How come?

"people don't really want to think that God might exist, because if He does, then He might expect something of them. To get right to the point, it might mean that they can't conduct their sex lives exactly as they wish."

You're assuming that this hypothetical god that people are sensing through religious experience is a Christian god of some variant or another who would in fact care about peoples' sex lives (as opposed to the Norse pantheon or Allah or Gaia the gay-friendly Earth mother). I'd honestly like to know why you think this is a good assumption.>

I disagree that resistance to the notion that religious experience might be a response to something that's out there is explained by most people not wanting to believe that God is out there. Among the agnostics I know, I hear frequently "I'd like to hope". Among Christians lost in the search to "get it" (is there a term for those who believe in the existence and divinity of Christ but just can't feel connected to it? I was once one, and it's a very sad state of existence), I have heard that same wistful expression of hope.

I think Rod is right on in terms of the rationalization people exercise in order to justify behavior which contravenes God's will, especially when it involves personal sacrifice. However, what I hear (and in some cases have said) is, "But it's not lust - it's love", "He/she works for me so I am responsible for his/her work; therefore I should take credit for it", "God has given me dominion over everything on the earth, so I'll do with it as I please and the next generation can do as it pleases with what's left", "He/she isn't worthy of the promise I made, so I won't keep it", "My parents gave me a lousy childhood, so I'm not obligated to help them in their old age", "I'm not really taking God's name in vain, I'm punctuating a point", "I can fantasize about that hot babe I saw in the store while making love to my wife because she's let herself go" and so on. None of these statements expresses a hope that there's no God, just a hope that God will agree with the rationalization and say, "Oh, I never thought about it that way - well it's ok then...">

I've always been fond of the pseudo-Chestertonian comment, "When the modern sophisticate declares that the rational, up-to-date intellect can no longer credit the absurd doctrines of the Trinity and Transubstantiation, what he generally means is, 'I'm sleeping with my neighbor's wife.'">

How come? How come it's always about sex and some resultant deprivation of it?

I'll bet that some of us do not draw conclusions or parallels that phenomenal experience equates to denial of the existence of God, and I'll bet that some do not draw the conclusion that the existence of God equates to the denial of sex.>

So were you wrong or are you dead, Harvey? And if you were wrong about being dead why did you flip off God just in case he didn't smite you? I don't get it.>

I don't think this is true for some people, but I believe -- though I can't prove it -- that it explains the vehemency of most who want to quash any sense of wonder or speculation about religious experiences. They just don't want to hear it, because it troubles their sleep. Rod Dreher

Rod if you step out into the backyard and see a perfect rose, does it make it less beautiful to believe it's not about you, but the bees?>

95% seems like an awfully big #. I think its much smaller, although I'll admit that the pleasure found in many sins plays a role in my agnosticism.

See, if there is a god I can't see how god can be omniscient, omnipotent and give a darn about me or anybody else (yes, its ye ol' problem of evil). To get to the sex part (focusing on this because its the topic here - my broader doubts are founded on the problem of evil plus the apparent capriciousness in the manner of revelation combined with the requirement to believe or burn), god creates me with all kinds of flaws, including sexual impulses. Apparently a few thousand years ago god told a few folks on the eastern Med. about how bad many of these flaws are and that the whole human race is to refrain from them. Then god pays a personal visit to that same locale to put the final seal on the message that we're not to do what god gave us the capacity to do.

Free will you say? Well and good, I can understand why God wouldn't want to by surrounded by a bunch of sycophants. Except why only deliver the message to such a narrow time and place? And in such a messy fashion (gospels written decades after the events, supression of heresies that IMHO seem like simple politics)? Will communicating more directly and/or evenly really take away my free will? To top it all off, man's vices and virtues seem to have perfectly good biological and sociological explanations.

E.G. regarding sexual morality there is the biological desire to spread one's seed vs. humans's reliance on communities of other humans and women's vulnerability during pregnancy and early child-rearing.

Funny thing is I sorta agree with Ross that there's validity in much religious experience and that there may well be something else out there. The leap from there to any of the Abrahamic religions seems awfully big, however. Too big for me.

Finally, the fact that I'm agnostic does not lead me straight to sexual hedonism. It certainly leads me to think contraception is a great thing, but paying too much attention to sex is a great way to be a useless idiot who can't be trusted by his wife (who has a biological imperative to keep me home and providing for her - hopefully our - kids) or any other woman. I don't need God to tell me that (or, perhaps, God made it abundantly apparent...)>

So were you wrong or are you dead, Harvey? And if you were wrong about being dead why did you flip off God just in case he didn't smite you? I don't get it.
Loudon is a Fool

I'm alive, well, maybe I'll smell like I'm alive after a shower.

The reason I told that story is because I believe in atheism. The one time in my life when there was no doubt that I was going to die I proclaimed my atheism in the strongest terms available to me.

John Calvin Miles died that afternoon. When they told me that a man had been killed and described him as a tall black guy I vaguely remembered someone of that description on the truck. I was assigned to the platoon TDY and knew no one except for one man who'd served with me back in 66-67. He wasn't on the truck with us.

BTW I did get a fractured pelvis and the resulting trip to Japan for recovery. The time in the hospital in Japan probably did more to affect my life and personality than the accident or return to RVN.

If you want to experience community be laying in a hospital bed and having to urninate so bad your blues eyes are yellow. Your urninal vase is full and you know ringing for the nurse will take them away from someone who's really in need.

When the pain gets bad enough you call out to a man walking by. He's got a caste on one arm and bandages across his chest. The scuttlebutt is he took a couple of AK's in the upper body.

"Yo, bro, any chance you could empty this for me?" you call out.

He's the real deal war hero, the man amongst men like most of the men around you. You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He comes over smiling and grabs the pitcher of pee and is gone. He comes right back and asks if you need some ice water while he's out and about.

That's humility on a platter with a little grace and a chunk of character builder for sustenance.

It's something you'll always treasure and never cease to look back on with pride at being there in the presence of the real deal.

If I have to attribute my surving the accident then I have to credit God with killing John Calvin Miles. If I thank God for the experiences I had in that hospital then I have to hold Him responsible for screams that woke us up all night long as one man after another would go back to places no one wante to hear about.

I'd have to hold Him responsible for seeing all the amputees and the busted souls of men going mad.

I'd have to hold Him responsible for ensuring a young man got on the plane back to Nam with us. I was the ranking man after all. We sat there at the airport, me an old twenty, him a young eighteen. I'd survived a truck rollover. He'd survived being overrun by the Viet Cong after being blown out of a bunker. He'd played dead as the enemy grabbed weapons and ammunition all around him.

I was responsible for five men besides myself getting on that plane that day. Two of those men we're Eleven Bravos (infantrymen). One of them has his name on the Wall.
No I don't know. I could find out pretty easy. I have the copy of the orders and I could find next of kin, I found John Calvin's mother afterall. I'm not sure I want to know if that name is young man I explained that we'd all made committments. He's agreed to serve and he had to do what he'd agreed to do. No matter that others back home did whatever they were doing. They hadn't agreed to serve like he had.

I figure most days it's fifty fifty that he's the one that died. Then I can be hard on myself and really get angry at neocons and chicken hawks. Other days I figure he made it home and the name on the wall is someone just as dead but not as up close and personal.

God is serious topic with me. It's not about sex.>

"Rod if you step out into the backyard and see a perfect rose, does it make it less beautiful to believe it's not about you, but the bees?"

Wow, Harvey, that was amazing...>

think 95 percent of it can be easily explained: people don't really want to think that God might exist, because if He does, then He might expect something of them. To get right to the point, it might mean that they can't conduct their sex lives exactly as they wish.

I donno. Most of the people I've met who are really, deeply opposed to religious experience of any kind, in themselves or, especially, in other people, are Roman Catholic priests.

We could stay with Rod's analysis by assuming that all these guys were sexually active, but the Scandal notwithstanding, that seems a little over the top.

God really is quite a bit more than a sexual policeman; quite a bit more than a policeman, period. To encounter God you must forfeit control both over your own life and over other people. It is this last factor, I suspect, which is responsible for the functional atheism of so much of the clergy, rather than any sexual sins, real or imagined.>

pesele makes a good point that leads one to ask, why do Christians obsess about sex when the greatest commandment is to love the Lord our God with everything thing we have?This commandment appears in both the Old and New Testament which we Catholics have heard recently at Sunday Mass in the readings.

So why the obsession on St. Blogs over sex? It's like Catholics have become fundamentalists all of a sudden. Maybe it's because of the high number of convert bloggers or something? Dunno. I only wish that Catholics, indeed all Christians, would spend at least as much time obsessing over the greatest commandment of them all, as they do gossiping about the sexuality of people other than themselves.>

OK, so "95 percent" is overstated, but I do think that for many people -- not every person, for heaven's sake -- it is a dodge to avoid having to admit that there exists a higher power than oneself, one (One) to whom a person owes obedience. Is it so hard to imagine that for a male American college student, sex was the biggest issue in the equation? I agree with Susan that the issue is really one of control; for me, between the ages of 17 and 24, lust(and not greed, for example) was the preoccupying sin, and the thing I didn't want to yield control over to God. The point is, I didn't want God to exist because I wanted to be free to do whatever I wanted to do without feeling bad about it.

Paul Johnson wrote a book in which he argued that some of the most destructive ideas of various accomplished intellectuals were really just elaborate justifications for their own personal sins.

You can see this kind of thing at work in the previous commenter's remark: "if there is a god, and he's less concerned with tsunami victims than he is with my own [penis, bank account, job, fill in the blank...], then...". The strategy is to say that the Deity, if He exists at all, surely has bigger things to worry about than the sinfulness of a nobody like me. Which is a mighty convenient thing to believe, and certainly impossible for a serious Jew, Christian or Muslim.

And the idea that God only cares about sexual sins is nuts, and believed by no serious Christian. But the people who make that claim are usually the people who want to assert that God doesn't care about sex at all. Whenever I hear that, I wonder what the person who said it is trying to justify.>

And the idea that God only cares about sexual sins is nuts, and believed by no serious Christian. But the people who make that claim are usually the people who want to assert that God doesn't care about sex at all. Whenever I hear that, I wonder what the person who said it is trying to justify.

Rod, I don't know if this is a reference to my comment or not but if it is I would like to clarify. I do believe that sexual sin is serious and that all are called to live chastely in accordance with their state in life. I believe that obedience to God's will in sexual matters is extremely important.

That said though, I still find it annoying and mystifying that Christians fixate on this particular sin (usually committed by others) to the exclusion of all of the other capital sins.>

As to the resistance to religious explanations for phoenomena like speaking in tongues the answer is quite simple. They aren't convincing or falsifiable and simpler (non-supernatural) explanations fit the evidence more closely.

I say this as an atheist who's had religious experiences.>

I think Harvey's portrait of his journey to atheism is very honest. Every bit of moral fiber in him rebels against the unfairness of things, the random and inexplainable violence and death that happens in war or accidents, etc. Haven't we all struggled similarly? Some of us have come to different conclusions, based on reason and scripture, but my conclusions do not invalidate the emotional and moral points that atheists like Harvey make. So, though I can see that Rod's statement might upset some, I think it's incumbant upon others to understand that his statement also has validity, even if it is being said by a devout Christian.>

"Paul Johnson wrote a book in which he argued that some of the most destructive ideas of various accomplished intellectuals were really just elaborate justifications for their own personal sins."

Ditto E. Michael Jones in his book DEGENERATE MODERNS. He makes the claim that sexual 'freedom' is the driving force of modernity, then backs up the claim with a huge amount of historical evidence in his follow-up book LIBIDO DOMINANDI. It does seem like a strange claim to make, but the more one studies it and thinks about it, it makes a lot of sense. Couple this with the advertising industry's wholesale acceptance of the "sex sells" principle, and you get a modern society in which sexual issues rule the day.

A friend of mine, a Christian author, has considerered writing a poem illustrative of this; he was going to call it "Our F**k Who Art in Heaven.">

So, though I can see that Rod's statement might upset some, I think it's incumbant upon others to understand that his statement also has validity, even if it is being said by a devout Christian.
Gretchen

Hmmmmmmmm, love the edit feature.

I wanted to point out the weakness in Rod's position is his insistance on divine design.

Injecting that into the dicussion injects edict into a comment.>

Harvey -- sorry if the profanity offended you, but it should be clear that my friend's point is one of irony. I also have to wonder why, given our society's values, the word is more offensive than the corresponding behavioral trends?>

harvey lacey, I totally agree with the connection to being in the 'zone'. From my own experience I'd draw a connection to a lot of the material surrounding Zen especially regarding meditation. When you 'realize' you're in it, you lose it.

I do think there is something of value, re. glossolalia, being in the zone, meditation etc., that could be taught in broader circles than a specific religious community. It's useful in many areas of life.>

"I think 95 percent of it can be easily explained: people don't really want to think that God might exist, because if He does, then He might expect something of them"

-Rod

On this point all I can say is that you are just dead wrong. Neither I, nor anyone I know who does not believe in a God who takes on some human form, is afraid that this God will someday judge them. Thus, fear of such an event cannot possibly contribute to their reason for being atheist. Not only are we not afraid of this but the very idea itself, that God would care about such trivial stuff, sounds stupid to us. In fact the idea that God would care about anything we do at all sounds a whole lot more like a mechanism of social control then a plausible argument for existence.

I don't agree with Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins about the need to purge civilization of religion. Aside from the fact that they argue for another from of control, they are also being disrespectful to those who believe in something that cannot be proven nor disproved. However, it is equally annoying when someone boils atheism down to the need to justify ones behavior. That idea, to be frank, is just infantile. It makes God sound more like Santa Claus for adults then the creator of a universe that is, in fact, a whole lot bigger then we are.>

I've enjoyed this discussion more than I can express, particularly Harvey and Rob's contributions and interactions.

One thing missing from the explicit discussion is this logical conclusion: sex is the primary driving force in human existence. Dig beneath every other concern or desire, and sex is there. The primary focus of males on female beauty is a combination of the secondary sexual traits and the apparent fecundity of the woman being observed.

So it should be of no surprise that the culture of sex, including the conscious control of its source and expression, is one of our primary concerns.

I urge the reader to read Harvey's last post (11.22.06 - 9:23 am) again. There are two points I wish to emphasize.

1) Personal integrity includes ethical conduct in sexuality.

2) Personal responsibility is the front line for all aspects of human behavior, no aspect more so than sexuality.

The question I want to ask is this: do you (general) behave ethically in sexuality because you know it's right, or because you have been told it's right?

It's a simple question. Please stipulate the implied differences; this is not a chicken/egg question.>

I wanted to point out the weakness in Rod's position is his insistance on divine design.

Based on your reasoning, experiences and inferences, Harvey, that is a weakness in Rod's position. However, since you cannot empirically disprove divine design, your statement is one of opinion or at best, theory.

Acceding to that will allow both sides to argue intelligently and perhaps learn something new. Most Christians already agree that God cannot be proved empirically. Now it's time for others to accept the proof-limitations of their own belief systems.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.">

Unbelievably wrong, Rod, as you always are when you stray into this topic.

You just don't get it: Some people are born without the religion/belief module in their brain activated. This is a point that's been made a lot recently, but here it goes again: For us, when we hear about a god for which there is ZERO evidence it's just like hearing about the flying spaghetti monster. It strikes our ears as absurd.

You're serving nothing but your own hyperactive religion/belief brain module with these portentous thoughts that the reason we don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster is that if we did, we'd have to confront the idea that he expects something from us.

For us, though I know not for you, the whole thing is RIDICULOUS.>

Susan: I think a Biblical focus on social justice and love of neighbor would be more appropriate....

False distinction. It's not an either/or question, but a both/and one.>

"For us, though I know not for you, the whole thing is RIDICULOUS."

As is the reverse for us, mar lup. When I step back from my belief in a creator and look at the world, then look at the fact that I can look at the world, then look at the fact that I can look at myself looking at the world, it's RIDICULOUS for me to believe that it all happened by blind chance, and that it can all be reduced to physics.

Fact is, I've talked to far too many atheists and agnostics who would like there to be a god, if only he wouldn't have so many darn expectations!>

Hm. Well, on the topic of policing everyone else's sexual behavior in the name of protecting the "innocent" participants (or however the argument about consenting adult behavior works out), can anyone explain why all us Christians are not going about decrying divorce morning noon and night? In fact (heterosexual) divorce and remarriage (which was specifically forbidden by Our Lord Himself) hardly gets any airtime, everyone is so worried about the effect on the "sanctity" of marriage of allowing homosexuals to marry.

Now, why is that? Is it because of the expansive social conscience of good Christians, who are so anxious to save homosexuals from themselves even at the cost of ignoring their own sins? I doubt it. I think it's because divorce and remarriage are sins we ourselves or people we know are likely to commit, and we wouldn't want to make ourselves uncomfortable, hm? Let's pick on those other guys.

Meanwhile back at the ranch the economic security of large portions of the population is headed for the cellar, 47 million Americans have no access to health insurance, and so forth. If we Christians are so interested in Biblical focus, as Rod and others claim, why are these issues of concern only to "liberals"?>

I know that, Rob. Evidence suggests you feel that way because evolution installed a module in your brain, more active in some people and less in others.

Your post was unnecessary: everyone knows you feel that way, it's not news. My view isn't news either, but Rod asked for the latest recitation of the obvious by quoting that silly Ross passage and by voicing his own related silly thought.>

Ye Jesus haters know few devout Christians, who obey for love of God, because it is more perfect than obedience out of fear. If it were otherwise, they wouldn't be devout. The rules are clear enough. They would simply follow them. Why then are the pious to be found in adoration before the Eucharist?>

Rob: Fact is, I've talked to far too many atheists and agnostics who would like there to be a god, if only he wouldn't have so many darn expectations!


If this is true, you'd think Deism would be a more popular choice: "Yes, Virginia, there is a God. No, he's not particularly concerned about your sex life.">

Franklin,

I qualified my comments on virtue in providing the prudent materialist monkey would be as good as he must be to both avoid jail AND keep his family and friends. Family and friends are pleasant, if you cheat on your wife she gets angry, she may throw you out of the house, and (if you are a materialist monkey man who has been unable to overcome his up bringing) you will feel bad.

This, of course, assumes that shame isn't telling us something more than that we have rejected social constructions.>

Jaybird: 'If this is true, you'd think Deism would be a more popular choice: "Yes, Virginia, there is a God. No, he's not particularly concerned about your sex life."'

Fact is, it is popular. Just count the number of people who believe in various New-Age religions, syncretisms, neo-paganisms and Eastern religions that are deistic, pantheistic, etc. and whose concept of the Divine doesn't expect a whole hell of a lot out of them, especially in the sexual behavior area.>

Rob: Fact is, it is popular. Just count the number of people who believe in various New-Age religions, syncretisms, neo-paganisms and Eastern religions that are deistic, pantheistic, etc. and whose concept of the Divine doesn't expect a whole hell of a lot out of them, especially in the sexual behavior area.

In that case, I think it further undermines Rod's (and your?)hypothesis that "atheists-don't-believe-in-God-because-it-interferes-with-their-jollies." By your own admission, no one needs to chuck the baby Jesus out with the bathwater if they want to indulge in forbidden fruits. Just convince yourself that God doesn't really care about sexual sins. Judging by the number of divorces, births-out-of-wedlock, and average-age-of-first-sexual-experience in this country, it's fairly obvious that this is what most self-identified Christians do anyway.>

Jaybird: "By your own admission, no one needs to chuck the baby Jesus out with the bathwater if they want to indulge in forbidden fruits. Just convince yourself that God doesn't really care about sexual sins."

No one ever said that inconsistency doesn't exist. Make an offer to a man that he can eat his cake and have it too and nine times out of ten he'll take you up on it. Humans are masters of self-justification, while Christianity tells you to knock it off.>

One thing missing from the explicit discussion is this logical conclusion: sex is the primary driving force in human existence. Franklin Evans

Hmmmmmmm, have you ever wondered why Franklin?

I suspect because of the singularity of each sexual event. And that in itself might be the biggest miracle of evolution.

With each event unable to be replicated and each time there being the opportunity for perfection, well, it keeps us hoppin'.>

-Rob

"Humans are masters of self justification"

And the other side of that coin would be human s mastery of justifying their judgment, and right to exert control.

So far the question has been posed as weather or not atheists choose not to believe in God in order to get a away with choice.

However the flip side has not really been addressed. Was God invented in order for society to control individual choice? Being as that God has yet to comment in this thread, therefore we still have no proof he exists, I think it is a fair question.>

Actually, Harvey, not wanting to sound glib or smug, but I've been working at this subject for so long that I really, honestely must say: no, I am not surprised one whit. :)

I certainly don't deny you the lessons of your personal experiences, but there is one point that I feel needs stating: our love lives are a constant struggle to bring meaning to our relationships besides or in addition to sex. This, for me, is the failure of Christian morality: it negates the struggle for meaning by demonizing sex, but defining the controls in terms of denial, by minimizing pleasure as a temptation rather than as a beneficial outcome.

If I were forced to make a choice, the one lesson I'd want my children to master is this: sex is a reasonable starting point for a relationship, so long as both people make a conscious and concerted effort to make it just one aspect of the relationship. Sexual tension unfulfilled is the single most difficult obstacle in a balanced relationship, and it is just as wrong to try to resolve it by constant indulgence as it is by trying to suppress or ignore it.

All IMO, of course. :)>

I would submit, Franklin, that you are mostly ignorant of a Christian (and by Christian I mean Catholic) understanding of sexuality morality. Catholic proscriptions against contraception, for example, are rooted not in demonizing sex or in avoiding pleasure but in recognizing that intercourse is a sacred act improperly engaged in outside of the marital bed. Unlike the pagans who say they think sex is sacred, devout Catholics really believe it and act accordingly by avoiding sex acts that fail to fully acknowledge the nature of the act.>

sad>

JB, believe or not, I am trying... but you secretly enjoy reading what I write, I know this... right? ;)

Loudon, I would reply that many Catholics of my acquaintance are mostly ignorant of their own Church's complete cycle of doctrine concerning sex; I would also say that many others who are very well acqainted reject it as being unconnected to reality; and between both groups is a ubiquitous view that the basic message is fear.

I will readily agree that my knowledge of the doctrine is limited; my observations of its affects on those at which it is aimed are quite extensive.

When you demonstrate accurate knowledge of the spiritual and philosophical underpinnings of sacred sex, as it is expressed by neo-pagans, then you may comment on whether we "fully acknowledge the nature of the act." In the meantime, all you're doing is judging others by the doctrine to which you hold, something which at least one explicit statement in your doctrine warns you to avoid.>

GIITV said: "The devout obey becuase if they don't, they're gonna burn burn burn. THAT'S the eternal destiny that keeps the sheeple in line."

Rob replied-
This is undoubtedly true in some cases and this mentality is often present initially in new converts. But Christianity both desires and enables its adherents to go beyond this immature rationale of faith. What Loudon said above is correct.

I disagree that fear of Hellfire is an immature rationale of faith, in fact I find this the most convincing part of the Christian story. Threats inspire action; "Repent or perish" does capture my attention. Furthermore, there needs to be something to draw us back to God when things get rough and we consider abandoning the faith. For instance Hebrews argues that those who sin after baptism can no longer receive atonement. The early church agreed and people really had to weigh their decision to become a Christian. Many waited until their death beds. Fear works pretty well, I think. It always caught the Isrealites attention and when He stopped using such harsh punishments, the people went wild. Yes, we are the beloved creation of God who gave his only Son for our redemption, but are also stiff-necked, intractable creation. If Jesus had left out the threats, how many would have listened to his message? Sure, some may move to a fuller understanding of an abundant life, but most of us won't nor do we care really to. We just want to know the rules so we have a fighting chance to get to heaven.>

I think 95 percent of it can be easily explained: people don't really want to think that God might exist, because if He does, then He might expect something of them.

And pretty clearly, what he expects would be conveyed through a tribe of desert savages who can't keep their records straight.>

I disagree that fear of Hellfire is an immature rationale of faith, in fact I find this the most convincing part of the Christian story. Threats inspire action; "Repent or perish" does capture my attention. Furthermore, there needs to be something to draw us back to God when things get rough and we consider abandoning the faith. C. Evans

Heaven and Hell are the weak links in the Christian theology.

Both the Muslim and Christian faiths describe Hell as a non-consuming fire. That's pretty tough stuff.

Think about it for a minute. Probably the most painfull death that would be possible would be burning up in a fire. Now imagine that pain forever and ever and ever and ever.

And what's the reason for this endless torture? Simply disagreeing with Christians.

Like I said, it's tough stuff. Especially when you go to Hebrews and read Pauls definition of faith, subtance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen.

According to Paul the Christians like Rod hope I go to Hell and burn forever and ever and ever and then a little longer. Just because I disagree with them.

That's tough stuff.>

Crunchy Con's post was just ignorant. He can project his own experiences with religion and confusion regarding sex onto others as much as he wants; it won't aid his understanding of why people don't see the world the way he does.

I find it supremely arrogant to be pigeonholed in such a way that says I don't believe in "God" out of fear. Belief in a divine god doesn't fit into my worldview, and I lead a happy and fulfilling life. I'm not afraid of baby Jesus watching me masturbate, spending eternity in Tormentland, or whatever ultra-simplistic mindset this guy's selling.>

Dang! Why isn't being an athiest doing more for my sex life?
Well, as Roy Edroso says, at least I can sleep in late on Sunday and avoid churchgoers.>

I wish all of you at least a twice as good Thanksgiving as I've got planned. Mine's going to be fantastic.

The reason I'm so generous is I understand that each and every person that posted here is a searcher and displaying what they've found.

I like searchers.

Have a good one. We're taking a fat chick (hen) sixty miles away for a 92 year old galfriend and her husband to enjoy with us. He's ninety three and old school. He doesn't think much of me being around, his wife being my galfriend and all.

The kids all have celebrations with in laws and we do the family thing on the Sunday after the big Thursday. We looked at all the invites for today and decided the best one would be with Mildred and Johnny. So I called Mildred and told them we'd bring dinner for the four of us.

Mildred's the kind of person that everyone loves. Her sight is gone and so I'll take the laptop and we'll tell her about the pictures we got on our vacation.

In case someone believes we're being generous and kind to make and take a Thanksgiving dinner up to an old couple let me set the record straight. It's all about us. We're doing this for us and if they get something out of it, that's dessert.

Some people make you feel wonderful by just being in their presence. Mildreds one of those people. She lives on sixty acres with Johnny. She moved onto the property with her first husband in the early thirties.

Her first husband worked the skyscraper construction in the big cities. He was a riveter. Riveters were three man crews that always worked together. One tended the forge and heated the rivets. That's a skilled job in itself, too hot or too long and the steel rivet evaporates. Then there's the catcher. He catches the rivet that tossed by the tender-tosser. The last guy is the one that hammers it home. It was a team job with each man having to be not only proficient but he had to work seamlessly with the other two.

He'd come home after being gone for a year or two and then assume the royal position. Two kids later they divorced and he disappeared from their lives. She raised the kids on that sixty acres with what she got from a couple of cows, some pecan trees, and a garden.

Her son was killed when he was twelve. Dusk in town and he dove out in front of a car while playing. No one to blame and he was gone. He was the light of her life.

Some kids come out of the box easy to love, some not so easy. The first child was a girl and she came out off the bat not liking affection. The boy came out affectionate and easy to love. He was just a joy to be around, one of those people who bring a smile to your face by just waltzing (they don't walk) into the room.

He would be my age if he was alive today.

One of the best guides to a peron's value is to look at their friends. I'm sure all of us on occasion will look around and feel we need a step ladder to inspect the bottom of whale poop on the bottom of the ocean. When that happens to me I look around at my friends and realize I can't be that bad of a person after all. Otherwise such wonderful people wouldn't care about like they do.

Mildred's best friends name is Lucy. Lucy is about ninety five now. Mildreds fifty nine seconds shy of a minute in size, Lucy is about an hour or more. In the sixties Mildred and Lucy traveled forty six of the forty eight contiguous states. Just the two of them in a pickup with a camper shell on the back staying on the cheap in camp sites and state parks.

Lucy told me she has a couple of steno pads full of graffiti she copied off of bathroom walls on their trips. I'd love to get the opportunity to get some quality time with those books. That would make a heckuva book I do believe.

Sometimes there are stories about people that you never ask them about. How Lucy and Mildred got together is one of those.

I heard, use your grain of salt here, that Lucys husband was a monster. She worked in the post office in town and he wouldn't work. But he did run around and when he came home he'd beat her up.

One day she had enough and called the law. They locked him up. But the law told her to move out of town because they felt he'd kill her when they let him out.

Mildred lives about ten miles from that town. She heard about Lucys situation and that the husband was getting out of jail and Lucy hadn't left town yet. Mildred got down her shotgun and decided to spend some quality time with Lucy.

I've heard two versions of the husbands return home. One was that he wished he was dead. The other suggested he was.

I just know they've been best friends since the late forties.

I'm in charge of Mildreds wake. I've taken an oath to do it as she wishes with style. Mildred loves dirty jokes. Sometimes my wife will turn the color of a tomato while Mildred and myself will be laughing ourselves into a state of tears.

Yup, I'm going to tell all the jokes I can find. Those that know her best will laugh themselve out of tears with me. The dirtier the better.

This is on topic btw. Mildred believes there might be a god and it might be the Christian One. I don't. And that doesn't matter.>

How silly. It's fine to ponder resistance to some infinite truth. That's a good question. Because yearning for infinite truth is so close to universal that it is seems wrong to say there is nothing universal out there. But then you go ahead and conflate infinite truth with your christian construct of god-the-prude. Sam Harris is right -- there is certainly no reason to believe in that particular iteration of the devine. And I think Sam's point is that, since there is no basis in reason for prefering the god you christians have constructed in your image to the god the muslims have constructed in their image, it is tragic that people have fought and died (on both sides of the religious divide) over whose construct of god should prevail.>

ahahahhaha! Yes that's it, I don't believe in your sky god because if I did I would have to stop atteneding orgies and throw away my porn collection!

It has nothing to do with the fact that there isn't a shred of proof that the sky god exists and that if he does and the Bible is infact his word that he is quite mad.

>but I believe -- though I can't prove it

Sums it up right there, you can believe what you like, just don't expect us to join you in your fantasies.>

This is quite absurd, in my view. I, and all of the atheists in my acquaintance, do not believe that god exists because there is in fact not a scrap of evidence for his existence. Scratch an argument for the existence of god and you'll uncover a silly fallacy or a steaming pile of disingenuous sophistry.

The atheists I know are the most caring and moral people I've ever met--perhaps because they actually love their fellow human beings from the heart, and are not simply "behaving" due to bribes or threats of reprisals from the "Good Book," or from their unctuous pastor. Most have never read their book. You want genocide? Look no further than the Old Testament. Israel's brutal Mesopotamian sky-god Yahweh was one evil hombre. He is one of the cruelest and least humane entities in all of human mythology. Let's leave him where he belongs: back in ancient history. Can't we all just grow up? Please...>

Wow. This really sums up the ridiculous conclusions and lack of rational thinking that the self-righteous Godbots out there cling to.

It's kind of like believing, "Those who refuse to believe in the Boogie Man do so because believing would trouble their sleep and place limits upon where they might decide to venture in the dark of night."

You obviously don't get it. Atheists don't believe because there's NO REASON to believe. No evidence. No rationale. Nothing. I can not think of a single other example in life where people are expected to just wholeheartedly believe in something, with every fiber of their being, when there's no evidence whatsoever or any clear, concise logic to support such a belief.

I would argue that those who DO believe in God do so because it makes them feel so extra-special and superior to all of those evil bastards who are going to hell. A belief in God does not place limits on anything, because, after all, most Christians believe that their belief in Christ alone is what will get them through those pearly gates; not their deeds, or how many sexual partners they've had out of wedlock, or even the number of victims they've murdered.

Oh, and by the way, most of the atheists I've ever known have been more ethical and self-critical than the Christians I've known. I was brought up Catholic and was brainwashed into thinking that anyone who didn't "believe" in God must be a bad person. My eyes were opened when I went off to college and saw that the most honest, open, tolerant, and least hypocritical of my friends turned out to be atheists.>

I would argue that those who DO believe in God do so because it makes them feel so extra-special and superior to all of those evil bastards who are going to hell.

That's your idea of an "argument?"

I'd call it an entirely ignorant rant.>

Yeah Simon and then you'd be called wrong and I can't help but notice that you have no rebuttal to everyone else who made pretty much the same point.

Being an atheist means I don't believe in magic not in morality, rule of law and all the other rather self-evident stuff.

Do you ever wonder how societies came up with laws against murder without the Jewish sky-god's help?>