RCH wrote on Apr 27, 2007 10:31 AM:This is sad.

Sculpin wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:17 AM:On the contrary, RCH....this is good news! Why is it sad? Withoud understanding your comment, I must say that America is a great country that can accept all sorts of differing views. Being godless is not the same as being amoral. There are god fearing folks who are amoral, and there are godless folks who are very moral. Besides, both god and morals are strictly human constructs, and as man evolves so do morals and the definition of god. Personally, I caould not imagine living a life without differing beliefs...that would be insanely deadening...

To RCH wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:19 AM:why is this sad? I think it's wonderful and I look forward to joining them at the monthly meetings. What is sad is the amount of hatred and judgment from so called christians towards those who don't believe. That's truly sad.

August B. wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:49 AM:It's true that some states still have laws on the books saying atheists can't hold public office, but those laws are unenforceable because they violate the federal constitution that says there shall be no religious test for public office. Still, it's embarrassing to our country - where everyone is supposed to be equal under the law - that those laws were ever put there in the first place. Christians claim we are "all God's children," yet it is they who have historically written laws against atheists, blacks, gays, and women. That is why religion must be exposed: because it oppresses people.

Kaycee wrote on Apr 27, 2007 12:22 PM:Sad? I think it is absolutely refreshing that there is such a group in the area! What is truly sad is that any of these people at the Brights meeting actually feel afraid to tell friends about themselves. Her friend would turn away if she says how she really thinks! Friends can BE friends, BE moral, BE genuinely nice people, etc.,etc., but then only be liked and appreciated AS LONG AS they just keep quiet about who they are???? Something has gone astray in this nation for that to be the case. Our nation was founded to keep there from being religious tests for public office. (Article VI) There shouldn't be such cultural tests for friendship, either.

Sculpin wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:07 PM:Thanks for the clarification, RCH.

Sam wrote on Apr 27, 2007 5:01 PM:OMG, you got te be kidding. First off if your an ex-catholics your in no position to decide anything about faith since tghe "church" has scrambled your brains so badly your effectively handicap. Find the true word, which is real hard by the way, and you'll see a new light.

fra59e wrote on Apr 27, 2007 5:20 PM:Any "friend" whose friendship requires you to conceal or deny your personal convictions is not a "friend" worth having. Such a person is at best and acquaintance, not a friend.

fra59e wrote on Apr 27, 2007 5:22 PM:A person from whom you must conceal your convictions is not a friend, just an acquaintance.

Stephen wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:04 PM:August B. is wrong. Abraham Lincoln, was adamantly opposed to slavery. He wrote the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862. This led to the Thirteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. J.F.K. passed more legislation in favor of the blacks. I firmly believe that their actions were the result of a belief in God. It probably also was what led to the passage of the Nineteenth amendment giving women the right to vote.

Leslie wrote on Apr 28, 2007 8:29 AM:The fact that you meet to discuss that there is no "God" proves there is a "God" You cant meet to talk about a "nothing unless there is a "something" hmmmmmmmmm something to ponder!!!

Huh? wrote on Apr 28, 2007 9:03 AM:So the Brights have a group to get together so they can discuss what they don't believe. Hmm. It is sad because they're trying to convince themselves of something that's not true.

Funny and Ridiculous Article wrote on Apr 28, 2007 9:52 AM:The United States as 76.5% Christian and .4% Atheist. A much smaller group than most would believe. They are Very Vocal, which leads some to believe they are a much larger group.

To B wrote on Apr 28, 2007 9:56 AM:True Christains do NOT say "We are all God's children." John 1:12 says, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name." To be a child of God you must believe. If not, "You are of your father the devil.." John 8:42-44.

Atheist wrote on Apr 28, 2007 10:54 AM:I am really, REALLY tired of people trying to shove religion down my throat. I don't shove my atheism on others. My sister is super religious yet she doesn't push it on me. Why do some people push their religion on other so much? That's a huge lack of respect. OK, enough complaining for the day. :-)

Steve wrote on Apr 28, 2007 12:28 PM:In response to Sam, “scrambling brains” is rather ubiquitous across religions. Doubt is frowned upon. Accepting made-up truths is highly praised! One needs to understand that these are essential elements for a religion to survive. When we think, we use two very different tools: intuition and logic. Intuition or feelings cannot prove if something is true or not. I may feel true, but it does not necessarily means that it is. Evidence and logic is the only thing that can be used to make factual statements. Consequently, “Find the true word” is deprived of meaning. Finding the word (implying finding Jesus Christ of course) is a spiritual experience. The use of the word “true” is out of place. No matter how strong the spiritual experience, it does not imply there is any truth associated with it. The same goes for all new age beliefs, astrology, etc. As a skeptic, I value the power of doubt, inquiry and rational thinking. I wished more people shared these values. We would not have had 9/11 if these terrorists had questioned their belief system.

The Atheists represent wrote on Apr 28, 2007 12:35 PM:only .3% of the US Population. Christians represent 76.5%. About 20% represent other faiths, not Atheism. These are the Real Statistics.

Steve wrote on Apr 28, 2007 1:07 PM:In response to Stephen, note that in his youth, Abraham Lincoln ridiculed religion. He never joined any church. The original draft of his Gettysburg address did not have the words “under God’. The original draft of the Emancipation Proclamation had no mention of God. He made many famous statements that clearly indicated he was a freethinker. Historians agree on this point. That said, even though Abraham Lincoln was far ahead of his time, he still was very much a racist. Here is sample what he had to say in 1858: “there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race”. During the civil war, the word of the bible was used by both sides to either justify slavery or fight it. Some texts of the bible encourage slavery while others condemn it. Regarding women right to vote, Susan Brownell Anthony was chastised by the various religious groups on grounds that her views were very much anti-christian. She would move away from organized religion as she got older. My point is that religions in general and Christianity in particular have a pretty bad track record when it comes to emancipations and increased liberties. Such improvements tend to come from freethinkers who dare to question the status-quo and take great risks when doing so.

Heady wrote on Apr 28, 2007 10:19 PM:In another country, the nod of a head is no and a shake of the head is "yes". Hell does exist and it is forever, once therein their is no escape from the everlasting pain heat and torment. And I would not want anyone, anyone to go there. But it is a free choice. And Jesus is the Savior. And that is the truth. I did not establish that, but that is the truth. And one is free in America to make their own uncoerced decision. Hell is a hell of a place.

Monica wrote on Apr 29, 2007 3:23 AM:Jeez, so many people seem to think that they must convince non-believers of their god. If you can't convince you must deride others. The Brights aren't doing anything to any of you believers. Why shouldn't non believers have the right to meet up and share friendship and common ideals. I don't hear them denouncing you christians who go to church. Atheists should sit around and post about how it's a waste for christians to go to church or to get together. What ever happened to "live and let live". What are you people so afraid of? It's not about you, has nothing to do with you. You've made your choice to believe so why begrudge others free will and free thought? Oh, and when you religious sorts 'allow' us to have our own thoughts and decisions, I love how you follow that with proclamations about hell. Believe what you want to believe, we'll not believe. You live your life and leave us to live ours in peace, being godless and happy. Concern yourself with your own souls and your god, since that's what you believe in. Don't worry about who's going to hell and whether or not we believe in your myths. You are wasting your time and ours. To Leslie: Why does it bother you so much that people meet that are godless to discuss their lack of belief? Why does it bother you that we would like to know other like minded people? That's the problem with religious people, especially christians, they are always in other peoples' business. I don't care who you meet with to discuss whatever you wish to discuss. I doubt that the Brights think about you so, why does it trouble you so? To Huh?: No one is trying to convince anyone of anything. Every heard of meeting like minded people for friendship? I know, I know it's only limited to christians or religious people in your narrow little mind. To Funny and Ridiculous: That would be an appropriate title for believers I would think. You are a bunch of hypocritical judgmental people, why don't you go read a bible or something or just go away.

Leslie wrote on Apr 29, 2007 10:02 AM:Friendship means sharing your highest values with one another....I am not against anyone coming together to share their beliefs about nothing...but lets not put down us christians who meet and share our highest value......Jesus...who teaches us His Highest value THE FATHER.....Who teaches us what dignity is....The ability to give Life giving relationships....as for us being a bunch of hypocritical judgemental people...we all fall short of making the mark....But thank God....there is a higher Value (the Father)to to teach us about His mercy and forgivness and heal of us our pride...Intellect and Free Will are all Gifts from GOd it is our duty to educated them......so if you all want to meet and share your belief of non belief....the author of Life gave you that right too.....

To Leslie wrote on Apr 29, 2007 6:02 PM:How "Christian" of you to say the Brights have the right to discuss their non belief while slapping them across the face with a cross and your pious remarks.

Leslie wrote on Apr 29, 2007 7:30 PM:thank you... i am a christian and as for slapping them (the Blights)across the face with a cross and my pious remarks.... I do Believe in the POWER of the CROSS....My pious remarks are what we Christens refer to as "FAITH" what i shared is not a slap but a beautiful thing called "Grace"

Monica wrote on Apr 29, 2007 7:47 PM:To Leslie: Your response was typical sanctimony. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Being an atheist is something of value. I value highly thinking for myself without having a god figure being my puppet master, and knowing that there others of like mind, especially in today's religion mad climate is refreshing. It is good to be around others whom you relate to. It gives me great pleasure to know that there are people who would accept me without religious baggage. I imagine you enjoy being around those of faith, so why would there be an issue about atheists being together? What could The Brights and other atheists groups enjoying a mean and friendship have to do with the religious? Every Sunday, christians hang out in church, holy rolling, and I don't see atheists wringing their hands about it. I'm still waiting for an answer to that question. It seems as though for many christians, atheists meeting in some way is an attack upon christianity. Or is the thought that there are people who do just fine without religion just too much to bear? Why is there a need for you and others like RCH, and Huh? to post negatively in the first place. You and others have posted that atheists are "sad" or "why is there a need to talk about a lack of belief", that the Brights are "sad because they are trying to convince themselves of something they don't believe", blah blah blah. You even posted that for atheists to meet to discuss there being no god "proves there is a god" as well as posting that it's a "belief about nothing". A rather ignorant, judgmental statement as I see it. Of course it's about something. It's about being free from religion in a country that, as I said before seems to be religion mad. You contradict yourself on being judgmental when you made a judgment statement. What is the purpose of those comments? For some reason that I don't understand, these fine people meeting is bothersome to you and others. Is it fear that more people are getting wise and becoming rational thinking human beings? In addition, I believe the christians' biggest problem is that you all see christianity as truth for EVERYONE and that you are the only ones with a right to express your opinions. You have a right to your religion, and I and others have a right to be free from them. Look, your religion is YOUR truth. For Brights/atheists', non belief is OURS. Religion is not for everyone. So, wouldn't it be much more productive and less obnoxious if christians SHARED views, with those who wish to hear them, and agree to disagree with those who don't. Quit trying to "educate" or demean and deny others. If non believers are interested in learning, I'm sure they will ask. If atheists/brights wish to meet and talk evolution, the joys of godless living or share gardening tips, it's of no concern of yours' or your god.

Starvation wrote on Apr 29, 2007 10:38 PM:There are different types of needs people have. We pass people who look hungry, look like they need a shower, look thirsty...and if we have something to offer, be it a bottle of water, leftovers in a doggie bag, or yes even a little cash, most of us will offer it. Reading the article, it sounds like the Brights members seek out the group because they feel lonely or discriminated against by others who don't understand their beliefs. We all know you don't have to be religious to benefit from community. However, saying you're an Athiest to a Christian is like saying you've given up on food. People of faith may assume you are spiritually hungry...and they want to offer you a way to experience fulfillment as they know it (Christians know this as living water, obtained through faith in Christ that satisfies and never runs out.) Is that so reprehensible? To have compassion and to offer you what has healed them? Please try not to be defensive when someone talks to you about their faith, their intentions are probably very good. There's no need to get angry or defensive...you can just say "thanks for sharing...bye now."

Leslie wrote on Apr 29, 2007 10:55 PM:What does a athiest Value?? His own thinking....His own values..Himself??...we have a word for it ....it is called EGO

To Leslie wrote on Apr 30, 2007 12:22 AM:You have your bag of stones and obviously believe you have the right to cast them. Your faith is hardy full of grace when you use it as a weapon of bigotry. Seems to me that you get the joy in your faith from zinging insults at those who fail to believe as you do. So vindictive, so sad.

Jared wrote on Apr 30, 2007 8:18 AM:There's no reason to get worked up over someone's belief or non-belief when the only reason you happen to belong to your religion is the fact that you were born in a certain place at a certain time. Current Christians would be Hindu if they were born in India, they'd believe in Zeus if they were born in ancient Greece, or Wotan and Thor if they were born in 4th century Scandanavia. The pure luck of the time and place of your birth shouldn't be worth fighting/killing/converting for.

John wrote on Apr 30, 2007 8:47 AM:Religions are man's adaptation in the belief of that which is unexplainable. Throughout history Christians have developed an intolerance and the persecution of non-believers, and have used their bible to justify their bigotry.

Sculpin wrote on Apr 30, 2007 11:52 AM:It's the thoughts expressed by Leslie that reaffirm my belief that I'm much better off without "religion".

Bob wrote on Apr 30, 2007 11:54 AM:Congratulations to the North County Brights. I hope this coverage and your other efforts can attract more members and that your group will flourish.

Einstein On Religion wrote on Apr 30, 2007 1:52 PM:Why not crank Einstein into the equation? Einstein was a universal genius, I have no doubt. More than just a physicist, he was a profound philosopher. His astounding insights into reality may never be duplicated. I am reading Issacson's new bio of Einstein and on page 387 he quotes from Einstein's 'What I Believe.' 'To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.'

leslie wrote on Apr 30, 2007 2:45 PM:He also writes:The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.

Zealotry wrote on Apr 30, 2007 3:04 PM:The more rational world of the secular humanist appeals to me. However, not to forget the pantheist!! I really think that Einstein tended toward pantheism. He reveled in the awesome mystery and majesty of nature. Supernaturalism was antithetical to his philosophy and he said more than once that he could not imagine a Supernatural God that would sit in judgement 'on creatures of his own creation.' Yeah, there's something deeply illogical about a so-called god punishing that which he created, because to do so would be an admission that the god erred in his creation and is thus not divine and omnipotent. Mythology and mysticism seem to be offered as explanations of the inexplicable and the dreadful more than anything.

Very true wrote on Apr 30, 2007 3:22 PM:So therefore Leslie, Einstein did NOT believe in the supernaturalism of religion, but he stood in awe of the mysteries of nature. In this sense, he was a humble man who, like Newton, emphasized how little is known and that to presume otherwise is wrong. To paraphrase Einstein, the essence of wisdom is to admit that we probably know very little of reality. Some have said that the writers of science fiction probably do not even begin to touch the possibilities of nature. Actually, Einstein had more questions than answers.

RCH wrote on Apr 30, 2007 3:49 PM:What is sad is, that I can't even state my opinion without poison and venom comming from all who don't agree with the statement. Yet people are insulted and will lash out at Christians when we try to state our side and give aid from a spiritual perspective. If you were to talk to most of them and they opened up, I would wager that most are lonely, and or bitter from something bad that happened to them in a church. I am NOT judging, that is not my place. God created each of us with a void that only He can fill and when people run from God it is probably because of some person they trusted that misrepresent God. You may lash out at me again, but when you are by yourself, alone with your thoughts, thats is when you will see. How can anyone look at the beauty of a sunset or the miracle of life and not believe that a loving creator made it for us. I respect their right to chose, but because I don't agree doesn't give you the right to be hateful.

RCH wrote on Apr 30, 2007 4:03 PM:One thing doesn't make sense to me, the fact that soooooo many people who proclaim to have no belief in God come to the faith and values page. The "brights" are not proclaiming faith, they are proclaiming NON faith, so why is this article even in this section? Unless it is to ram atheism down the Christian's throat.

Leslie wrote on Apr 30, 2007 5:00 PM:..i agree with RCH about them (the Brights)proclaiming their non faith....I go back to my original statement that our intellect and free will are gifts from God and it is our duty to educate our reasoning....I accept the gift of faith and i will say this ...that there is alot more to your "nothing" that truly leads to a "SOMETHING" and that would be our loving creater...He gives us everything....even the gift of intelligence.....to aid in discovering who He is.....Faith...is a mystery...and I for one will never be able to explain to you all what that is.....it is your right to close Him out....but it is also my right to share the "good news" Now for me .....I am going to go out and watch the sunset....and thank Him for a beautiful day .....I have had enough of this christen bashing....

Leslie's Logic is Crazy wrote on Apr 30, 2007 5:24 PM:I just have to say that the circular arguments put forth by Leslie seem really crazy and narrow. To not look at the world at large and be able to put a particular religion into a global, historical perspective is not only narrow minded, but downright blind. I just could never get past this. To say one "faith" is right but say all the other "faith"s are wrong seems the ultimate in selfish self-centerdness. Talk about ego!

dae wrote on Apr 30, 2007 5:56 PM:It's sad but true that GOD becomes real popular when on your death bed !

Zoot wrote on Apr 30, 2007 6:59 PM:Dying is knowing that you never have to wake up tired ever again...

John wrote on Apr 30, 2007 10:39 PM:Fear of the unknown (death) leads man to seek out a belief system. Death is no different than the period before one's birth. Tormented is the mind that is burdened with religious fervor.

Andrew D wrote on May 1, 2007 2:16 AM:0.3% of the US atheistic? The 2006 Irish Census showed 15%+ as either no-religion or not answering the religion question. This made them the fastest growing "religious" group. This in a country where Catholics and Protestants control 99.1% of the schools. So much for freedom and tolerance. These people are not discussing "non-existence". They are discussing a naturalistic view of the world. Why do some intolerant people have a problem with that? If you ask the census question properly you will get a more accurate answer.

Rapture 1 wrote on May 1, 2007 2:19 AM:OK so there is no God, well its highly improbbable that a 'creator' exists anyway. So what ? This doesn't need to change who you are, you can just finally see the truth.

bekbek wrote on May 1, 2007 5:52 AM:Two things: First, on Brights getting together to discuss their non-belief in gods ("hmm, something to ponder" yeah, not like we haven't heard this one over and over again), what makes anybody assume that the Brights get together for this purpose? What makes you think that they talk about God much at all? Do you talk ONLY about your belief in God at every church social? Don't you talk about family, your business, your studies, your common friends and common activities? The point of the article is that non-believers can have a community too. My definition, Brights have nothing whatsoever to do with god. (And it certainly wouldn't "prove" anything, in any case - and anyway, I thought you weren't supposed to need to "prove" God. Hmm... something to think about!) Second, an article about Brights belongs in this section because for many Brights (if not all), this is indeed a matter of faith. The difference is that it is a faith in understanding and scientific inquiry. It is a faith in themselves. If you want to call this ego, go ahead - but I'll be very sad to learn that religious people cannot have faith in themselves and their own abilities and minds. But also, where else should the article go? If you actually read and think about the article, again, the point is about community and the fact that nonbelievers are often silenced in this country. It's pretty telling, if you're suggesting that they also should not have a voice in the local paper.

Ross wrote on May 1, 2007 7:24 AM:I've had 2 problems with the discussions here. 1. The brights don't really meet to discuss their non-belief, although I'm sure it comes up every once in a while just as belief undoubtedly comes up in a civic meeting with religious folks. They meet to discuss what they can do to further their ability to become active in society and not be instantly discriminated for not believing in something they see as superfluous to living a moral life. 2. Instantly when some religious people hear that atheists are holding meetings they either claim that this proves their religion or that these people somehow NEED god in their lives. Maybe these people meeting here in North County are lonely and maybe they aren't, I've never met them. What I can say is that being atheist is not something that people choose to do simply because of some terrible event that happened to them by someone misrepresenting a religion. The only atheists I know, including myself, chose not to believe in the supernatural because there is absolutely no reason to believe in it in the first place. I was raised Christian and from as far back as I can remember I was questioning the bible and my parents' belief in it, none of it made sense to me. For a while I even thought that the moral teachings within were reason enough to stay in the church until I grew up and realized that almost everything in the bible is unoriginal, that is to say, taken from other religions and philosophies and thrown together in a new book. After that it was no longer necessary to believe in supernatural beings to lead a normal and moral life. "Starvation" wrote a nice comment about this up until the point where they asked us not to be defensive. Whenever someone comes to me asking me to look into their religion for freedom from the blandness of atheism I listen but afterwards ask if they've ever even considered life without god and it usually leads to some discussion about scientific shortcomings which are obviously false (the idea of intelligent design is apparently a hotly enforced belief in my area). I've taken the time to try other religions and have done research into the "3 majors" and many "minor" religions yet not a single religious person I've met has had the courtesy of looking into atheism before assuming I NEED them to save me from their eternal hellish torment or to shine the light of god on me. P.S. while writing this I was trying to figure out what "Leslie" meant by "The fact that you meet to discuss that there is no "God" proves there is a "God" You cant meet to talk about a "nothing unless there is a "something" hmmmmmmmmm something to ponder!!! " The only thing I can assume from this statement is that they have a very skewed view of atheism. Of course there is a "something" that we discuss, you believe in it! The statement must really mean "The fact that you meet to discuss that there is no God proves there is a widespread belief among the vast majority of people in the world concerning the role that supernatural forces play in our day to day lives." Simply, we meet to discuss why we don't believe what you tell us to believe, for some leaving faith is an easy process, for others it takes time and help from loved ones or even strangers who have gone through the same process they're going through right now. This is not unlike the fact that many people can't begin a belief in god on their own, it takes time and help from others who also want to believe in god Sorry for writing so much.

Marybeth Michelson-Thiery wrote on May 1, 2007 8:44 AM:Re the article about the Brights: If it is true that some states restrict the civil rights of atheists, then those states are in violation of Article 6 of the United States Constitution: "....no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public Trust under the United States."

To Steve wrote on May 1, 2007 9:47 AM:Steve wrote 'Christianity in particular have a pretty bad track record when it comes to emancipations and increased liberties' Check the facts: the great leaders of the emacipation movement were all Christians!

You work so hard wrote on May 1, 2007 9:50 AM:As has already been noted, if you have to work so hard to deny there's a God, perhaps there's the ontological evidence for such. I suggest you all read "Darwin's Black Box" if you'd like to know the inconvenient truth of the logical impossibility of evolution as promoted by Dawkins (man, that guy is bitter!)

Sculpin wrote on May 1, 2007 2:56 PM:Who's working hard? It's fairly evident to me that there is no god. It's the "god fearing" that try to prove the existence of god to me. As for the "logical impossibility", that doesn't exist. Remember the old saying...give 1 million chimps a typerwriter and one will type out shakespeare, or in your case, aquinas! Honestly, what will you make of sting theory!?!?!?!

Gabe wrote on May 1, 2007 3:51 PM:Perhaps you should all take a few deep breaths and ask yourself what (Jesus/Einstein/Lincoln) would do before commenting further.

leslie wrote on May 1, 2007 4:26 PM:You say Its Fairly evident that there is no God. Interesting you wouldnt say Its Absolutly evident that there is no GOd......

Sculpin wrote on May 1, 2007 4:54 PM:Sigh.....OK, I stand corrected. I'm absolutely certain there is no god as it is most commonly defined in (any) religious terms. However, I am not averse to the notion that there may be other forms of sentient life that at one time in our history we may have mistaken for what man thinks of as god. That would not be out of the realm of possibility or probability. In addition, I was referring to string theory, not sting theory...my bad.

Richard wrote on May 2, 2007 4:28 AM:There is such a difference between "godless" - a word used to imply any of a number of bad things - and "god-free", which simply means not needing a supernatural explanation. I am no Buddhist, but as I understand it, there is no god in Buddhism - rather, Buddha is regarded as someone who had good and useful things to teach. There seems to be no reason not to think about Jesus, or indeed any wise and kind person, in much the same way, but without the supernatural, often superstitious trappings of any god.

Tim B wrote on May 2, 2007 9:07 AM:For all things to come into existence means something other than human created their existance. There is a force larger and more magnificent than humans could ever realize or comprehend. Humanist believe that morality is a consensus which will further take then away from a divine guidance that make life meaningful. No matter what flavor your religion, as long as it accounts for a force that is greater than yourself allows you to truly live the miracle of life. (By the way,for you atheist: Who invented the eyeball and why? why is DNA consistant across all living things? Just chance?)

Ross wrote on May 2, 2007 12:01 PM:To Tim B. My idea of why there is DNA consistently across all living things isn't chance. I think it's just the way that the universe works, under certain conditions molecules form in certain ways and systems that may seem infinitely complex really aren't in the grand scheme of things. In my opinion people place too much emphasis on how complex things seem to mankind. We're really not all that smart and we're definitely not even near the peak of understanding the universe, I'd say we're about 10 feet up mount everest. Oh and the eye was probably developed from lesser forms of sight that allowed creatures without good defenses to sense their predators from a distance or vice versa. Or maybe God created it, either way I don't feel any need to go to church just because I have eyes.

K9zRock wrote on May 2, 2007 7:42 PM:As an independent Christian, I understand how the Brights feel in the sense that I don't like talking with other Christians most the time. They think I am "of the devil". It can get lonely at times when you don't buy into the mainstream.

To K9zRock wrote on May 2, 2007 9:39 PM:How would you describe an "independent Christain?" And why do people think "You are of the devil?" Please give an example.

K9zRock wrote on May 2, 2007 10:18 PM:Sure - I believe that when you die, you are really dead; unconscious, like the beasts of the field with no thought ability. Then at the resurrection of the dead, you are raised up, judged and given the gift of eternal life if you are worthy. If not, then you die the second death; not live forever in a continually burning state; rather just gone like a squashed bug. There are the scriptural verses that sound at first like the mainstream Christianity and I get tired of having to sum up my life's study and arguing about it. Some think me a "heretic", but no one so far has crucified me for these thoughts, just get lonely and don't fit in with most groups. Hope that clarifies.

John wrote on May 3, 2007 6:15 AM:Fear of the unknown has led man to invent a variety of religious beliefs. The premise is the same. Man cannot deal with his demise unless assured of an everlasting existence. In the believer's case, a heaven in which to spend eternity. In order to accomplish this, they must first establish a creator (God) of whom they hope one day to be with upon their death. Hell was invented as an alternate fate should one not lead a righteous life according to the instructions laid out by ancient cultures. Out of fear, a follower would be compelled to opt for "heaven". The faithful will embrace the belief system that is most comforting to them and easiest to follow. Quotes from their reference books (bible, etc.) justifies their conduct. Man's written words are of the mind, which in turn sustains fear. It is the fortunate person whose mind is free of the past and unconcerned with the future who is able to experience the fullness of life (the present).

Jack wrote on May 3, 2007 11:44 AM:As a long time ex-Catholic (maybe brainwashed before but no longer) I have evolved (!!) to my present beliefs. All religions are reward based and anthropocentric. All this talk of love and adoration is simply a cover up for immortality. The thought of eternal suffering or even worse, loss of consciousness, is more than most people can bear. Anyone who even hints at the finality of this life is to be feared and ostracized. However, I would say doing the right thing being based on a personal reward is non-altruistic and flawed. John Locke believed all humans were basically good. If that is so, I would ask, why the need for a religion? The furtherance of our species or even other life forms should be reward enough. To the old story of the watchmaker being needed to make a watch I would ask who made the watchmaker. If an omnipotent, perfect entity already exists why create a system (evolution) to strive for perfection? I see societies as containing fear, greed and violence. Modern religions only seem to promote these tendencies. Christians, in particular, only need to look to their founder to see the folly of both majority (Roman) rule and society’s destructive proclivities. Did he not promote tolerance, understanding, peace, forgiveness and separation of state and church? Since his sayings are continually open to interpretation and are often used to justify many ills from racism to guns one should look to his actions for guidance. The protestant dogma seems to be about placing thoughts (beliefs) above actions. All the comments from the pro-religious only seem to confirm this. One can be a lying, murderous, rights destroyer (a certain leader comes to mind) but if one claims to have faith that person is destined to eternal reward while all those who promote peace, tolerance, understanding, forgiveness without a belief are destined to damnation. Under these circumstances can one really know what another believes? In our country leaders must espouse a belief in god or else they cannot get elected. Some of us want to ponder other possibilities outside of superstition, supernaturalism and magic. Fortunately we live in a time and country where we are allowed (even encouraged) to do so. Claims of heresy and lawbreaking and even being evil by the so-called believers actually help to dismantle the Democratic ideals with which we live. They turn this country into one of secrecy and falsehoods (which seems to be where we are headed) which in turn only encourages us to speak even louder. It is in exercising our rights that we maintain and strengthen them.

Kaycee wrote on May 3, 2007 5:41 PM:Where does this idea come from that the local Brights are getting together "to share their beliefs about nothing"? About nothing? How silly. All humans have beliefs, and Brights are no different from any other humans. They have all sorts of beliefs; they just don't happen to be convinced by Bible quotes and ministers that there is any sort of god out there. Not just because people SAY there is. And then they go on and live their lives. I'd think they like together with other people for the camaraderie, not to try to convince themselves of anything. They just don't get together in churches, so where? And so what if this country has 76% Christian (or people who like to call themselves that, anyway). Actually, I think Jesus is probably sorely stressed by how so many of the Christians (so-called) ignore his messages of love and treat their fellow citizens by disparaging them (like some posters view these Brights). And the actual wording of the 19th amendment was written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a married mother and freethinker who was strongly against how Christianity treated women and even wrote a book on that.

to Jack wrote on May 3, 2007 6:52 PM:wow you must be a joy to be around......What hope you have.... sure glad i havent evolved...

John wrote on May 3, 2007 8:11 PM:A brain that is mired in the past surely has ceased to evolve.

Nick wrote on May 3, 2007 8:16 PM:To Tom B who raised the question "who invented the eye-ball and why?" You are raising an old chestnut here. This is basically Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument that has been embraced by the Discovery Institute. This has been shown to be absolute hogwash every time it is raised - see for example Edward Humes' description of the Dover trial in 'Monkey Girl'. Evolution can very easily explain the formation of complex organs. As a molecular biologist I constantly encounter genes and proteins being used for completely different purposes in different species. Creationists might say that this was simply reusing the same building blocks for different purposes - but it refutes the notion of "irreducible complexity". To You work so hard who suggested that people read 'Darwin's Black Box", this book has been discredited as nothing more than creationist propaganda. The claim that the book was peer reveiwed is false. Michael Atchison was supposed to have reviewed the book but he was not even sent a copy by the publisher. IMHO Behe is an embarrasment to the scientific community.

Nick wrote on May 3, 2007 8:26 PM:To Tim B who wrote "For all things to come into existence means something other than human created their existance. There is a force larger and more magnificent than humans could ever realize or comprehend". I would like to point out the error in his logic. If life is so wonderful and complex, it must be created by an entity even more wonderful and complex (omnipresent and omnipotent). Yet the same logic implies that the entity (or shall we say creator) must have been created by something or someone even more wonderful and complex and so on. So who was the creator's creator's creator's creator's.....creator? Some might say that there is no need to invoke higher levels of creation, but then there is no need to invoke any levels of creation. So why bother. It's all nonsense. All of this is spelled out beautifully in 'The God Delusion". If Tim wants to believe, more power to him - just don't start meddling in the schools, courts, or congress.

Jack wrote on May 4, 2007 11:00 AM:To whomever (at least I use my name); yes I am a joy to be around. I am involved with a lot of diverse issues and try to use logic, reasoning and open-mindedness to understand an to get my point across (instead of fear and mysticism). I volunteer for a lot of different groups and my only reward is though the hope that maybe I am helping to make some difference in helping to sustain all life forms. I have read all of the comments and have tried to add my two cents worth without pointing the finger at any one individual. To me trying to understand what this life is about is more important than burying my head in the sand and hoping there is something else. Actually, one can only appreciate and enjoy this life to the fullest when one understands this is all there is. Sorry if some people think they can't handle their lives without god. They might be surprised at the result if they tried.

to jack wrote on May 4, 2007 1:38 PM:YOU say you Hope that maybe you are making a difference....Where does hope fall into the equation with athiest?

John wrote on May 4, 2007 1:45 PM:Yes, Jack. You make sense. As I have been pointing out, fear of the unknown compels man to seek out that which is unknowable. In doing so, they look to the words and teachings of others rather than within. When one fully understands oneself, fear ceases. Fear is inherent in past thoughts and of the future, both of which is of time. There is only the present. When observed without prejudice, it is timeless and is life eternal. One becomes acutely aware and appreciative of the simple beauty of the "now"....the "what is".

John wrote on May 4, 2007 5:05 PM:It must be mind-boggling to a religious zealot when faced with the possibility that there may be more atheists and agnostics out there than they would like to believe. Any dogmatic challenge is interpreted as a provocation which must be silenced, or, at least, discredited. One need only to follow the silly dialogue between evolutionists and creationists that has had many reruns in this forum. Tom, continue your good work. Unfortunately there are whose deeds are motivated with a reward in mind such as appeasing their god or attaining a place in their heaven.

K9zRock wrote on May 5, 2007 6:23 AM:I'm enjoying the refreshing civility on this thread and have bookmarked the page for more careful reading as time permits.

jack wrote on May 5, 2007 5:20 PM:Going back to the anthropocentric focus of religions those of us that understand the hubris of this philosophy also understand that by breaking it we may be able to (hope)help sustain ALL life forms especially considering it is that very same anthropocentrism that is threatening much life on this planet (including our own). How can any god look with favor on one of its creations that threatens a large number of others, especially when that self exalted creation is doing so simply for it's own comfort? No god can, ergo no god.

leslie wrote on May 5, 2007 8:28 PM:no god no peace....know god know peace God gave man a soul....that is what makes us different from all other life forms....We are all called to Love each and all creation..we are called to try to know Gods Divine Will in our lives...HOwever, the human will sometimes does falls short....it relies on its own system....SPACE...securtiy, power, affirmation, control and esteem.....God loves all creation...period... He created it period....if we who believe are wrong we have lost nothing....if you who dont believe are right you have lost nothing....but if we who believe are right we gain eternal life and you will have lost eternal life.. then...all the intelligence, reasoning and logic wont matter ....because in the end its all about Faith....

John wrote on May 6, 2007 8:08 AM:Geez, leslie. Listen to yourself. Are you speaking from experience or are you repeating what you have read, been told and have been led to believe? I understand what you are trying to convey, but it's a bit jumbled and makes no sense. It is natural for man to want to live forever. Knowing that death is inevitable and fearing that which is beyond, man has bought into the myth of "eternal salvation". Isn't "eternal life" and death synonymous? Either way, you're perfectly dead. Appreciate what you have now and live it to the fullest in peace. Non-belief should not be viewed as a threat to one's adopted belief system, so it's really unnecessary to postulate to non-believers. The religious are their own enemy.

bekbek wrote on May 7, 2007 11:55 AM:Leslie, you are the poster that brought up the word "ego," in speaking of the atheist's value in his own thinking, in his own self. But now you yourself bring up what I consider the ultimate egotistical belief, that humankind is so different from all other life forms. You state that "God loves all creation... period," but apparently God does not love all creation equally, if by your explanation, humans are the greatest of them all. This is the kind of arrogance I as a Bright am trying to get away from. I am only as great as my actions, and no "holy spirit" makes me greater than any other living thing. I realize, however, that believing in one's greatness by "divine" design is much, much easier, as it requires no action, only belief.

jack (again) wrote on May 8, 2007 11:23 AM:p.s. In response to Pascal’s wager, here’s the agnostic atheist’s wager: Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God, you will be judged on your merits and not just on whether or not you ignored the lack of evidence of his/her existence and blindly believed.

Sandy wrote on May 8, 2007 3:40 PM:>>Leslie wrote on April 29, 2007 10:55 PM:"What does a athiest Value?? His own thinking....His own values..Himself??...we have a word for it ....it is called EGO "

Jack wrote on May 9, 2007 11:02 AM:An athiest values real knowledge and life, here and now. What does a Christian value? Immortality! Their own dogma! Tolerance?? Understanding of other viewpoints? True peace? The critical point is that as a former Christian I understand some of their viewpoints (many are too extreme for most to understand). There are not a lot of Christians who were former athiests (by choice) So its hard for them to put themselves in our shoes.

Nick wrote on Aug 2, 2007 2:19 AM:In response to Jacks atheists wager. I fully agree with that. To follow Gods law because you truly believed in its righteousness and believe in its morality, whole heartedly... is far different that those who have no morals or those who follow out of fear. Even heaven is left for souls and not for bodies then what do the actions of ones body in their life matter? A good Christian (or theist of any faith) who has never committed sin in action and goes through all the motion of Christian tenet should still be rejected by God if their soul is unclean... if their intent, their emotion, their desire is impure. We should live our lives with good moral intent. And I truly believe that is what Jesus' teachers were about. Christ came to this world to teach the Jews/Israelites that their ways were still sinful... even though they "believed," their ritualism was superficial and their hearts were impure. That is the whole point of Christianity. Its not about ritualism. Its not even about Christ. Its about finding that connection to God. Something atheists and many Christians dont do.