Love vs. God

Love-

1.	a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.

God-

1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe

A claim of love is a claim of a feeling.

(I have a feeling towards someone.)

The claim of God is a claim of existence.

(A being exists that is the creator of the universe.)

Many believers have been saying this to me, "You believe in love and you can't have evidence of it."

We can observe two people in love: they may leave each other love notes, give each other gifts, kiss, hug, share assets, protect each other, talk in certain ways, feel heightened emotion, touch,feel, and even marry. Love is not an instantaneous thing and is usually a product of time. We know of many people in love and can see them in love.

This is much different than claiming that God exists. The claim of God's existence is not a claim of an emotion or a feeling, it is a physical claim of a being. Millions of people can "feel" God, but this does not prove he exists. We can "feel" love and know that feelings exist.

It's totally possible that the belief in God is simply a placebo effect. People might claim that they "feel" the presence of God, but how does this prove God's existence? We can feel love, have brain imaging performed, and ask other people if they also feel love.

Is Obedience to Faith Freedom?

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

“From an objective point of view’” said the Pope, “God’s Revelation in Christ is the Truth whose answer is obedience to the faith in communion with the Church and its Ministry.

Is obedience really freedom? I had a short conversation earlier with a fellow student regarding this matter, but unfortunately, there was not much time to talk. I promised to blog about this, so here is the post!

Pope Benedict, in the quote above and in many others, has said that obedience to faith is the primary virtue. A peer agreed with this and advanced an argument saying that freedom is obedience. I vehemently disagreed with this claim because obedience, by definition, is not freedom.

Obedience - conformity to a monastic rule or the authority of a religious superior, esp. on the part of one who has vowed such conformance.

Freedom -
1) the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2) exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc

Obedience and freedom clearly do not go hand-in-hand. Why should obedience be the key virtue? Why shouldn't thinking and questioning be virtues?

The 10 Commandments and More

Catholics, do you even know the ten commandments?

Have you read Exodus?

Do you know that there are many more commandments after the originals?

People always talk about the ten commandments when they discuss "God's Law." Let's take a look. Believers say that these ten commandments are the most important moral laws that God gave, and, in fact, God wrote these on tablets. Believers also say that the Bible is the best book ever written and is filled with ideas on how to live a moral and fulfilled life. Let's analyze these "wonderful" commandments:

20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,

#1

Exodus 20:2-3 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; Do not have any other gods before me.

The first commandment is simple, "Do not have any other Gods before me." What could this mean? First, are there other gods? I thought that God was the only god? A few lines later we see..."

I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me..." So, this first commandment has nothing at all to do with morality, it is simply a selfish request. Some Christians today reinterpret this as, "God should be your highest concern..." but why would God's direct words need to be interpreted? Shouldn't they be perfect and clear to read for everyone? Regardless, you say that God should be your highest concern? If so, I view you as dangerous. Should you ignore family, friends, work, financial obligations, and everything else to please your god? Should you kill your son to please God [Abraham went through with the request, but he was stopped]? So, great, the sky-god tells you not to worship other gods. How selfish.

#2

Exodus 20:4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Again, this commandment given by the jealous God has nothing to do with morality. What a waste of time.

#3

Exodus 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Another pointless commandment...don't say anything bad about your God! Oh no! The Lord will not hold you guiltless!

#4

20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates

So, spend all of your Sabbath time worshiping God...but don't do any work with your family or force your slaves, strangers, or animals do to work. Imagine if we *really* followed this and closed *all businesses,* did *no* work, and simply prayed all day...how much money and time would we be wasting? Not many people follow this. All of America ignores this one...even Christian businesses are open on Sundays. God wants you to worship him and do no work. How selfish! Most Christians ignore the doing work part and simply attend church (and most don't go to church). You're disobeying God, you know. That's okay, don't waste your time. ******While we're here.... 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. God says he made EVERYTHING in its present form in six days. This is a certain lie. We know evolution is true and that we don't need evoke God to explain how new lifeforms emerge and evolve. ***** #5-#9

20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

20:15 Thou shalt not steal.

20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Why do we need these lines from the supposed all-knowing creator of the universe? Sure, we should be nice to our parents, not kill others, not have sex with people we aren't married to because we respect their husband/wife and them, we shouldn't steal because it's against the law and we wouldn't want people to steal from us, and, finally, we shouldn't lie about others because we want to be nice people. Great. Awesome. Is anything really compelling here, though, that God needed to etch these in stone? What's really silly, though, about these is that we find huge contradictions in the Bible where God/Jesus wants us to break the commandments:

*

1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus saith the Lord of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Hosea 3:1 Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.

Exodus 2:35 And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment:

12:36 And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians. * #10 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

So, it's wrong to simply *think* about liking what our neighbor owns? Notice the sexism here of "neighbor's wife"...the passage doesn't care about the women or note anything they may own, it's simply the neighbors wife...nor anything that is thy neighbour's. What's wrong with simply liking things? Why is this punishable? Why is this even here?

Sam Harris rebukes the commandments and sums it up perfectly in his book, Letter to a Christian Nation,

"Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentance: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being. Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept. Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted, tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries on the basis of a theologically defensible reading of the Bible.

I find nothing impressive about the ten commandments. What is more impressive is that in the Bible, God commands and instigates a huge deal of killing, lying, enslaving, and many other horrible things. I do a much better job creating ten commandments in my blog post and Youtube video located here with an effort that lasted less than fifteen minutes:

http://greenatheist.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-new-commandments.html

Here are some gems given directly from God...yup there were more than ten rules:

Look at the slavery commandments in Exodus 21 - God wants you to own slaves and gives you rules for them!

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/21.html

21:1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

If a man rapes a woman and her father does not give her up, you can simply give money to marry her. Women....why in the world do you praise this God and follow this book? Would you like this? Would you like if I "enticed" you, had sex with you, and forced you to be my wife via payment to your father? Of course you would not. This passage is nonsense. This should never be in the book of an all-loving god and people should not follow this nonsense.

22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. This passage talks about what should happen if you mistreat strangers. God makes this very clear: 22:23 If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; 22:24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. So much for Catholics being pro-life....so much for "thou shalt not kill." I understand that this is not all of the Bible, but this is Exodus, the chapter which is revered for the almighty ten commandments. People want these outside of courthouses. We read the Bible and people think it is this great moral book that is perfect. Do you would your children reading this? Do you want *anyone* reading this who might believe any of it? Sure, the Bible is a great work of literature, but it's simply mythology...just like Greek, Roman, or Norse. The book is not accurate by any means, its authors are dubious, and it has been translated, added to, and has changed a great deal over 2000 years. How can you possibly believe anything from it?

What about other religions?

A recent message asked, "What about the other religions of the world? What about those who say that God is a "life force" without gender, form, or judgment?"

As I had stated in previous posts, my main audience is Christian moderates and non-believers. Christianity is most popular in the United States and there is where I feel my readers will be most invested in or against.

I use the term "religion" to encompass all religions, but am specifically talking about monotheism in most cases. I know a great deal about Christianity and have studied it the most. I was also a former active church member, attended CCD classes, and received various sacraments.

Since I know the Old Testament very well via the study of the Bible/Christianity and the idea of Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah/etc, I know about other monotheistic religions. I don't need to fully read the Koran, Book of Mormon, Book of the Dead, etc to dismiss the claims of other religions. I can, though, easily dismiss any notion of any god. Do you need to read the Book of Invisible Pink Unicorns to say they don't exist?

I actually like many eastern philosophies (typically dubbed as religions by the west), but with the deities and supernatural ideas about the universe cut out.

Jainism

Here are some Jain practices:

Five Mahavratas

• Ahimsa: Non-violence in thought, word and deed
• Satya: Truth which is (hita) beneficial, (mita) succinct and (priya) pleasing
• Acaurya: Not accepting anything that has not been given to them by the owner
• Brahmacarya: Absolute purity of mind and body
• Aparigraha: Non-attachment to non-self objects

Three Guptis

• Managupti: Control of the mind
• Vacanagupti: Control of speech
• Kayagupti: Control of body

Five Samitis

• Irya Samiti: Carefulness while walking
• Bhasha Samiti: Carefulness while communicating
• Eshana Samiti: Carefulness while eating
• Adana Nikshepana Samiti: Carefulness while handling their fly-whisks, water gourds, etc.
• Pratishthapana Samiti: Carefulness while disposing of bodily waste matter

It's actually quite compelling that we can compare religions/philosophies and see exactly which have the most violence. You never hear of Jains attaching bombs to themselves, killing others, owning slaves, or hurting others. You do see, though, a great deal of conflict via Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

"Once again, we need look no further than the Jains: Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence: 'Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.'" (Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, pp. 22-23).

Buddhism

According to Sam Harris, "One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced." Buddhism, without the faith-base is doing no harm to others. Buddhists who don't worship deities, evoke the supernatural, or believe certain otherworldly things about the universe are perfectly fine and aren't harming anyone.

Sam Harris continues in his article, "For the fact is that a person can embrace the Buddha’s teaching, and even become a genuine Buddhist contemplative (and, one must presume, a buddha) without believing anything on insufficient evidence. The same cannot be said of the teachings for faith-based religion. In many respects, Buddhism is very much like science. One starts with the hypothesis that using attention in the prescribed way (meditation), and engaging in or avoiding certain behaviors (ethics), will bear the promised result (wisdom and psychological well-being). This spirit of empiricism animates Buddhism to a unique degree."

At any moment, though, when someone says, "God says, God loves, God teaches," etc, the person who is speaking is not telling you what God says. He/she is telling you what he/she believes that God would say. No one has a one-on-one empathetic link with the creator of the universe.

I'm not only against the organized religion, I'm against all religious beliefs based on no or insufficient evidence, especially those that turn into actions or incite divisiveness, violence, or hate. People are fine to believe what they want as long as their beliefs don't harm others, but when these beliefs are public or are turned into actions, I'm going to question when appropriate.

Harris on Buddhism:

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2903Itemid=247

"People are to blame, not religion"

A common claim I hear is, "Religion is not to blame, the people are to blame for messing it up and misinterpreting God's word. Humans make mistakes."

My Main Argument

No. Religious ideas are to blame for religious-related atrocities. People take religious ideas and do bad things because of religion. Of course not all theists do bad things, but a large amount have horrendous ideas because of religion. This argument from my opponents tries to excuse religion, but religion is still to blame for any bad things that happen because of it.

Support one:

Would you say, "Oh, Nazi ideas aren't bad...it's just the extremists! Hitler messed it up and went to war! But, you know, there is nothing wrong with the idea of pure blood and others being inferior."

You would never...Nazi ideas are to blame for the bad actions performed by Nazis.

Support two:

So, you might think, "Well, that's different." No, it's not. Both religious and nazi ideas are both ideologies.

You can also have "moderate nazis" who don't kill Jews, but still believe the ideas or otherwise "cherry pick. Nazi ideology and religions are littered with horrible ideas that lead to a great deal of human suffering.

Support Three:

Take religion away from almost any religiously motivated action and tell me that a rational non-religion person would do any of the following:

-Do you think a non-religious person would pray for his/her son to be healed instead of bringing him to a doctor?

-Do you think a non-religious person would attach a bomb to him/herself because he was offered an eternal reward at 72 virgins?

-Do you think a non-religious person would deny science and say that the universe was created 6000 years ago?

-Show me one instance where a non-religious person did something bad and quoted a "holy book." You can find several where religious people do bad things and use a holy book for justification.

-Tell me that The Inquisition, Witch Hunts, and the Muslim cartoon controversy was not caused because of religion.

All of these ideas are formed because of religion. Regardless of how people "use them," they all are a direct result of belief.

Support Four:
Your beliefs inform your actions. For example, if you believed that you were going to die in one week because of a disease, you'd probably drastically change your way of living. If you believed that a family member were being held hostage, you'd probably act and try to do something. Of course, not all religious people take the words literally or believe the same things, but those who *really* believe ideas will do horrible things.

Religions, specifically the monotheistic religions, are halting moral progress, ethical discourse, stem cell research, freedom of speech, advancement and acceptance of science, free inquiry, gay marriage, etc, etc, etc.

Update 9/16/10

I'll tackle the "Religion is like a gun, people kill people. Guns don't kill people" argument. This argument from analogy fails.

Religion is a system of ideas that form actions.

Guns are not systems of ideas that form actions.

A gun does not tell me what is right and wrong, convey the supposed message of a deity, or inform my actions. Religion often conveys morality and is purported to be inspired by a deity.

Biblical Literalism (A Poem)

Biblical Literalism

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

but he that believeth not shall be damned

And these signs shall follow them that believe

In my name shall they cast out devils

they shall speak with new tongues

They shall take up serpents

and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them

they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

-Jesus (Mark 16:16-18)

I follow the Bible's every word to the "t"

My priest, family, and religion gave that to me

You shouldn't question my belief

Rational questions cause so much grief

It's offensive to judge

From the Bible I'll never budge

O, Drano and Liquid-PLUMR! You taste so good!

I drink you because Jesus said I could.

Last night I read the holy book

Two shots of poison is what I took

I believe the words are right

I drank the poison with much delight

I don't need a doctor for my son

I pray and health shall be won

It matters not that my son looks sappy

In Jesus' arms he will be happy

If he dies it's just as planned

Even if I used a healing hand

I don't need medicine because it's all okay

All I need to do is pray

I'll reject reason any day

The Bible tells me the true way

Unquestioned faith is such a virtue

I know even poison won't hurt you

But what is it, you say?

I'm dying by the true way?

My son is dead on the floor?

But what about the Bible's words that I adore?

Hell: There is no all-loving God / Should atheists go to Hell?

The question, "should an atheist go to Hell" was a main topic of discussion today. For now, let's assume, for sake of argument, that God and Hell exist. Here is a simple outline of the argument:

*

Hell is a place that God created that is designated for eternal torment. It is eternal and the worst case of punishment possible. Demons, devils, and fire ravage you and make you suffer.

Atheist Joe is a Nobel Prize winner who found the cure for AIDS, gave millions to charity, stopped world hunger, and was an excellent person. He doesn't believe in God.

Rapist Steve is a terrible person. He killed every Jew in the world and raped many little children. Rapist Steve also drowned 37 cute puppies, burned down 16 churches, blew up an orphanage, and enslaved his family. He believes in God.

In each case, should any of these individuals go to Hell?

*

My Christian debating opponent argued that Rapist Steve should go to Heaven because he believed in God and was able to repent for his sins. He also argued that, no matter what Atheist Joe did, he should go to Hell because he did not believe in God.

I find this conclusion to be very immoral, evil, and representative of a sad case of ethics.

Atheist Joe was a great person and did so much to help the world, but he's going to be sent to Hell simply because he didn't believe in God, regardless of his actions.

If this representation of God exists, there's no way I am following him. This God is evil and I will never want to follow or worship him.

A person would never worship or want to follow a leader like this in reality, so why bother to worship a deity like this?

The whole notion of "actions don't matter but beliefs do, no matter what" is absurd. Actions do matter. Atheist Joe probably had very good reasons for not believing in God, so why should he be put into eternal torture for being skeptical although he did wonderful things? Wouldn't a true loving God say, "Joe, I'm all-loving and all-knowing and I know you used the brain I gave you to decide that I don't exist. I know, though, that you were a good person so you should have eternal paradise."

What about Rapist Steve?

Should he go to Heaven for simply believing and gain eternal paradise instead of Atheist Joe?

Well, though I don't think anyone should go to hell if it were to exist, Rapist Steve certainly does not "deserve" a reward for believing.

My Christian opponent also said that he would send Joe to Hell because he didn't believe.

Do we want people with this sense of ethics making key decisions in society?

Do we want these people as politicians, police officers, or really anything else?

My opponent, believe it or not, is not a strawman.

---

Hell is nothing more than eternal punishment for finite crimes.

Why would an all-loving being ever allow this?

Why would we ever worship a being who allowed this?

An all-loving being would probably do something like create a rehabilitation clinic to "cure" people before they got into Heaven.

---

Actions are more important than beliefs.

Be a good person and demonstrate this.

Christian Claims about Atheism... [Pastor Wilson]

Many individuals keep saying things like "Atheism means anything goes," "Atheism is reductionist," and "Atheism gives no purpose."

I'm sick of hearing them because these claims have been rebutted by atheists several times.

Here, I will answer some questions and rebuttals about atheism that are frequently mentioned.

Taken from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-hitchens/collision-is-religion-abs_b_326673.html

The atheistic worldview is nothing if not inherently reductionistic, whether this is admitted or not. Everything that happens is a chance-driven rattle-jattle jumble in the great concourse of atoms that we call time.

Sure, some occurrences are totally random. Hurricanes, tripping down stairs, the chance of seeing an old friend...all random. We can explain, surely, "why" some things happen, for example, "I tripped down stairs because my pants are very long" or "I saw a friend because she happened to enroll in the same class as me." Why do religious people like to think that "everything happens for a reason?" Everything doesn't happen for a reason. You dropped a coin...is there a reason that you dropped it? Sure, it fell out of your hand and gravity acted.

A common charge against evolution, also, is that it is "chance." Claims like this are uttered by people who don't understand evolution. Evolution by natural selection is very deliberate: species, genes, characteristics, etc survive because they are favored by the environment. Flightless Comorants, for example, don't fly because it would take too much energy to do so. Underground ants that have wings hardly use them because they don't need them..... There is "chance" regarding mutations and where the animals originated, but evolution deniers like to misuse the word chance and make fallacious claims. Evolution is a fact.

To acknowledge openly the corrosive relativism that atheism necessarily entails would do nothing but get the chimps jumping in the red states. To swallow the reduction would present serious public relations problems, and drive Fox News ratings up even further. Who needs that?

I don't see how relativism is corrosive if people who are relativists understand that humans, animals, and the earth ought to be respected. My "change" to atheism has made me much more respectful, open-minded, and concerned with ethics. Sure, humans are the masters of their own destines and may do what they want, but they ought not harm others who have the same rights as them. It's quite simple...and we don't need a holy book or an invisible man in the sky to tell us this. If religious people insist that "no god means I kill everyone, " then they are a sorry lot. This seems, at face value, that religious people are only good because they believe in God. This, anyway, is false. Religion doesn't give you morals. You decide what is right and wrong, even if you take it from religion. All religion can do is advise you to abstain from certain actions or compel you to do others. You don't accept slavery, although God ordered it and it is very overt in the OT and NT. You chose that slavery is wrong. You have the choice, right now, to do whatever you'd like that your body allows. This exists whether or not God exists. Atheism does not entail "anything goes."

If the atheist is right, then I am not a Christian because I have mistaken beliefs, but am rather a Christian because that is what these chemicals would always do in this arrangement and at this temperature.

No, you are a Christian because you were indoctrinated. You were told, as a child, that Christianity was right and that God controls the universe. If you weren't indoctrinated, you chose to be a Christian (unless you were coerced). Humans make choices. Our ideas, appearance beliefs, musical tastes, etc are all influenced by a mix of culture, our parents, genetics, the current state of humans, etc. Most atheists, who were formerly religious chose to become atheists because they have evaluated arguments, performed "soul-searching" and make a conscious decision about the universe....much unlike many indoctrinated religious people. People who were never religious were "born as atheists" and most likely made a conscious decision later in life about what to believe....just like everyone else. I will, though, argue that most Christians really haven't thought about their beliefs. Most Christians, also, don't even know much about their religion. I frequently debate people and most have no idea about Christianity. Most haven't even read the Bible. Why, Christian, if you are so sure that the Bible is the most important book ever, have you not read it? It's pretty sad when an atheist knows more about Christianity than Christians...but perhaps not. I evaluated the religion quite carefully and tell you a great deal about it. Though I was brainwashed, I've escaped...and I'm a strong person to do that...especially being public at a Catholic college.

Nor does atheism allow us to have any fixed ethical standard, or the possibility of beauty.

Atheists, as a whole, do not have a creed. Atheism doesn't tell you what to believe, think, or enforce any dogma.

Atheists don't want total absolute standards...that's the exact thing we're against. Sure, most of us will agree on many things (reject the supernatural, embrace science, encourage the need for evidence, murder is wrong etc), but we've to make up our own minds. We may have an ethical standard that changes with time, a zeitgeist, if you will, but nothing is certain. If we come across new evidence or a better way of thinking, we will certainly jump ship. It's all about making tough decisions while maintaining a rational mind.

What is this "Atheism means there is no beauty" nonsense. Are you saying that atheists do not delight in art, music, literature, nature, the universe, etc? OF course there is beauty! We, as humans, have our standards for beauty and constantly see it. Why should a Christian be able to see beauty and an atheist not? Do Christians have some sort of "beauty vision" that atheists do not have? Is it granted from God or something? Please enlighten.

And not content to let sleeping dogs lie, reason also brings us the inexorable consequences of atheism, which includes the unpalatable but necessary conclusion that random neuron firings do not amount to any "truth" that corresponds to anything outside our heads

Tell me, sir, how we can think outside of our heads? The only way we can think is....with our brains? We, as humans, establish "truth" with our minds. Evolution, the Grand Canyon, and the cup on my desk are true. How do I know this? I have a brain. My brain allows me to think, realize, and form conclusions. Reason tells us how the world works. We use reason to evaluate situations and life. Unfortunately, some thinking can also be fallacious and reason may even be abound at times....just like this above quote.

goodness does not change with the evolutionary times

Our values most certainly do change with time! We used to own slaves, mistreat women, kill people for being homosexuals, kill blasphemers, kill witches....(all stuff from your holy book) and now we (mostly) do not. Sure, some Christians are still doing this, but I digress. Morals do change with times. Much of what was "good" 100, 1000, or 2000 years ago is now "bad."

Someone who believes these things doesn't believe that we are just fizzing.

It seems like the assertion "life is meaningless without God" is here. This is false and has been addressed in my previous posts. People can find meaning on other things than religion. I find meaning in being politically active, playing board games, listening to music, typing blogs, connecting with friends, reading, and attending classes. I have hope for the future and love my wonderful life. God was not any part of the previous list I just wrote. Sure, I will die some day. Everyone will....but let's enjoy life while we can and make the most of it. Let's not pretend and lie to ourselves. This world is not "transitory." This is it. This is all we know exists for us. We can't be certain of an afterlife, so why should we pretend to be? Believe in Heaven, flying sharks, or Bigfoot all you want, but mere belief does not conjure the existence of a physical being for everyone or an alternate reality. I can believe that there is a kangaroo in my room, but we both know that it isn't there. If one million believe this, it still isn't there.... Belief is not a democracy nor is it a means of conjuration.

You can deny that this God exists, of course, and you can throw the whole cosmos into that pan of reduction sauce.

We're not really denying the existance of God, we're saying that he doesn't exist. Saying that we deny something, in most cases, implies that we see evidence and say the contrary. God almost certainly does not exist; we don't believe that any gods exist. If gods doe, show me the evidence. Pray for something to happen and show me. Sure, you're going to say that "I have a mere understanding about Christianity and "that's not how it works"" but you need to realize that evidence is how the world works when you make claims about the universe. All claims about how the universe is ought to be subjected to science and thus must be proven or disproven, lest they are a hypothesis. Face it. All of your beliefs about the supernatural are hypotheses. You believe that the universe is a certain way. You don't know. You can't know. Believing, though, again, does not make something true. And once again, the non-existence of God does not imply reductionism.

There is more to life than our higher positions, race for perfection....Atheists can have "spiritual experiences" when listening to music, viewing art, appreciating art, meditating, or being in love. It's quite simple. Spiritual, though, is an odd word to use. We need a word in our lexicon...