But on the flip side, I offer a personal example...

I engage constructively, and often admire, the philosophies and members of many religions. But I do no feel, in the very core of my being, that the existence of any supernatural gods is possible. This is also why I am emphatically not agnostic.

When asked why I do not convert to Islam or Christianity, I have always given the same answer: I could convert with my mouth and my words, but they wouldn't change the feeling in my heart..

I accept that this is an issue of faith, and that does not bother me. I am satisfied with my own beliefs. I have seen true believers in many religions who, at the foundation of the conception of the world, coul...

But on the flip side, I offer a personal example...

I engage constructively, and often admire, the philosophies and members of many religions. But I do no feel, in the very core of my being, that the existence of any supernatural gods is possible. This is also why I am emphatically not agnostic.

When asked why I do not convert to Islam or Christianity, I have always given the same answer: I could convert with my mouth and my words, but they wouldn't change the feeling in my heart..

I accept that this is an issue of faith, and that does not bother me. I am satisfied with my own beliefs. I have seen true believers in many religions who, at the foundation of the conception of the world, could never imagine a world without a God, just like I couldn't imagine a world without gravity, or more controversially, evolution.

Although we both may have logical reasons to believe the way we do, the fundamental basis of our beliefs remains an emotional one. Because there is no generally accepted evidence either way, our opinions on the existence of gods can be based on nothing other than our emotional intuitions.

Because I am comfortable with mine, I feel no need to lash out at others. It's a sad commentary on the political environment and pressures of our society that some who don't believe in gods feel the need to eradicate those who do.

Thank you, AcesLucky, but I wouldn't let contemporary atheist literature off the hook just yet! I think its pretty safe to say that Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens really would like to eliminate religion from the world altogether.

This sort of evangelical atheism strikes me as sad. Although I don't share their beliefs, I can sympathize with the way they are feeling. Massive conversion projects have been a mainstay of many religious movements, and have reached a fever pitch with the rise of Charismatic and Evangelical Protestantism in America.

Pundits on television frequently pronounce that "this is a nation of God" and that the embrace of Christianity should not be optional, in t...

Thank you, AcesLucky, but I wouldn't let contemporary atheist literature off the hook just yet! I think its pretty safe to say that Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens really would like to eliminate religion from the world altogether.

This sort of evangelical atheism strikes me as sad. Although I don't share their beliefs, I can sympathize with the way they are feeling. Massive conversion projects have been a mainstay of many religious movements, and have reached a fever pitch with the rise of Charismatic and Evangelical Protestantism in America.

Pundits on television frequently pronounce that "this is a nation of God" and that the embrace of Christianity should not be optional, in the form of the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, and countless other issues. This leaves many on the outside feeling threatened and alienated.

It is sad, because in the end, I think many who seek to convert others, either to Christianity or to Atheism, do so out of the goodness of their own heart, and out of a desire to share their faith with others. Unfortunately, these good intentions are tearing our society apart, and breeding hatred instead of acceptance. It is time for everyone, both theists and atheists, to tone down the rhetoric of evangelism.

If Evangelical Christians really want to win converts, they should do so through positive example and compassionate understanding, not through direct confrontation and proselytizing. I would offer the same advice to Hitchens and Dawkins.

If Evangelical Christians really want to win converts, they should do
so through positive example and compassionate understanding, not
through direct confrontation and proselytizing. I would offer the same
advice to Hitchens and Dawkins.

You've got a point there.

Still, there's a rising tide of discontent at the effects of religion in this world. Not so much at the way that religion should be, but at the way that it is (although I can't help thinking of "to teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing" which was stated by Hypatia, Mathematician, Astronomer, and Philosopher (d. 415 C.E.) -- and we know what happened to her...). Having someone wit...

If Evangelical Christians really want to win converts, they should do
so through positive example and compassionate understanding, not
through direct confrontation and proselytizing. I would offer the same
advice to Hitchens and Dawkins.

You've got a point there.

Still, there's a rising tide of discontent at the effects of religion in this world. Not so much at the way that religion should be, but at the way that it is (although I can't help thinking of "to teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing" which was stated by Hypatia, Mathematician, Astronomer, and Philosopher (d. 415 C.E.) -- and we know what happened to her...). Having someone with the intellect, knowledge and vision of Richard Dawkins speak out against religion is something I can consider as only a Good Thing. I'm not even all that troubled with Chris Hitchins in this regard, though in general no matter what side of an argument you're on, you'll always find people on your side that you wish were on the other... One Hitchens hardly makes up for the meganumbers of religiosos who constantly stalk the earth with confrontation and proselytizing.

Your advice to both sides is good, but it's premature
for the crowd that wants to drop-kick Magical Thinking. It's for later, after they've had their say and raised the general level of enlightenment.

I have become so turned off by all sides of this.

I was raised in a strict Catholic home. Up until 5 years ago my faith could not be shaken. My interest in science and my open mind has allowed me to concede that evolution is indeed another possibility. What most turned me away from religion is the zealot like attitude. I was berated several times for not going to church regularly.

HOWEVER, there are few atheists I can tolerate either. They too have taken on a zealotous hateful image in my eyes. For someone to spout "There is NO God" is pure nonsense. How egotistical of anyone to claim "there is no God" unless they can prove it as FACT not assumption. And they chastise the religious folks,...

I have become so turned off by all sides of this.

I was raised in a strict Catholic home. Up until 5 years ago my faith could not be shaken. My interest in science and my open mind has allowed me to concede that evolution is indeed another possibility. What most turned me away from religion is the zealot like attitude. I was berated several times for not going to church regularly.

HOWEVER, there are few atheists I can tolerate either. They too have taken on a zealotous hateful image in my eyes. For someone to spout "There is NO God" is pure nonsense. How egotistical of anyone to claim "there is no God" unless they can prove it as FACT not assumption. And they chastise the religious folks, ironically, for the religious folks chastising them!

Basically... if you don't have an open mind to all possibilities, you're showing signs of your lack of intelligence.

For someone to spout "There is NO God" is pure nonsense.

To claim that there is, is equally nonsense for the same reason. I don't know about Hitchins, but Dawkins claims that a god is simply extremely unlikely, and goes on to prove it.

And they chastise the religious folks, ironically, for the religious folks chastising them!

You are right, but not because they believe in a god; but because they assume the right to kill, control others, speak for, and hate, on the AUTHORITY of a god!

BIG DIFFERENCE! You no longer have peace loving religious people giving the shirts off their collective backs to help others.

You have people bombing and h...

For someone to spout "There is NO God" is pure nonsense.

To claim that there is, is equally nonsense for the same reason. I don't know about Hitchins, but Dawkins claims that a god is simply extremely unlikely, and goes on to prove it.

And they chastise the religious folks, ironically, for the religious folks chastising them!

You are right, but not because they believe in a god; but because they assume the right to kill, control others, speak for, and hate, on the AUTHORITY of a god!

BIG DIFFERENCE! You no longer have peace loving religious people giving the shirts off their collective backs to help others.

You have people bombing and hating others on the say and authority of their religion purporting to do so on the authority of a god. And it's killing us all over the world.

And THAT'S why it's now important to speak out and defend reason, and peace, and science, etc., against the attacks of believers.

It's not what they believe (or don't believe) it's what they DO!

Perhaps at this point, when reasonable people find each other regrettably locked in opposition, we can see the value in presenting our ideas through making positive statements about our own faiths, instead of negative statements about others.

I respect all of you, but I have the sad feeling that nothing constructive is being accomplished in this discourse.

Allow me to get the ball rolling:

I believe I can use my own disbelief constructively to understand tolerate people's other points of view. I do this by interpreting religious belief as a statement not so much about the physical nature of the world but more about the intangible qualities of people who believe. Thus I can respect Christi...

Perhaps at this point, when reasonable people find each other regrettably locked in opposition, we can see the value in presenting our ideas through making positive statements about our own faiths, instead of negative statements about others.

I respect all of you, but I have the sad feeling that nothing constructive is being accomplished in this discourse.

Allow me to get the ball rolling:

I believe I can use my own disbelief constructively to understand tolerate people's other points of view. I do this by interpreting religious belief as a statement not so much about the physical nature of the world but more about the intangible qualities of people who believe. Thus I can respect Christians who use their faith to promote philosophy, compassion and mercy, while I judge Christians who promote intolerance and hatred not as Christians, but as people who have manipulated their beliefs to justify their own moral weaknesses. (This is not a phenomenon exclusive to Christianity, or even religion on the whole.)

I know both Willhelm and Cinq-Cinq to be highly informed and humane people, so perhaps one of them could offer a constructive view of how Christianity can also make the world a better place?

Only the peace loving like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the Beloved Leader are atheists.

Yes, these guys were atheists, & were evil, so ALL atheists are evil... We both know that both Religious & non-religious peoples have committed atrocities. I think what Aces & others are getting at here, is that an atheist doesn't have a religion around to tell him who to hate, but many theists do. Atheists have no where to hide when someone points out they've done something wrong, many Christians who believe that Jesus forgives all if you repent, can hide behind that.. "oh, i was led astray, but now I've found the path again, I'm sorry Jesus,.. Yay! I'm forgiven...".

We atheists ...

Only the peace loving like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the Beloved Leader are atheists.

Yes, these guys were atheists, & were evil, so ALL atheists are evil... We both know that both Religious & non-religious peoples have committed atrocities. I think what Aces & others are getting at here, is that an atheist doesn't have a religion around to tell him who to hate, but many theists do. Atheists have no where to hide when someone points out they've done something wrong, many Christians who believe that Jesus forgives all if you repent, can hide behind that.. "oh, i was led astray, but now I've found the path again, I'm sorry Jesus,.. Yay! I'm forgiven...".

We atheists have to live with our mistakes, knowing they were OURS, and no magical airy in the sky will take it all away.

I know MANY Christians who are compassionate, loving, and literally would give the shirt off their back to someone who needed it. But I also know many who can't think for themselves, who immediately fall back to "the bible says..." when confronted with any question they don't wish to argue about or think about. (In many cases the bible doesn't exactly say what they've interpreted... but try arguing that with them).

Will, you fall back to calling Bear & Aces "bigots" when all they are presenting is thier point of view, you call it "bigoted", well, "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own"... Take a look in the mirror. Little to nothing in Aces or Bears comments could be construed as bigotry... it was opinion. they have not stated that they refuse to listen to you or that they are intolerant of religious people, only that they feel that many religious people have fallen away form that of which they preach.

Call me wrong all you want. It doesn't change the truth. If what Aces & Bear are saying is bigotry, the we are ALL bigots.

Of all the people I see in this discussion, ouyangwulong so far is the most reasonable although CatWhisper is showing signs of hope.

Like I said, the problem is that there are way many more theists than non so the chances of seeing an "evil" one is much higher. It's also easier, as ouyang made clear, to blame their religion for their downfall.

If atheists were a compasionate sort, we wouldn't see any of the nasty remarks floating around here like we do. They would more take the "poor little lamb" attitude and shake their heads in quiet disbelief. Same goes for the theists.

Let's face it... none of us wants someone else's belief shoved down our throats. Religion and politics will always...

Of all the people I see in this discussion, ouyangwulong so far is the most reasonable although CatWhisper is showing signs of hope.

Like I said, the problem is that there are way many more theists than non so the chances of seeing an "evil" one is much higher. It's also easier, as ouyang made clear, to blame their religion for their downfall.

If atheists were a compasionate sort, we wouldn't see any of the nasty remarks floating around here like we do. They would more take the "poor little lamb" attitude and shake their heads in quiet disbelief. Same goes for the theists.

Let's face it... none of us wants someone else's belief shoved down our throats. Religion and politics will always be an area where there will be many sides and many opinions. Either we learn to live with that or this discord will continue to get worse.

I love all of you... regardless of what you do or do not believe.

Considering the partisan atmosphere, I'm not sure this will get off the ground, but I'll take a shallow stab at answering ouyangwulong's question. If the discussion does turn more serious and respectful, I would be more than willing to delve deeper.

Let's start with something I assume most here could agree upon. I notice a majority of those who have responded here have also voiced their opposition to the Iraq War elsewhere. In the period before the war, wasn't Pope John Paul II one of the most forceful advocates against the war? Would you not agree this was an instance of making the world a better place?

Now, before I'm accused of being disingenuous, I fully admit that I not only suppo...

Considering the partisan atmosphere, I'm not sure this will get off the ground, but I'll take a shallow stab at answering ouyangwulong's question. If the discussion does turn more serious and respectful, I would be more than willing to delve deeper.

Let's start with something I assume most here could agree upon. I notice a majority of those who have responded here have also voiced their opposition to the Iraq War elsewhere. In the period before the war, wasn't Pope John Paul II one of the most forceful advocates against the war? Would you not agree this was an instance of making the world a better place?

Now, before I'm accused of being disingenuous, I fully admit that I not only support the war, but believe it to be a just war. I believe the pope was wrong in his belief that Saddam could be removed by other means. That said, I did consider his words and opinion most carefully. His argument carried great weight and made my decision all the more difficult.

Which is how the Church contributes to making the world a better place in this simplest of ways. It is not because the Church spoke against the Iraq War, but because the Church speaks out for all victims in the world. Granted, She is not their only advocate, but those who speak as forcefully and as consistently for all the suffering around the globe -- regardless of race, creed or agenda -- are certainly few. Slaves in the Sudan, woman sold into prostitution in central Europe, the victims of despotism in China, the starving in Iraq, those caught amidst the violence in Palestine....the Church keeps their plights -- and many more -- before the eyes of a world that would more often like to turn away.

Well, even if no one else is interested in it at the time, I'd like to see the constructive dialog continue.

You raise a very good point. Many people presume religion is simply a mechanism of confirmation, but in fact, religion can also serve the opposite function. That is to say, our religious beliefs (whatever they may be) can serve as a challenge to us; they can give us pause before we simply go on believing what we always believed. A person who thinks very deeply about the parts of their faith that make them least comfortable can learn a lot.

And you have a good point that, while many "agents of intolerance" justify themselves in religious terms, there are at least as many people who v...

Well, even if no one else is interested in it at the time, I'd like to see the constructive dialog continue.

You raise a very good point. Many people presume religion is simply a mechanism of confirmation, but in fact, religion can also serve the opposite function. That is to say, our religious beliefs (whatever they may be) can serve as a challenge to us; they can give us pause before we simply go on believing what we always believed. A person who thinks very deeply about the parts of their faith that make them least comfortable can learn a lot.

And you have a good point that, while many "agents of intolerance" justify themselves in religious terms, there are at least as many people who view their religion as a mandate to advocate peace, charity and compassion. Many religious leaders are resolute pacifists. The Conscientious Objector status was originally created by Lincoln to protect religious pacifists. In fact, although I don't believe in gods, my CO is a religious one.

But this raises a further question (very pertinent to those who would like to see religious conflict end) and that is: Given that they are interpreting the same religious doctrines, some people chose to promote violence and intolerance, while others take the exact opposite view. What do you suppose is the difference in the way these two groups approach the same faith that produces such divergent interpretations?