propagating Atheism is an extremely difficult issue at best, *even* in the netherlands, where I live. People tolerate atheism over here, but it isn't mainstream.

I can't envision doing what I do in the atheist field in places like the U.S. or Iran. I would be terrified.

Frankly I am extremely sensitive to assertions made by organized religions. I loathe many doctrines held by catholic church and respond to assertions or (outrageous!) attempts to preach as stung by a 500-pound jellyfish.

Any progress in secularisation must be made slow and deliberate, best in the legal arena. You can't convince people to change fundamental beliefs. It's a slow and deliberate immunization program.

I am a Christain... and a transhumanist. Hey if the boyz in the bible can live 900+ years, I don't see it as bad for me too. Frig, I think it is my duty to live as long as I can. If I am made in god's image, why would he want his image to die early? Anyways, I am a bit off topic...

Now to tackle the question of religion and state.

Religion and state can coexist, if done properly. The reason it does not work in the US and the Arab nations is not really because of religion, but more because the leaders are idiots. I mean idiots in every possible way. They are not elites... they may think they are, but they are not. This is where the problem lies. We as a democracy vote for a leader we want to represent us. And he does just that. He asks qustions, does polls, anything to remain popular and in power. What we need is a person who can make the tough calls. I heard a quote once at University, " The right choice is not always the popular choice, and a true leader makes the right choice."
Don't assume because a person calls himself a Christain or a Muslim that the reason he is an idiot is because of religion. Its more than likely genetic.. or crappy upbringing. Religion tends to get blamed because an idiot tries to make himself feel good by blaming religion for stupid actions.

Right Choice #1 - OOps, Sorry Iraq. We screwed up. We did the right thing by taking out your nutso totalitarian, now its time for you to put in a guy who wont rape your country. We don't care how you do it, just do it. Make it a muslim, a shi-ite, or whatever. If that works for you, fine, do it. We helped you out, now its your turn to help yourself out. If you know some rebel bastards who keep killing your citizens, take care of it. Perhaps a little vigilante action is ok. My boyz miss their wives. They are comming home.

Right Choice # 2- Iran, you better smarten up. You to North Korea. You keep playing this nuclear game and threating my existance, I'll show you a nuke. Stop with the siliness, and lets help eachother out. The lazy guys in my country need oil. Lets trade. Who is this Muhammed guy? Tell me about him so I can make small talk about him with you, and when you go to pray during the day, I won't be offended.

Right Choice #3 - God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and who knows.. maybe he will destroy San fransisco too. Until then, even though I do not personally agree with your life style, I should love you as a brother. Sure its a sin, but I sin as well. It's like the kettle calling the pot black. Time to make you an equal... let god judge in the end, not me.

As a Christain, I get persecuted. That is fine. People trying to take religion away and make it a faux pas to talk about it. Hey guys... the reason a lot of our ancestors came to North America was to express religion. We were the rejects from mainly Europe, and now we are being filled up with other fellow rejects. Fine by me. Let me express my religion, but don't let me misrepresent my religion. Hold me accountable. When I say, "its time for a crusade," smarten me up. Hey Mr President, live and let live.... use the bible against me... because if what I am doing pisses off the masses, more than likely I am not representing my religion.

RyeMcFly I simply don't agree with you. In an ideal world we would coexist but I would vote very differently than you. I can only assume, as far as I can judge it, that you are grossly misinformed.

Iraq was invaded only for oil. I cannot conceive of another sensible rationale. If one would have invaded Iraq for another reason then there is a long list of countries that would more immediate invasion.

Iran may be attacked or invaded for oil - though by now irrational xenophobia is a good second rationale. Nukes are a fata morgana. I'll bet you that in the next 50 years less people die from non-US nucular attacks than people die from car related accidents this month.

If I would be even more inclined towards conspiracies I am starting to believe the Saudis have bough and paid for the real estate to turn into Saudi colonies - executed by the US.

I simply do not know what to make of your San Fransisco remark. I only know I don't trust people who may consider some of my lifestyle aspects a sin. I do not trust people who concemplate -isms such as the whole concept of sin.

Yeah, that's something that's hard to imagine.

Sort of like it was hard to imagine a Catholic or Jewish presidential candidate back in the Sixties. Kennedy broke the Catholic barrier. We've yet to see some break the Jewish, woman or African American barrier. My guess is the right wing won't like a Jewish, African American or woman as president unless they are a longtime member of the GOP. Colin Powell is acceptable. Al Sharpton is not. Jeane Kirkpatrick is acceptable. Hillary Clinton is not.

I wonder how long it will be before the US is ready for a GOP atheist as a presidential candidate.

Jesse Ventura was the single term GOP governor of Minnesota and on several occasions he publicly stated he was an atheist but I strongly doubt he'd ever get to the national level as an avowed atheist.

It's a sad legacy of the Cold War I think. There is still a lot of hysteria among the religious right in the US that thinks that atheists burn down and demolish churches like they did in Stalin's time. Of course it's entirely unfair to color all the worlds atheists with the excesses of the Soviet Union but politics is rarely fair.

I am an atheist, but I am sick and tired of atheists who attack religious people and religious symbols and practices. A crucifix in a toilet bowl isn't "meaningful" or funny, it's just a gratuitous insult to millions. Newdow, for example, has done nothing more than use government apparatus to impose his theological views on others -- exactly what atheists accuse the religious of.

I'll grant that religious people are arrogant and difficult to deal with and the younger ones will physically assault the nonreligious (many older ones would dearly love to). However, you won't get enough people to vote for atheists by insulting, hurting, and harassing religious people.

Religion isn't necessarily a sign of stupidity. Most people haven't the time or inclination to investigate philosophical questions, so they rely on what are essentially metaphysical shortcuts to answer the questions that inevitably nag at the human mind. That is as much a practical matter as anything else.

I would agree that the jesus-in-toilet pic should be taken down because of the offensive and immature nature of it. If you are arguing against christians, good for you, but you will get nowhere if you show immaturity or actively try to offend. They will feel morally superior to you, and therefore you will lose any debates you have regardless of how logically formulated your arguments are.

However, I thoroughly enjoyed some of the links that were posted. Some of the sites that were linked to destroy all credibility of the Bible. One of the pages I read referenced to another page within site I admire called infidels.org

you all should read it: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

RyeMcFly

You're comments were sound and sensible, until you mentioned the "san francisco" issue.

You are a bigot like all christians, and a hypocrite. Only moments later you said the words "live and let live".

PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH.

It is people like you that hold society back.

It is obvious I pissed some people off, but I am curious as to why. I assumed peole here could read, but I guess I need to explain myself.... first an apology to the 2 gents i quoted below.... Sorry you did not understand the phrase. Let me explain.

"RyeMcFly

You're comments were sound and sensible, until you mentioned the "san francisco" issue.

You are a bigot like all christians, and a hypocrite. Only moments later you said the words "live and let live".

PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH.

It is people like you that hold society back."-- Cemiess

As well as

"I simply do not know what to make of your San Fransisco remark. I only know I don't trust people who may consider some of my lifestyle aspects a sin. I do not trust people who concemplate -isms such as the whole concept of sin."-- Dagon

obviously the meaning of what I said was lost, so I will reiterate...


Right Choice #3 - God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah-- Assuming the bible is not lying, this is true.

, and who knows.. maybe he will destroy San fransisco too. -- this is a possibility is it not? Is San fransisco not located near a fault line? Is San Fransisco not close to the Ocean, thus making it a possible victim of a tsunami?

Until then, even though I do not personally agree with your life style,-- So what. I disagree with your life style? And? I also disagree with Vegitarians, bigamy, drug users, and abortion. So what? Is it not my right to? I didn't say I hate you.

I should love you as a brother.-- Shouldn't I? or do you disagree?

Sure its a sin, but I sin as well. -- The bible states that homosexuality is a sin. It also states that lying is a sin (George Bush and WMD in Iraq), pornography and lusting after a woman who is not your wife, and pre marital sex as sins. ( all things I have done, and I do not think many can say they haven't)

It's like the kettle calling the pot black.-- As a sinner, how can I say your sin is worse? im the kettle-- saying your sins are bad-- yet are my sins not also bad? Sin in the bible is translated into 'missed the mark" I think we have all done that from time to time. In fact, we are born as sinners, and all we can do is ask for forgiveness. I am not saying I am better than you or I hate you.. Only stating a fact. homosexuality is a sin.

Time to make you an equal... let god judge in the end, not me. -- exactly that. George bush says he wont allow gay marriage.. why.. mainly because it is a sin. But if we all use that logic, should people who had sex prior to marriage also not get married? it is a sin also. But since we let other sinner's get married, why not gays? Not quite a homophobic statement I do not think... its quite the opposite.

here is a nice quote from www.christianity.ca

"Sexual morality
Some people seem to be threatened by Evangelicals' apparently "old fashioned" sexual morality. More disturbingly, some have suggested that we are hateful to people with alternative sexual orientations. On the contrary; I have seen only loving and respectful acceptance of all people at our churches.

One Sunday long ago, when I was a junior Sunday School coordinator, a man came up to me wearing a very nice blouse, skirt, medium-rise shoes, and blonde wig, and offered to help teach a class. I explained that we did not appoint teachers until they had attended our church for some time, and suggested other ministries that might be appropriate in the mean time. Over the coming months he attended regularly, sometimes as a woman and sometimes as a man, and I was very impressed with the complete absence of fuss within the congregation. We accepted him as he was, and trusted that God would make our church for him a place of both grace and transformation just as it had been for so many of us.

So I find the accusations of "hatred" bewildering. Cannot our liberal society just accept Evangelicals as an odd minority group that avoids sex except between husbands and wives? Wouldn't that be just like accepting vegans as an odd minority group that avoids foods derived from animals? Cannot vegans dislike meat and still love meat-eaters? Should our laws forbid vegans from suggesting that their diet is healthier or morally superior? If I go to a vegan home would it be right, when they politely refuse to prepare bacon and eggs for my breakfast, to accuse them of hating me?

And if they refuse to appoint me, a meat-eater, as an official vegan spokesman, can I accuse them of unfair discrimination?"

I hope that clears that point up. Bigot eh? Not so much... I think the only bigot statements were done saying "You are a bigot like all christians, and a hypocrite." and the accuser says I have no tolerance.. hmmm. Or perhaps that of Jesus in a toilet... I bet the poster of the picture would never post a Koran burning, or nazi symbols... so why jesus in the toliet? ignorance... thats about all. But I forgive ya.

I am caught in a paradox apparently. I would label the whole idea of "sin" itself as something akin to "sinful", immoral or unclean.

However that isn't so strange as it seems at first glance. I apply a strictly personal judgement on actions of other people. I do not label certain acts or thoughts to be bad a priori. I look at the facts, look at what the results are, check and doublecheck and conclude what's the best strategy for the future.

Christianity, and I have quite a few personal friends who are, works with an inflexible set of rules wherein they state what or what isn't sin. Those people who created christianity (as I cannot conceive of a god so I cannot conceive of a god creating anything) chose what modes of behaviour to brand as sinful. They chose to include matters that were, in retrospect, probably based on some cultural or personal preference.

Take homosexuality. Most christians label homosexuality as sinful. This means to most christians that for some bizarre and inconceivable reason god will have to enact some sort of retribution for an allegedly a priori unacceptable behaviour - whereas we know now that in basic homosexual activity there is no victim and effectively no crime committed - worse still, people are born with the natural inclination towards homosexuality as surely as blue or brown eyes.

Thus *some* christians label homosexuality sinful, albeit casually stating they love homosexuality, and continu to condone a deity that will just have to punish the poor sods, possibly with eternal hel.

Lets rephrase that. You got an institution with a strict, rather inflexible dogma, that publicly states a genetic quality to be of a certain label and they state that the order for which they stand will just have to send the subjects of the label to an everlasting concentration camp.

I find the whole idea of sin horrible. If you kept your idea of sin to yourself, more power to ya. But you have to go and spread this wretched idea to the world, confusing simple issues and ruining the lives of millions. People are dying in africa by the millions because of a hard to pin down, dualistic idea called sin. People were burned by the millions in the middle ages merely because of the label 'sin'. Me myself (and my wife) have been persecuted for years because of this alleged external brand called sin.

And another thing.

You actually go ahead and provide evidence that you accept the atrocity perpetuated in your ideology. You state, unflinchingly, that you adhere to the rules of a deity who, "could for his own reasons, could just go and decide to wipe San Franscisco with an earthquake or tidal wave".

Are some earthquakes not divinely crafted? Or all all earthquakes all directly attributable to god? Or are some earthquakes godmade or others just merely random tectonic incidents?

How moral is it to support a god who exhibits such behavioral characteristics and preferences? Have you lost your senses man?

I don't know why some people are anti-homosexual. Religious training, even if escaped, can leave such associations as gay-evil or rich-evil. However, one thing that a lot of people don't seem to realize is that it's an issue the media constantly harp on. The laws against sodomy and homosexuality, as far as I know, are now rare or gone. Why constantly rail about it? Perhaps the media leaders have some kind of complex and can't just live and let live. We reached the point where almost nobody cares --- but instead of shutting up and proceeding, the non-issue is just constantly there. Sort of like the sensationalized cases of commonplace crimes involving rich young blonde women that crop up constantly. They are matters of local importance only, they are ordinary cases.
As long as "gender" and race are constanly harped on they'll be sore spots even for people who don't give a rat's ass.

A few points... First to address dagon...

"Does an atheist really have a case?
It’s often useful to ask a questioner to justify the validity of his question under his own belief system. For an atheist to complain that the Christian God is ‘evil,’ he must provide a standard of good and evil by which to judge Him. But if we are simply evolved pond scum, as a consistent atheist must believe, where can we find an objective standard of right and wrong?

Our ideas of right and wrong, under this system, are merely outcomes of some chemical processes that occur in the brain, which happened to confer survival advantage on our alleged ape-like ancestors. But the notions in Hitler’s brain obeyed the same chemical laws as those in Mother Teresa’s, so on what grounds are the latter’s actions ‘better’ than the former’s? Also, why should the terrorist attack slaying thousands of people in New York be more terrible than a frog killing thousands of flies?

A Christian, however, believes there is an objective standard of morality that rises above individual humans, because it is set by an objective and transcendent moral Lawgiver who is our Creator. An atheist’s argument against God because of objective evil inadvertently concedes the very point he is trying to argue against "http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/death_suffering.asp

There is a whole debate here, and I am glad someone is taking up the opposite stance. Good job. I have found the www.answeringenesis.org website fairly good at helping defend morality and why god kills. Instead of posting everything here.. i will just let you read it. There are more important things to debate.

Second point.. I think CP is right. There is too much emphasis on race and gender, to the point I think it is racist/reverse racism. Also too much emphasis on sexual preference. Who cares.

Affirmative action, Aboriginal rights, language laws(in my country) etc are all racist. Target numbers, quota's and similar hireing practices are racist. I also think scolarships are racist.

In my highschool, some time ago, there was a $5000 scholarship for the top graduating black student. There was only 1 black person in the school... obviously he got it. However, in a protest, prior to the awarding of the scholarship, I applied for it as well. i didn't win, but at least it made me feel like an equal. My girlfriend is Metis, and my children will also be aboriginal. So what. I don't think because you were born a certain way you deserve stuff. All of these type programs cause racism, when they are trying to do the opossite. If there was less emphasis on race, gender, sexuality, I am sure we would be a much better off world.

First I think we need politicians to step up to the plate. Africa is dying. They are black. Many specualte, myself included, that is Africa was white, we would be in there a whole lot quicker. Its time to pony up, and help our fellow human.

I 100% believe in equal rights.... not special rights.

The concepts of good an evil are highly overrated. One needs to use examples of hitler and mother theresa to spasmodically try and consolidate the concept. Nevertheless they are commonly used in our society. I'd prefer to see these terms as some form of consensus or "poetry". Culture so to speak.

Now you state that you are privy to these mystical transcendant laws, and as such capable of distinguishing between the two divinely ordained and instituted standards of conduct of Good and Evil - whereas I am some atheist grub of a human with no sense of intuition what could constitute good and evil, even at the most arbitrary level - which is an insult.

Even if good and evil is an temporary construct in our seemingly very relativist world (ask an aztec high priest for details) I consider myself capable of some scrutiny in the field of ethics, morality and even good and evil, even if in the context of relativism.

Sure, I cannot logically establish a true fundament and I believe nobody can. Anyone who does is a demagogue or cattle.

You may interpret that as a counter-insult. Anyone who asserts that good and evil can be founded on logic or some higher principle is either a liar or simply not well-informed. There, another counter-insult.

If you keep the idea that you are mystically blessed with the glory of the highest force of the universe, who benevolently molds your insights, I need to share with you the personal preference of mine you keep that insights to yourself. You do all the stuff you do with that deity of yours at home, in the privacy of your home, and don't bother atheists, muslims, buddists and people of other denominations with it. I for one are offended by those assertions and/or associate them with psychiatric disorders.

It is very faux pas someone had to dump a crucifix in a toilet and provoke your awkward exhibitionism of religious unpleasantness - but I came to this forum in part because it can be assumed to be a nonmystical, rationalist site.

With regards to affirmative action, discrimination etc. I get the idea these topics are treated wholly different in europe and the U.S. so I believe a discussion on those topics has little value in this forum. I can only say I always vote for female politicians.

I too believe this site is not a religious forum, however, this particular blog is. The original statement, something amungst the lines that Athiesm is a civil rights issue, and athiests should attempt to vote for an athiest. It was not do you believe in god. Thats a personal choice.

So more to the point, I would vote for an athiest, and have no problem with it, if that particular person is the best person for me. I don't think religion should even play a role. By assuming an athiest is better because of the fact he is an athiest... ridiculus. I vote for the moral man/woman... and far to often these days, there is none... thus making me vote for the lesser of two evils (not in a religious way).

And I would not vote for a woman based on the fact she is a woman. Thats as logical as saying I only vote for a white male. Why? I assume you look at the "stereotypes" and assume a woman would be better. Perhaps, you believe a woman is not as war like, maybe a more maternal aspect and is more kind and generous... Maybe its based on pure sexual attraction. A stupid choice, but it is yours to make. I just hope more informed people would look past the fact she was a woman and vote for her because she is a moral leader and would be the best for the country. Perhaps you have never experienced an angry woman, but I assure you, they can be just as brutal as a man, perhaps more.

Thank you Rye for finally posting something I can agree with

However I would change one word in your reply. I would not vote for the most moral person, but rather the most sensible and honest. I could care less if the president was an adulterer, atheist, blasphemer, drinker, smoker, etc....

I only care about the policy decisions that president makes.

I suppose if the president liked swearing often, that would not be sensible and would make the country look bad... so I would probably not vote for that sort of candidate for practical reasons, but not out of moral objection

Basically, vote based for the most competent candidate and dont judge based on any religious standards, such as the morality of a candidate. Separation of church and state is absolutely necessary... remember, the candidates aren't running for pope.

Just by using the term morality one brings religion into the issue, so choose your words carefully

AggressiveProgressive-- noted. Good point. Perhaps sensible and honest is a much better term, and I agree with your logic. Thank-you. That was exactly the message I was trying to portray.

I just wanted point out a few things.

I think Jesse Ventura was a third party (Reform) canidate.

To say that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because it was full of homosexuals isn't even Biblically correct. The prophet Ezekiel stated that Sodom's wickedness was the sin of neglecting their poor. Besides, their are more gays in Miami than in San Fran.

The Bible also says that if you kick the Devil out of a house, but neglect to guard the house, the Devil will come back seven times stronger. And that's what's happening in Iraq. We kicked the Devil(Saddam) out. If we leave before the new Iraqi security forces are ready to defend themselves, Their will assuredly be a civil war, and death and destruction far worse than what's being experienced now.

I just wanted point out a few things.

I think Jesse Ventura was a third party (Reform) canidate.

To say that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because it was full of homosexuals isn't even Biblically correct. The prophet Ezekiel stated that Sodom's wickedness was the sin of neglecting their poor. Besides, their are more gays in Miami than in San Fran.

The Bible also says that if you kick the Devil out of a house, but neglect to guard the house, the Devil will come back seven times stronger. And that's what's happening in Iraq. We kicked the Devil(Saddam) out. If we leave before the new Iraqi security forces are ready to defend themselves, Their will assuredly be a civil war, and death and destruction far worse than what's being experienced now.

I think Jesse Ventura was a third party (Reform) canidate.

To say that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because it was full of homosexuals isn't even Biblically correct. The prophet Ezekiel stated that Sodom's wickedness was the sin of neglecting their poor. Besides, their are more gays in Miami than in San Fran.

The Bible also says that if you kick the Devil out of a house, but neglect to guard the house, the Devil will come back seven times stronger. And that's what's happening in Iraq. We kicked the Devil(Saddam) out. If we leave before the new Iraqi security forces are ready to defend themselves, Their will assuredly be a civil war, and death and destruction far worse than what's being experienced now.

I think Jesse Ventura was a third party (Reform) canidate.

To say that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because it was full of homosexuals isn't even Biblically correct. The prophet Ezekiel stated that Sodom's wickedness was the sin of neglecting their poor. Besides, their are more gays in Miami than in San Fran.

The Bible also says that if you kick the Devil out of a house, but neglect to guard the house, the Devil will come back seven times stronger. And that's what's happening in Iraq. We kicked the Devil(Saddam) out. If we leave before the new Iraqi security forces are ready to defend themselves, Their will assuredly be a civil war, and death and destruction far worse than what's being experienced now.

After thinking it over, I would like to support why Atheist activism would be a positive thing.

Voting on candidates because they are atheist would be unwise, because voting based on just one issue ignores all the other important issues.

However, trying to fight for atheist rights is just as noble as fighting for the rights of any other group. Atheists should not be discriminated against, just as other minority groups should not be discriminated against.

Restoring separation of church and state would be very noble as well. One should not want churches influencing the government, or the government influencing churches.

Moreover, if one sees that this is as an ignoble way of trying to force your own beliefs into the government... just remember, the fundamentalists are doing the same thing and by not fighting it you are letting them win.

It certainly does not offend me, and it shouldnt offend anyone else....

However, It adds little to the blog. It is very minorly humorous to us atheists, and possibly offensive to everyone else.

A picture may be worth a thousand words... but that picture is worth about 2

Honestly, I would have left it out... the blog would have made its point just fine, if not better, without the picture.

The atheists are supposed to be the mature reasonable ones, let the fundies be immature (they seem exceedingly so already)

Christianity has largely been tamed and is comparatively harmless. Let's keep it that way by not kicking its adherents while they're down.
The danger now is Islam. That vicious and degenerate faith, in which billions pray to a piece of a meteorite held in silver chains in a corner of a millenia old cube, needs to be brought under control by reasonable people.
Let's not be PC about it till they're down and being kicked.

If the US is the most dangerous country, you should leave if you're here and stay away if you're not.

It is true that religion can lead to crime and social disorder -- the Moslem countries are always fighting each other and everyone else. However, the article critical of the US was simply propaganda based in part on false standard media reports concocted for political purposes. Europeans resent it that they aren't as rich and powerful as they were and find it easier to criticize someone who is than to improve themselves.
There are insights in the article but it's basically tripe because it's political propaganda that accidentally sometimes has truth in it.

It is unevolved to group and classify the character of any individual based on their religious preference.

It also is unevolved to believe your chosen religion is the only correct one.

It is extremely destructive to disseminate such derogatory images as the one displayed by the blog originator.

Last I checked, this website was called "BetterHumans" not "I think I'm Better Than You Humans"

I havent read anyones comment, and i dont really care. That shit is wrong. what they did to the Jesus thingy. That's not cool because people should respect other people's beliefs. If i saw the person who did that....