I was God I wouldn't be that impressed by people fawning over me. Though some young ladies might....no no no I have no need for such activities. Well, there was that one time I suppose...but that couldn't have been me as my thingy is infinite in width and length.

[maxlando]

Whether it's a product of our DNA or merely a pattern of response to this thing we call life; many Homo sapiens are obsessed with the need to create or follow the whim of others who have created god, gods or other entities (such as antithesis satan, etc.)

In my humble opinion, fixation on gods or a god is a direct response to compensate for fear of or a need to explain elements of the great UNKNOWN. Creating or accepting something that explains the unexplainable is a crutch that WORKS. Same goes for Satan or other entities.

Group neurosis? Reactionary theories to quell massive unknowns? Insufficient data all around.

Make-beliefs work for some who would rather buy into an accepted and shared set of theories rather than merely ACCEPTING THE UNKNOWN and doing the best they can with the here and now.

I'll grant anyone their make-belief god, gods or antithesis thereof because I believe some cannot be happy or sane without make-belief.

Doing the right thing for golden rule reasons is enough.

Accepting the UNKNOWN, dealing with it without clinging to make-beliefs and doing the right thing IS a high road to trek.

[ninewands]

I simply cannot stand it when people dismiss the possibility of a God as ridiculous, whilst putting forth theories of evolution and the big bang as logical alternatives.
First of all, I do not dismiss the possibility of a god as ridiculous. It is a belief that is merely unsupported by any credible evidence. As Richard Dawkins put it, agnosticism is a state of knowing, atheism is a state of belief. The existence of a god or gods is a positive question of fact. Face with a total lack of evidence supporting the affirmative position on the question logic impels me to accept the negative just as it does with the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Explain to me how it is logical to believe that there was nothing then suddenly there was a huge explosion which created everything. It is about as illogical as anything can possibly be. It's like saying a tornado hits a scrap yard and assembles a fully working Boeing 747.
An army of straw men like this makes a pretty convincing display of just how little understanding of these theories you really have.
I'm not saying any gods created by any one religion are real, however if you look at the world around you, the way everything in the world seems to be in perfect balance, the way everything works so well, surely at least the basic systems must have been designed?
I do not believe I have ever seen a more beautifully stated example of the anthropomorphic fallacy coupled with an argument from personal incredulity. May I introduce you to Douglas Adams's famous puddle (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams#Sourced)?
If there is a God why does he have to be all loving and all knowing? Maybe he isn't at all.

People talk about promoting logic, however we don't live in a completely logical world. We are not machines, our emotions are not necessarily logical. Problems cannot always be solved logically, we humans have to use common sense, which machines cannot do.
Excuse me ... "common sense" is the kind of thing that has gotten
To me it is not logical that my life is so insignificant as science would have be believe. Perhaps it is but I find it rather depressing to accept and believe it, even if it is. I can't see the disadvantage of believing in a God, and believing that after you die everything is just over.
If I were a god and was greeted by someone who believed in me based upon Pascal's Wager, I would be more extremely pissed off. That has got to be the most cynical basis for belief I think I have ever heard. It's like saying, "I really don't believe but I want to hedge my bets so I'll seee if I can fool the deity I really don't believe in."
As far as I'm concerned, the world exists only through my eyes and so if when I die it just ends I find that horrible. It is an incomprehensible thought, so what have you got to lose believing in something after death?My intellectual integrity.
Also, you can ridicule religion as much as you like, but the truth remains that if it weren't for religion then mankind would have moved nowhere.
When I was a child I spoke as a child ... it's time for the human race to put aside childish things because our understanding of reality has made them unnecessary.
Everything we have now is largely because of religion.
Wars, inquisitions, terrorism ... have you ever heard of an atheist suicide bomber? You make my point for me.
It has inspired humans to do some incredible things throughout history,
See above ... yep, it has inspired incredible cruelty ...
and although it has caused many evil things as well, it is a necessary thing for humans to have.
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.

-- George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792
'nuff said.

[maxlando]

When the UNKNOWN becomes threatening and mountains of wonder and uncertainty stack up; when pain approaches personnal limit threshold: when brainwashing is served to children or childlike minds; when psychosis rages and reaches out for any solution; when drugs alter metabolic chemistry and tip the landscape of reality into unbalanced terrain; when humans become lost or lose those or that which defines and validates life itself; when any situation or trauma magnifies desperation and fear; when one is lost and needs to belong or associate with anything that will give meaning to existence - the god placebo can be just the thing to perform coping miracles. Add group neurosis as a support mechanism to the placebo and voila' - religion.

Paring down the god concept with Occams Razor, in my humble opinion, reveals it's "the concept of god" grasped in dire need that cures and relieves like a placebo - rather than the existence of any pre-existing entity.

[Maaximus]

I think its tremendous that scientists and free thinkers stand up to the nonsense most five year olds would take five seconds to reject. Things like the age of the earth being 4 million years old and the flood should have been so badly disproved that Genesis be removed by law from the Bible. Yet its still there, scientists laughing at it, and Christians defending it with a vegeance. So help me here. All it proves is that under the right conditions people will believe anything, especially if it means eternal life. I always say, heaven and hell, what fuels it? British gas? Where's its power source. Even more disturbingly, i do believe in a God, despite there being no proof, and the way we all fight good and evil at every step of our lives, yet still spin round a massive body burning nuclear fuel.

Thats it thanks, Max England

[clint999]

In case I've never done it, I want to thank the people who sponsor and maintain this site.

The fact that I disagree with the fundamental thesis does not relieve me of the obligation (yes, moral obligation) to recognize and appreciate your work.

No response is expected or necessary unless others want to express their appreciate.

[Gawen]

On behalf of Staff, I thank you. And thank you for posting.

[maxlando]

just wanted to reiterate thanks to the people who make this site possible in order to further communication on our philosophic choices.

over and out,

[Telethan]

Me and a few personal friends have discussed religion. I am not convinced by them, nor they by me, we merely exchange ideas.

However, I have decided (before we began chatting) that I was a deist after I looked up the definition of a deist.

n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

... It annoys me a lot when I see Aethiest sites telling me how stupid people who believe in god are. I grant, there are a lot of stupid people in the world today (many believe in god) but just because I believe in a religion, it doesn't make me any less intelligent.

Hell I know people that thoroughly love god contrary to all evidence, but they're very intelligent also. They just choose that way of life. As much as it's none of their business to tell you that you're damned, you have no right to tell them they're stupid for not following the logic you present them.

Religion is a deeply emotional and personal thing and if it makes someone happy to believe what they wish, then I don't think Aethiests have any rights to tell them otherwise. In my community it has always been unnacceptable to bully other people about the word of god, so I've never seen bible bashing in action. On the other hand, I've come across a multitude of websites saying how terrible religion is.

This is of course, only my view and you're welcome to disagree.

[-DM-]

Hello Telethan,

... It annoys me a lot when I see Aethiest sites telling me how stupid people who believe in god are.This is not an atheist site, per se, rather it is a site that is operated by Internet Infidels, Inc., a nonprofit educational organization that defends and promotes a naturalistic worldview. And we don't, as an organization, say that people who believe in god are stupid for doing so.

Like you, I have met many god-believers who are anything but stupid. Keep in mind, however, that some of our nontheist discussion board (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/) users probably make the claim that god-believers are stupid. The same kind of thing is true about some of our theist discussion board users: they say that atheists are stupid. We frown on that sort of overreaching assertion, however.

As much as it's none of their business to tell you that you're damned, you have no right to tell them they're stupid for not following the logic you present them.Exactly where do we do that?

In any case, I think we have every right to present the other side of the story, and that is what we attempt to do.

Religion is a deeply emotional and personal thing and if it makes someone happy to believe what they wish, then I don't think Aethiests have any rights to tell them otherwise.Just as religionists tend to think that the world would be a better place if everyone believed their particular brand of religion and that they have the right to say so, I think we have every right to tell our side of the story as to why we think the world would be a better place without religious belief, realizing that humankind will have to solve its own problems without expecting supernatural help.

In my community it has always been unnacceptable to bully other people about the word of god, so I've never seen bible bashing in action. On the other hand, I've come across a multitude of websites saying how terrible religion is.No one is compelled to visit a website or to read anything on any given website. Thus the presentation of an antireligious viewpoint on a website can hardly be considered bullying.

This is of course, only my view and you're welcome to disagree.Of course. Open discussion of this kind is the way that it should be, yet you seem to be saying that we have no right to present our point of view, that presenting an antireligious viewpoint is somehow "bullying." I disagree.

-DM-