Letters: Religion is a myth

There have been a number of letters in The Advocate about teaching religion (creationism) in place of actual science. For me, it is stupefying and appalling that in the 21st century people still believe in the myths of religions. And to add dogma to stupidity, our 14th-century-thinking.

The Legislature and governor passed a law that allows tax dollars to be used for teaching unwitting children that the Earth is 6,000 years old; that humans lived with dinosaurs (think Flintstones); and that a flood wiped out all life on Earth, except for the representatives of every life form that was preserved on a wooden boat.

When someone points out the absurdity of religious dogma, the acolytes protest that religion should not be questioned. It is acceptable for the faithful to criticize science, logic and reason, but for some reason, it is considered bad form to point out the obvious problems with religion. Why should the absurdity of religion be immune from criticism?

An example of absurdity is Christianity, the largest delusion in the United States. It was founded on the ridiculous notion of a virgin birth. Furthermore, the alleged life of its namesake, Jesus, was not chronicled until 30 years to centuries after his supposed death.

I find it peculiar that a whole religion was built around a person who, according to the Bible, was known far and wide for his preaching and miracles, yet no contemporaneous account of his renowned life is known. I would think that the impromptu catering for the masses would have elicited a notice by someone at the time.

And what about rising from the dead? Surely that would have made front-page headlines. But nothing. How peculiar.

Religions are a man-made artifact to explain the unexplainable. People with mental illnesses were assumed to be possessed by demons. We now know about depression, schizophrenia and other mental disorders.

When crops failed from drought or other natural phenomenon, it was thought that a witch had put a curse on the farm. We now know about climatology. There are no witches.

Everything in the holy books has been debunked by science, logic and reason. It seems to me that if someone wants to say that the world was made by a god (creationism), they should, before anything else, prove that a god exists. Otherwise, the idea of creationism is as absurd as demons and curses.

In the penetrating light of modernity, does anything about religion make sense? Do you want fairy tales taught to your children? Will that teach them skills they will need in the future? Or do you really prefer they are taught as those in the Middle Ages?

Michael Polito, Ph .D.

chemist

Clinton

Comments

1) Comment by prbeav - 14/09/2012

Your hope is noble. I propose to accelerate the process by not using words like "science," and "scientist" and such; instead, I employ the words "understanding" for macro issues and "comprehension" for micro issues. I have tried to eliminate the word "religion" from my writing, but have not found a way that seems to work. The bonus of that dilemma is that I am able to show where religion rests in the process for understanding. Whether people will buy into it is another question. Some people fear understanding.

2) Comment by krl777 - 13/09/2012

If we don't blow up the world, or run out of energy and slip into a world-wide dark age, science may continue to advance and clarify how the world operates, and society may continue to advance so that everyone knows science. At that point, will religion disappear? I suspect not. Fundamental "Why?" questions will still be unanswered. Furthermore, science explains in a rather piecemeal fashion, with a discontinuity between fundamental physics and the emergent properties of complex systems. We can hope, though, that if everyone becomes scientifically literate, that the more unscrupulous elements in religion will run out of ignorance to exploit. The triumph of science may lead not to the disappearance of religion, but to its purification.

3) Comment by prbeav - 13/09/2012

Referring to ABayouBoy’s question to Karla, in essence, “Where did your family learn morals,” I would like to cite Albert Einstein’s essay, “The Laws of Science and The Laws of Ethics,” which has been digitized at http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/my-friend-einstein/ . For Einstein, ethics does not come from rules, like “Thou shalt not lie.” Then, he reasons. “we do not feel at all that it is meaningless to ask such questions as: “Why should we not lie?” We feel that such questions are meaningful because in all discussions of this kind some ethical premises are tacitly taken for granted. We then feel satisfied when we succeed in tracing back the ethical directive in question to these basic premises. In the case of lying this might perhaps be done in some way such as this: Lying destroys confidence in the statements of other people. Without such confidence, social cooperation is made impossible or at least difficult. Such cooperation, however, is essential to make human life possible and tolerable. This means that the rule “Thou shalt not lie” has been traced back to the demands: “Human life shall be preserved” and “Pain and sorrow shall be lessened as much as possible.” We the People of the United States should make certain our politicians follow Einstein’s reasoning, and if they don’t, we should fire them.>>I think morals comport to doctrine, which is usually flawed, whereas ethics comports to justice; and we should maintain that distinction long enough for the dictionaries to take notice.

4) Comment by chem - 13/09/2012

If the letter empowered some to realize that it is not necessary to sit by and say nothing with regard to religion, than it has done some good. As can be seen in this whole discussion, the religious apologists really have nothing to say. It is not necessary to confront every religious person, but it is imperative that you do confront those that want to impose their outmoded beliefs on others.

5) Comment by Karla - 13/09/2012

Bouncer, my first reaction to the letter was similar to yours. I am a very gentle person and would never use such words for fear to hurt feelings. my second reaction was a feeling of empowerment. Non-believers are expected to keep their heads down and their mouths shut, no matter what arrogance, insult to our intelligence and hypocrisy we encounter. I doubt that kind words would persuade those that have their strong opinions. Maybe, however, there are a few out there who started thinking when exposed to those strong challenging true words.

6) Comment by chem - 13/09/2012

Bouncer, you are correct. The letter was clearly an opinion with no attempt to convert anyone. Religion has been on a slow decline for many years. I think that it is rapidly (relatively speaking, based on how long it has been in existence) becoming irrelevant. It is difficult to keep people from facts today. Instant news, the internet, smart phones, etc, all allow people to be better informed. Even in backwards islamic countries and poor African countries, people have access to information they never could have received just a decade ago. Science, logic, and reason will, in the end, prevail.

7) Comment by Bouncer - 13/09/2012

True, there are times when inflammatory rhetoric might be justified, but I simply do not think this is one of them. Such talk usually does not have the effect of winning converts. On the contrary, it generally only drives a wedge in deeper between opposing factions. Although Mr. Polito's intentions are perhaps noble, in the final analysis, and judging from the exchanges in this forum, I think he was simply leading a cheering section who already shared his general frame of reference and did not persuade or convince anyone who thinks the contrary.

8) Comment by Triple - 13/09/2012

Just a salutation, no hidden meaning, my respect for those who take time out of a busy day to read my post. Nothing more.

9) Comment by prbeav - 13/09/2012

Triple, does "regards" mean, "You are dismissed?" That's the tone I got from the context.

10) Comment by prbeav - 13/09/2012

Dear Bouncer: You did not disappoint, and I would not change one word of your assessment of Polito’s letter.>> However, I offer that there are times when “unrelenting hostility,” is in order. Polito is expressing “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man,” far more consistently than Thomas Jefferson did in 1800. Honestly, but without integrity, Jefferson swore “upon the altar of God,” thus contradicting himself.>> I have written since July 1995 to encourage Baton Rouge residents to appreciate to their peaceful neighbor’s heartfelt beliefs, sometimes revising my letter as many as 200 times, to avoid alienating some of my close neighbors. Polito did what I am loath to do: He wrote literally.>> Michael Polito is like a 2012 Thomas Paine, who wrote the very inflammatory pamphlet, “The Crisis,” and even worse, “The Age of Reason.”>>Congratulations to everyone who participates in this forum!

11) Comment by Triple - 13/09/2012

Chem, as a Christian I believe our constitution protects us from a theocracy and I will fight by your side in resistance if that reality comes in our life time.  My come to Jesus moment came 23 years ago when my son was born premature at three lbs. I fell to my knees for days and prayed for the Dr.s and for his life.  I prayed unceasingly, if he lived, not knowing the quality of his life. You should see him today, strong, educated, responsible and generous.  I know my prayers were answered, maybe without prayers the outcome would have been the same, but my faith has persevered, and in moments of weakness, which are all to frequent, I look in his face and remember my promise to God.  I attend no church, my walk is personal and my faith is strong, but keep in mind, I know what I am, a sinner unworthy, no better than any other person, but my joy in life is complete.  I have been blessed and for me, God is real, I see him everyday in the faces of my children.  Regards.

12) Comment by chem - 13/09/2012

@Triple: Yes, that parasite comment was written on a particularly irritating day. I still think religion is nonsense and wish it were not around, but I really don't have a problem with most of the religious people out there. They believe in their god and that is that. It is the fundamentalists, the ones that really want to turn this country into a theocracy, with which I have a huge problem. As I have stated before, teaching creationism is a start toward that end. I also have problems with politicians kowtowing to fundamentalists and their groups, such as the Family Forum and the Family Research Council. When I hear politicians quoting scripture as their basis for making public policy and law, that makes me very nervous, as it should everyone, even those who are religious. Because if you don't believe in the same religion, just as in islamic theocracies, you could be silenced.

13) Comment by Triple - 13/09/2012

@Chem, well said, did you have a come to Jesus moment? Doesn't sound like the same guy who wrote,"but I think that humans are parasites on this planet. We fit the definition of one pretty well. We consume, inordinately, the resources of Earth, we kill off not just each other, but other species on this planet, and we really do not contribute anything to the well being of the planet". The nicer side of Chem.

14) Comment by chem - 13/09/2012

Science has brought us beautiful theories in physics, chemistry and other areas of the natural world. Atoms, molecules and an understanding of how these species react have given us many wonderful materials with which our lives have been enhanced. Physics has given us elegant theories about our world and the universe. Computers, satellites, safer cars, our electrical grid system and a multitude of other modern conveniences are all based on physics. GPS, which most cars have and that we all take for granted would not be possible were it not for Einstein’s theory of relativity. Yet the same fastidious method that brought all of these discoveries to light is somehow rejected when applied to the fairytales of religion. How peculiar.

15) Comment by krl777 - 13/09/2012

Unmentioned in this thread is a major fact about religion -- that it is a major device for establishing social in-group / out-group relations. That is one reason for defensiveness when a religion is criticized; some will see the critique as an attack on "us", and thus on themselves. It also accounts for some of the hostility to religion by atheists and agnostics -- they resent having to declare themselves as a member of one group or another when the factors that distinguish one religion from another are historical and/or abstruse. It especially accounts for the frustration atheists feel when the religious insist that atheism is just another religion. In that case, one who intends to stand outside the invidious categorization of people by religious faith (a pox on all your houses!) is being forced into it by the fiat of others.

16) Comment by Karla - 13/09/2012

And I think we should keep our judging about what's right or wrong as openminded as possible. There is no need to make such judgements if it does not hurt another human being. Why would it be my concern if two people that love each other want to get married, it will not affect me! We should be more concerned about our own abilities to maintain good marriages... Why would it be my concern what you believe in? It will only affect me if you try to force your beliefs on me... On the other hand, we need to be clear about the right and wrongs and establish rules for things that potentially affect each of us: murder, robbery, violence of any kind; the use/abuse of our limited resources on this earth; you get the idea...

17) Comment by krl777 - 13/09/2012

@Whatnow: This dialog, without denunciations, is much better. You respond to my question why the moment of conception is so important by saying, "Neither you nor I know that child's purpose and path." But I have no reason to consider the zygote and early embryo, right after conception, as a child. It is, initially, just a cell with a genome sitting in it. And my reference to the genome as a "blueprint" for a person is actually misleading, since we now know that details of the uterine environment -- the mother's nutrition, hormones, stress levels -- help determine how the developing child is constructed, protein by protein, during gestation. These environmental factors can determine whether the genome works one way rather than another, to produce one set of child characteristics versus another set. Who that child turns out to be cannot be determined by the genome alone -- it requires the entire ontogenetic process to determine the nature of the child that develops in the womb, and even at birth, that determination is not complete. Those are the biological facts that marshal themselves against the view that the zygote, shortly after conception, is a child. Against this, as your reason to believe that it is, you offer, "Well, as a Christian, of course I believe in God and the Bible." [end quote] Okay, but nothing in the Christian faith or the Bible requires us to regard a zygote as a child. You are free to do so, but you don't have grounds for outrage if others find that view implausible. And in case anyone brings up Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." --Let's understand, this is God talking about his Son (a part of himself, on the doctrine of the Trinity). In itself, this just means that God conceived of his own plan to send a part of Himself, his Son, into the world. Since this passage is addressed to people, who can hear, it can also be reasonably interpreted as claiming that God sees the future, and so knows the person who will develop in the fullness of time, even when that person is a zygote or embryo. But here's the catch: that only applies to people who do, in fact, come into being as fully formed children. It doesn't follow that God has a plan for every zygote or embryo. Which would explain why a quarter to half of all fertilized human ova abort spontaneously. If God sees each of those as a child, why is He aborting them all? It doesn't make sense.

18) Comment by Karla - 13/09/2012

ABayouBoy, chem already stated in essence what my answer would have been. Religious indoctrination includes exclusiveness (I guess all the rules and threats would be hard to justify otherwise?). In reality, my story is no exception but the rule. I was raised in an atheist family myself, with strong values including respect for any kind of life, responsibilty for my actions, and concern for the disadvantaged. These are christian values but there is no need to imply god, such values are also simply human! and as mentioned somewhere in the thread, it would be horrible if a god was necessary to keep us from growing up to be murderers and rapists.

19) Comment by chem - 13/09/2012

Morals are not attained just through church. Every legitimate survey on religiosity and violence indicates that those countries and states that are most religious are the most violent. Apparently, being religious has nothing to do with being moral and seems to be a vector for violence, bigotry, and intolerance. •••• Part of the problem we have today is that, as the letter states, we are not allowed to criticize religion, no matter how absurd or violent the results are. After the attack on 9/11, it was appalling to hear leaders of all religions, especially christian and jewish leaders, make one excuse after another for what happened at the twin towers. But in all of their statements, it was clear that they were saying that islam was not to be condemned for that act. Religion does not deserve to be treated with kid gloves.

20) Comment by Bouncer - 13/09/2012

I agree in spirit with the essence of Mr. Polito's letter. However, I would suggest that the inflammatory rhetoric be toned down. It is quite possible to communicate one's non-religious beliefs without attaching all manner of pejorative labels to the thing under discussion. The purpose of intelligent debate is (or should be) to shed light, not to radiate heat. I can feel the hostility emanating from Mr. Polito's words. Not hate, as one writer said, but unrelenting hostility. I, too, regret that Louisiana's children are subject to being taught, in all seriousness, and under the guise of "science," some of the things he outlines in his letter. However, I do not think that being purposely combative is the way to go about having rational discussion. Perhaps the words "rational discussion" should never be used in the same sentence with the word "religion," but that is food for another topic, another time.

21) Comment by ABayouBoy - 13/09/2012

@Karla, I think that its great that your kids have grown up so well and have good educations and jobs. But, where did you get the values and morals from in order to teach them? I believe that the vast majority of us got the moral indoctrination by our parents through church attendance and so on. Now, we have gay marriage, and so many other issues regarding morality that who even knows what is right or wrong anymore? Just because the law says its acceptable? Maybe that's how the Romans fell. And, the last thing that I'm not is a fanatic about religion. I just believe that the world is a better place because of Christian values.

22) Comment by chem - 13/09/2012

How sad that people have to live their lives based on fear. They worry about committing "sins", many want to "hedge their bets" just in case there is a god (as if he wouldn't know if there was one), they plan their lives around a myth when there is absolutely no proof. Non-believers just live their lives. We don't worry about such notions as "why are we here" or "what is gods plan."

23) Comment by Karla - 13/09/2012

I read once, who fears death is afraid to live. I find that very true, I live life to the fullest, my attitude is that I can achieve and do anything I set my mind to. For me the promiise of an afterlife without challenes is not appealing. However, I respect fully anybody who needs religion to live and die. I only ask for the same respect for me and my beliefs. Only dictatorships would require their citizens to follow strict beliefs. I am sure it is in nobodies interest to make our country into one.

24) Comment by Karla - 13/09/2012

ABayouBoy, what I meant to say is that it does not require a god to live a happy life full of love, adventures and joy. We are deeply experiencing nature, happiness and grief like everybody else. we just don't imply god in it. I raised my children to respect others, and take responsibility for and control of their lives. They never got into drugs, got a good education, are successful in their jobs and in long-term relationships as I am. We are happy people and I think a big part of it is that we feel we are in control of our destiny and that challenges are there to live up to them. This is what has been driving progress. Whoever delegates control to a higher power will not participate in tackling future challenges. That's why it is dangerous to leave the field to fundamentalists of any kind.

25) Comment by Whatnow - 13/09/2012

@krl777, Thank you for your retraction. Why is that moment so important? Well, as a Christian, of course I believe in God and the Bible. Neither you nor I know that child's purpose and path. But, every blueprint has a purpose, doesn't it? And I believe that God has a purpose for each one of us. I don't believe your assessment about persecuting the pregnant. I find that most religious people today would rather have a woman carry a baby to term than to fault her for her condition. I have seen too many women given the option of adoption from religious groups. And you have to please concede that there are over-zealouts in every religion as we have seen in Libya in the past couple of days. We have to stop putting people into categories as a whole group. I have to be honest and say, I do have a tug in my heart about birth control. I would rather a woman use birth control than kill a child in the womb. Birth control inhibits only the woman's body from conception, but abortion effects the child.

26) Comment by krl777 - 13/09/2012

@Whatnow: Now that you've stated a criterion of your own -- conception -- I can retract my "cheap, lazy, cowardly" charge, which was ill-tempered of me to begin with. But I don't think the country can afford to say we "just disagree" when abortion doctors are being killed over the issue. People are free to press me on why I think human thought and feeling are so important -- it's because I think they are what make us distinct from other creatures who we kill on a massive, industrial scale. And likewise, we are free to press you on conception -- why is that moment so important? It is reasonable to say it's important because that is when a new, unique genome comes into existence. But then why is the genome itself so important -- it is just the blueprint for a human being, not itself a human being. And so it goes. This is an important conversation. I think just having it, and exhausting ourselves with it, might be enough to help people reach the point where we agree to just make abortion unnecessary by making unwanted pregnancies vanishingly rare. Unfortunately, many religious people show no interest in making unwanted pregnancy (and therefore, abortion) rare. In fact, some seem to not actually care about abortion, but only about prosecuting those involved, in a campaign to punish a woman who gets pregnant in less than happy circumstances.

27) Comment by ABayouBoy - 13/09/2012

Thats "an".

28) Comment by ABayouBoy - 13/09/2012

No offense to anyone was intended. My point is, is that its simply a state of mind, or and attitude, that believing in something greater than ourselves gives one.

29) Comment by prbeav - 13/09/2012

Recognizing that the folly in the Bible is folly and on that basis breaking free from the indoctrination that the Bible is a god's word, does not indicate atheism and does not make a person bitter. In fact, ending the effort to persuade yourself to profess something you doubt or don't believe is like heaven on earth.>>The opened mind discovers the so-called golden rule in any form is selfish.>>The person either re-places their faith or recognizes they had faith in reality all along and were attempting to warp reality to comport to the Bible. The fork off this self-destructive path is celebrated with anyone who will listen.>>Awed by nature yet able to admit, "I do not know," is humbling. "I don't know" separates the secular from the religious, including atheism..>>Losing self-righteousness enables one to appreciate other peaceful people as they are, where they are, on their path toward understanding; to enjoy common opinion as well as differing opinion, since every heartfelt dialogue increases both parties' understandings.>>Studying American history and understanding how we came to be a Christian theocracy when the purpose, as stated in the preamble to the US Constitution, is to be an integral, secular population that protects personal thought by enforcing the law, empowers a citizen to express opposition to tyranny over the minds of people. At least fifty million Americans suffer this tyranny.>>If there is a god, the god must rankle every time a believer praises God. It is not harmful to think there is a god, but it is harmful to take the next step of labeling or defining it. If there is a god, it responds, "How arrogant of you.">>I look forward to continuing the work to understand.

30) Comment by chem - 13/09/2012

ABayouBoy's point is without logic or reason. He claims that because he was raised by an "atheist" that was unable to express feelings or compassion that all atheists are the same. While it is well known that I am somewhat hostile to religion, those that are believers but do not push their beliefs on others are worlds apart from the fundamentalists, which includes most in the republican party that want to turn this country into a theocracy. The point is that just because there are fundamentalist idiots out there, I would not lump all religious people together. There are religious people out there that are genuinely caring, compassionate people. Likewise, it is not reasonable to lump all atheists/agnostics together.

31) Comment by Karla - 13/09/2012

ABayouBoy, I feel a little offended by your generalization. We are an atheist family and I can assure you that we feel and show at least as much love for each other and for our friends as anyobody else. I am always surprised about the arrogance of believers expressions of superiority while claiming to live according to the teachings of the bible...

32) Comment by Karla - 13/09/2012

Kevin, we don't believe in your understanding of the world because there is no evidence for it, whereas there is plenty of evidence for a natural development over time BECAUSE the conditions are just right on earth. You are free to believe in whatever you choose, but the point of the letter is that per definition science is based on evidence and nothing should be taught in a science class that is not based on evidence.

33) Comment by ABayouBoy - 13/09/2012

I was raised by an atheist. A person who cannot truly express their feelings (or true feelings, anyway). A person who cannot emphasize or show compassion, or sympathy, or even express love for the members their own family. But this person knows how to "put-down" others. I have spent my life admiring such a person for their "material" accomplishments. And, I'm also most grateful for the financial support which that person has given me over the years. But, honestly, now I must accept the fact that this person now lives a secluded life, does not wish to communicate with other members of the family - unless, that is, it is regarding their "material" accomplishments, or, more importantly, recognition by the upper elite of society makes it a positive experience for this person. This person lives in a world of their own, an "ivory tower", but cannot realize the truth. Its not the clothes that makes the "man", but its the "man" that makes the clothes. Good luck with your lives, all of the "atheists" out there.. Maybe one day you will realize, that I'm not a "believer" just to "save myself, but maybe just to save a society bent on its own destruction. So, I say, maybe try some humility and humbleness for a change. It might do us all some good.

34) Comment by prbeav - 12/09/2012

When I point to the disadvantages of being religious, I define religion then cite Einstein's blunder as an example.>>Religion is the common practice of making an assumption about a heartfelt concern and trying to live according to the assumption, ignoring the evidence that the assumption is wrong. Asked to list the twelve worst assumptions in my life, I cited first the childhood notion that if I mastered Bible interpretation I would succeed in life. I can’t think of the other eleven bad assumptions, but unfortunately for me, for five decades, I believed my indoctrination into the Bible.>>When a person rejects evidence because it does not comport to his expectations, he subjects himself to error or failure. For example, Albert Einstein, working toward his general theory of relativity assumed a static universe. When his mathematics informed him that the universe is expanding, he mistakenly rejected the evidence and perhaps arrogantly added a “cosmological factor” to accommodate his expectations. He could have yielded to the evidence and approached reality. Meanwhile, contemporary mathematicians reported a dynamic universe. About a decade later, Einstein thanked Edwin Hubble for proving the universe is dynamic, correcting, as Einstein called it, “the biggest blunder of my life.” People may learn from Einstein’s experience. Or repeat the mistakes.

35) Comment by potkcalb - 12/09/2012

Another comment Kevinparnella: Einstein used the word "God" as a rhetorical figure of speech, nothing more. He described belief in God as "childish superstition" in a January 3, l954 letter, saying that the word "God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." He further said that "No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this." Stop referencing creationist web sites Kevin unless you want to remain embarrassingly ignorant.

36) Comment by krl777 - 12/09/2012

The human brain is primed to see agency in the world, even where there is none. This is analogous to the way our brains are primed to regard everyday objects as uniformly solid, even though modern science has demonstrated that they are mostly empty space. Is the solidity a delusion? Not really -- for practical purposes, tables and chairs really are solid. That is a practical truth for us in our everyday lives, even as it is a scientific truth that tables and chairs are mostly empty space. It may be that some people's brains are primed to use our natural tendency to see agency in answering the ultimate "Why?" questions, which are dismissed by science, the best method for answering "How?" questions. That may be the real wellspring of religion. If so, those beliefs may amount to a sort of practical "truth" for such people, no more a delusion than my practical belief that tables and chairs are solid objects. There's nothing wrong with such religious beliefs. But we must be aware of the difference between them and scientific beliefs, and not confuse the two or use one in place of the other, any more than we should confuse our ordinary belief in solid objects with the scientific truth that they are mostly empty space. I'm not going to drive my car into a brick wall at 100 mph on the understanding that the wall is mostly empty space.

37) Comment by potkcalb - 12/09/2012

Kevinparnella you ask "what do I know"? Its obvious you know nothing, at least nothing about science. For one thing you are still babbling about the Anthropic Principle and the "perfect amount of atmosphere." etc. I've answered that one. As to animals being attracted to one another evolution explains all of that. If you want to be a "fool" (your word) stop looking at ignorant creationist web sites.

38) Comment by chem - 12/09/2012

kevinparnella: The site you gave the link for is a joke. most of the people on there lived during a time when you would have been killed or tortured if you said you did not believe in a god. And Einstein was not a believer. The site simply lies about his "belief" in god by doing what all religious apologists do, and that is take comments out of context to make them seem something they are not. Read about Einstein and you will see that he did not believe in a god. And beyond all of the above, there is nothing on that site that remotely "proves" their is a god. You should be embarrassed for citing that ridiculous site.

39) Comment by kevinparnella - 12/09/2012

If you atheists want to be fools because you don't want to be held accountable to God, that's your business. I've learned you cannot have a constructive conversation with either hard-headed people, or people with pride. Being an atheist is simply about pride. You don't want to be accountable to a higher power. You believe that creation was an "accident" and this incredible body that is so complex, man could never create something so incredible. All anybody with an open mind needs to do is open up their door and look around and they would be convinced that this planet, this atmosphere which is neither too cold or too hot, has the perfect amount of atmospheric pressure is capable of sustaining life. I've always wondered how did God decide that men and women would be sexually attracted to one another and through that attraction would cause procreation. Anyways, what do I know? I'm just a sinner who was once lost like many of you who discovered the Bible and life for the first time made sense. For those of you lacking sensitivity and want a more scientific proof, feel free to read about what the greatest scientists the world has ever seen thinks about this topic. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html#.U FKsm41mT-k

40) Comment by Karla - 12/09/2012

Good point, I wonder whether the other numbers are also on par with the percentage of protestants and catholics...

41) Comment by prbeav - 12/09/2012

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html . 72% religious. Perhaps 28% is a good estimate of the non-religious segment of the population.

42) Comment by Karla - 12/09/2012

just looked at some statistics: www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortions-Patients.pdf surprising to me is that the highest percentage of women having abortions are protestants, followed by catholics and then non-religious. likely, correlating with education... also interesting: the discussion, that concludes that free contraception is the best solution to the abortion problem - a no-brainer, but unfortunately opposed by religious organizations...

43) Comment by chem - 12/09/2012

Karla talks about education as a solution to abortion, but that gets to the core of the letter. How are people to get a good education when, in Louisiana especially, the exorcist governor and his knuckle-dragging legislature have given their blessing to teaching religious myths instead of actual science. Its evolution today, but what about other subjects? What does the bible have to say about chemistry, physics, mathematics? If this religious foolishness is allowed to continue, the only text students will need is the bible.

44) Comment by prbeav - 12/09/2012

THE INSUFFICIENCY OF HONESTY, Stephen L. Carter (Atlantic Monthly, Feb. 1996, p.74-76) makes the case that honesty is what people claim when they cannot claim integrity. Carter posits subjective truth, which for me equates to opinion. Otherwise, his three activities for practicing integrity are good.

45) Comment by potkcalb - 12/09/2012

I'm hear you Triple! About time for a little humor in all these pontifications.

46) Comment by Triple - 12/09/2012

Lengthy discussion, let’s review highlights: Chem continues to hate religion and embraces his atheism. His opinion of Christians equates to mental midgets, he continues to try and understand God with his intellect, whatever spiritual needs he may have are satisfied in his vocation. He also believes that human are parasites on the world, like a tick on a dogs behind, I thought he was the author of the letter, but now believe he is Agent Smith.  DMJ didn't offer any substance in this discussion, he just sort of rode the coat tails of Chem.  Potkcalb believes if humans were endangered species we could then outlaw abortion, he wants a Wiccan president and Phil pulls him into discussion which leaves him feeling foolish.  Prbeav >>>>isn't a big fan of honesty, his opinion >>>> not much value in honesty>>>>, but he is a fan of the "> " symbol.  Phil struggles to get his point across, as always, he believes in God, but is working his way to heaven, he may have missed the greater gift of a savior.  Finally KRL777, obvious intellect,  excellent with the written word, however, not sure when the unborn human has the neural function to be constitutionally protected as a human.  Sometime in the 3rd trimester, when he becomes concerned about abortion on demand, up to that point, the fetus is no better than skin cells. Not sure Joe Biden has the neural function to be protected by his standards.  Also, women who have an abortion experience relief to be rid of the tissue mass, much like  removing a wart.  As for me, I still find it ironic that our federal government protects turtle eggs with stiff fines and incarceration for just disturbing the nest, one doesn't even have to destroy the eggs to be convicted.  Somehow the moral equivalency between disturbing turtle eggs and destroying a human fetus has favored the turtle.  Till the next time, Regards.

47) Comment by Karla - 12/09/2012

I am not sure why, but abortion seems to come up as a topic in just about any discussion. First, as with our beliefs or non-beliefs this should not be a subject the government has control over. It is clear not just from this forum that opinions about ethical and biological reasons to be pro-life or pro-choice differ and a consensus seems impossible. As with religion, the consensus should be “live and let live!” Second, there seems to be a misconception about abortion even among pro-choicers. The procedure is traumatic and no woman in her right mind would choose abortion as a birth control method. It has been shown many times that the incidence of abortions correlates with poor education. Again, education would be the true solution to the abortion problem. Unfortunately, religion does not play a favorable role in promoting education about birth control, either. For some reason, most churches attach a stigma to teaching young people responsible conduct with their own bodies. Denying that teenagers are sexual beings will not make them less likely to become sexually active. Abstinence programs do not work. On the other hand, women that are determined to abort will find ways to do so and likely endanger themselves, not to mention expose themselves to criminal prosecution if abortion was outlawed. As much as I am (as a non-believer!) against abortion, I want to know that I would have a choice if by any chance I get pregnant at a time in my life when I already enjoy my grandchildren. As with religion, it is about how much control we allow the government and our religious fellow citizens to have over our personal lives.

48) Comment by prbeav - 12/09/2012

my last post should read "I intend to keep my mind open"

49) Comment by nimby? - 12/09/2012

emotion is an inherent human quality . a double edged sword ; it can inspire to the heights , deprave to the lowest . it allows ordinary men to do what logic says they cannot . without hate there is no love . reason , based on logic would suggest that living on a planet with limited resources we must do more to control our population to insure survival , selective breeding , children removed from parents , mandatory education , employment , everyone must serve a function . no art , music , poetry , no individualistic thought . imagine .....

50) Comment by prbeav - 12/09/2012

People refuse to define faith and therefore cannot communicate about it. Typically, the discussion has been opened without a definition, and once I offer my definition, we may lose our opportunity to agree.>>>>I define "faith" as committing to and placing trust in something that cannot be proven.>>>>For five decades I had faith in the Bible but broke through my indoctrination and replaced my faith. It now rests with the truth much of which is unknown.>>>>I think I moved my faith by overcoming indoctrination in the Bible using evidence, logic, and reason.>>>>In my seventh decade, I do not plan to persuade myself to believe anything again in my lifetime. I intend to open my mind open to the truth by continually working to understand.>>>>I am a man of faith.>>>>A last thought: the truth yields not to faith, reason, or logic. The truth is.

51) Comment by DMJ - 12/09/2012

Faith is not equal to logic. One is based on reason; the other based on emotions. Think about it.

52) Comment by prbeav - 12/09/2012

Whatnow’s comments inspired me to consider Bible stretches to the abortion question. Some are cited at http://www.godvoter.org/abortion-bible-verses.html . They express each writer’s imagined god activity in/on the womb. Thus, the Bible is one source of perplexing disregard for the woman who does not want to remain pregnant: the Bible only considers the womb, not the woman.>>>>Life doesn't begin at conception: it begins with the woman.>>>>Once again, we see that ideas coming from the Bible are just what they appear to be: obsolete male dominance from over two millennia ago.>>>>The modern man who preserves such obsolescence is wholly responsible for his actions and cannot excuse himself with “the Bible made me do it.”>>>>If we count reality as a god, it would seem that Bible thumpers are the atheists in the crowd.>>>>I am no atheist, but when I read the Bible, I force it to conform to reality as I understand it (that makes it my opinion and only perchance the truth). For example, I considered “soul” to be an intellectual construct or phantasm the first time I thought about it, --in my sixth decade.>>>>No god that would challenge me to kill my son can get anything but my disdain, no matter what the excuse, and the father who would go along with it is worse.>>>>Abraham, with the knife raised over his son's head to slay him stopped, because the son screamed, "Dad this will not be your sacrifice: it will be my murder." There are no rams caught in bushes when a son is rebuking his father.>>>>Sorry. I got on a soapbox.

53) Comment by gofigger - 12/09/2012

Yeah, I guess it will happen......when we end racism..........when pigs fly.......when the unicorn milk runs freely.......

54) Comment by potkcalb - 12/09/2012

Then do I understand gofigger that you would like to see the incessant haggling over religion continue? Do you think that religionists snarling over the centuries at one another has accomplished anything? I have a fantasy that someday in the distant future it could come to an end.

55) Comment by Whatnow - 12/09/2012

@krl777, your definition and my definition of a human being distinctly differ. You can prove no more than I can. I just believe life begins at conception. Medical science isn't always carved in stone. My faith tells me differently just as your logic tells you. It's not cheap,cowardly or lazy. I am very strong in my faith as you are in your logic. I have to study and pray everyday for guidance. I know in my brain what science teaches, but I just know in my heart what the Bible says. We just believe different books. We just disagree. I'm not saying that you have to agree with me. That's your decision. You can try to make me seem stupid, but that's okay. You will not rock my faith. Christians since the beginning have been prosecuted with death and worse. But, still we persevere.

56) Comment by gofigger - 12/09/2012

Be careful what you wish!

57) Comment by potkcalb - 12/09/2012

I know that I'm repeating myself, but as I've said before I would like to see an atheist or a Wiccan elected president, not because I'm advocating atheism (I'm not) nor because I'm a witch (i'm not) but because it might signal an end to these mindless and unproductive brouhahas over religion.

58) Comment by prbeav - 12/09/2012

From Cal Thomas in today's Advocate: I would be perfectly fine if both parties stopped talking about God. In fact, I would prefer politicians end their speeches with something other than “God bless you and God bless America.” What’s wrong with “thank you for listening and good night”? Why should God bless America? What are we doing that would earn his favor? This is sloppy theology that any first-year seminary student or serious layman could dissect.>>>>It seems Cal Thomas is willing to publicly share the path he is on.

59) Comment by krl777 - 11/09/2012

@Whatnow: You missed the part where I made a substantive claim about what makes a human being -- the possession of the neurology that supports human thought and feeling. Meanwhile, you have provided no coherent or substantive answer to your own question -- What makes a human being? Having made no proposal of your own, you don't really have the moral authority to denounce me for the consequences of my views. You don't get to just hide in the bushes and snipe at people, overflowing with moral outrage at their ideas, when you cannot defend any ideas of your own. It's cheap. It's intellectually lazy. And it's cowardly.

60) Comment by prbeav - 11/09/2012

@ScotB. I have not seen one writer in this thread "ask for tolerance." I certainly reject it.>>>>In person, when I sense that the other party is either tolerating my opinion or respecting it, my side of the dialogue changes-- to the weather, or the latest LSU score or some other trivia. If there is anything I will not tolerate it is tolerance for my opinion.>>>>When it comes to exchange of opinion, the only thing I accept is what I offer: appreciation for people who do not perpetrate harm against others and intolerance for the rest.>>>>"Tolerance" is as useless as "honesty." What humans mutually need are appreciation and integrity.>>>>Consider what you require and see if it is balanced by what you offer.

61) Comment by Whatnow - 11/09/2012

The zygote, embryo and early fetus is/are not a human being, but it will be if development proceeds normally? So, what in that development makes it a human being? Growth? Is it life of a developing human? Is human life so disposable to you people? Or is it an inconvenience? Like a dirty napkin that can't be useful, you just toss it away. My son and daughter in-law used to believe in abortion and women's rights until they had their own baby and he helped deliver it. I guess, like believing in God, it's an emotional thing. Some are more so than others. I would rather have too many emotions than none at all.

62) Comment by ScotB - 11/09/2012

It would seem many who ask for tolerance are sorely lacking. It is difficult to be part of a minority, but we can all be glad to live in a nation where everyone's views are protected (even if not necessarily respected). Good day to all!

63) Comment by chem - 11/09/2012

I saw in the Advocate today the Central school board in its infinite stupidity passed a new rule that will allow teachers to discuss "controversies" about current theories. That is nothing but right-wing talk for teaching creationism. Those people should be thrown out of office for insulting children like that. If those people are that stupid, they have no business on a school board. This is indeed what the religious crazies want, to indoctrinate every child into their ridiculous and dangerous cult. These right-wing fanatics really do want a theocracy in the U.S.

64) Comment by Protean - 11/09/2012

Iran. Land of theocracy. America's right-wing future. Enjoy it there!

65) Comment by gofigger - 11/09/2012

Move to Iran. Bye!

66) Comment by prbeav - 11/09/2012

last post should read "force to require non-believers"

67) Comment by prbeav - 11/09/2012

A wonderful metaphor. To bring Yotanka back to chem's point, it is neither necessary nor just for believers to impose gods on non-believers.>>>>Non-believers should not have "under God," "In God we trust," and other prayers and oaths imposed on them. The religion clauses of the First Amendment should be amended to address thought instead of religion. America needs to admit that religion has always been established among believers and use of government's monopoly on force non-believers to support religion is tyranny.>>>>More urgently, America should not be taken to war on the word of a god.>>>>Maybe I have moved beyond chem's point, but that seems to be acceptable.

68) Comment by nimby? - 11/09/2012

"Each man is good in His sight. It is not necessary for eagles to be crows" , Tatanka Yotanka(Sitting Bull) ...

69) Comment by prbeav - 11/09/2012

@nimby, by examining my case, there is evidence we should never give up on each other. In my fifth decade I knew; toward the end of my seventh decade, the only thing I am certain of is that I do not know. Only when I personally reached this conclusion could I recognize it as Socrates' claim.>>>>It matters not to me if anyone approves of my assertion that I do not know. And I do not wish anyone to follow my path and eventual end. My admission is only for me; yet I am willing to write and talk about it.>>>>Everyone is on a different path, with their unique psychological end, and as long as they perform no harm to others, their freedom to think and find their own way should be appreciated; not only respected; certainly not tolerated: appreciated.>>>>Ii is tyranny for anyone to try to govern me toward claiming I know what I do not know!>>>>I do not know anyone's god.

70) Comment by nimby? - 11/09/2012

no one knows , one way or the other . there are facts and there are opinions ; facts can change , opinions usually don't ...

71) Comment by DMJ - 11/09/2012

I refuse to believe anyone who claims to know what they couldn't possibly know, specifically.... if there's a god, what that god wants us to do, and what, if anything, happens after we die. No one knows the answers to those three questions. Anyone that says they do is lying or is delusional.

72) Comment by Protean - 11/09/2012

I appreciate the advice. I have neither the desire nor the patience to try reasoning with anyone whose mind has been thoroughly damaged by fear and delusion. Such people are way too far gone and not at all worth the effort. But that doesn't keep me from having a bit of light fun with what they write.

73) Comment by potkcalb - 11/09/2012

A word of advice for you newcomers on the site. Don't try reasoning with Phil. I admit that, foolishly, I've fallen victim to the urge more than once. I have no valid excuse for it.

74) Comment by Protean - 11/09/2012

Step one – adopt all the reasonable (and some flat out bizarre) elements of “values systems” that existed long before your own myths were forged, then fraudulently claim sole authorship.  Step two – warp history.  Conveniently forget the dramatic failures and the outright corruption of your own so-called values system and its dogmatists.  As a contemporary example, start a war … no, start TWO wars, then claim you can pay for it all through tax cuts.  If someone objects, say “deficits don’t matter”, then whine like a rusty wheel as the inevitable deficit rises right on throughout the next administration.  Let the next guy inherit your folly so you can come back in a few years and do it again! (The faithful can be relied upon to forget about the problem).  Step three – conjure up a strawman, call it “socialism” but only when it benefits anyone other than corporations and authoritarians.   Hey, when it’s done by “values” people, it’s called “job creation”.  Let the other folks do precisely the same thing, and it’s “socialism”.  Isn’t that soooooo logical?  And that leads to step four – push even harder theocracy/oligarchy.   But even after all that, we shall not be defeated. Not by you; not by the reds-under-the-bed tactics you favor.   Sane people still exist, and they remain a threat to you and your superstitious, self-centered lot of lemmings.

75) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 11/09/2012

phil, are you not saying, in your comment that begins "Letters like this...", that atheists want or will cause the country to have little or no value system? Are you not equating atheism with the destruction of values and consequently the destruction of the nation? Please do explain then, your perceived connection between atheism and lack of values and/or atheism and the destruction of the country, or else own what you mean and stop playing games with my response.

76) Comment by phil - 11/09/2012

mygulfbleedsforu - I never said that, so why are you suggesting that I did? Once again you are giving a good example of someone who can only attack the person instead of the issue. I still believe what I actually previously wrote here is correct! By the way, I am NOT promised or guaranteed everlasting life by my religion. God will make that final determination based on what I do here on Earth.

77) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 11/09/2012

Someone who doesn't need a promise of everlasting life to do the good and right thing for his fellow man is presumed by phil to have little or no value to society. Does that really make any sense to anyone?

78) Comment by phil - 11/09/2012

Step one - destroy the value system. Step 2 - make socialism the political force in the USA. Step 3 - make this a socialistic atheist country. Step 4 - we are just like the communist counties that our soldiers have been fighting against in numerous wars. We will not be defeated from outside - we will be defeated from within.

79) Comment by phil - 11/09/2012

Letters like this make me really realize exactly how there is an organized attempt in the USA right now to make this an atheist county with little or no value system. That is one of the first steps for the destruction of the USA from within. Stand up for what you believe in if you believe in God and religion. If you do not do that, the minority atheists in this country will take over and destroy the USA from within.

80) Comment by prbeav - 11/09/2012

It is not a reference, but here's an informed opinion about the rate of natural abortions: http://www.newstimes.com/opinion/article/James-S-Mellett-Natural-abortions-far-outnumber-3828459.php . If this review only approximates nature's role, nature seems benevolent, because natural abortions are caused by physics or chemistry that is not promising for the conception.>>>>As an extension, consider nature's provision regarding the rational, final decision. After physics and chemistry have not led to abortion, psychological factors remain. For psychological and other considerations, nature leaves the decision to remain pregnant with the woman who is pregnant. >>>>The person or institution that would reverse nature seems as arrogant as can be.>>>>Finally, if society wishes to force a woman who does not want to remain pregnant to carry to term, who will step forward to be her enforcer? Will it be her minister/priest? I don't think so.

81) Comment by gofigger - 11/09/2012

That's a streeeeeeeetch

82) Comment by krl777 - 11/09/2012

Up to half of all fertilized ova are spontaneously aborted (by nature, or by God if you will). Somewhere between 15% and 20% of pregnancies where the woman knows she is pregnant end in abortion, the vast majority of which are spontaneous. Studies show that around 13-15% of pregnancies after the first week after implantation end in spontaneous abortion. See www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm. If there is a God, it seems that God does not care about zygotes and embryos very much. I rather suspect that, if there is a God, he/she/it doesn't care about sex nearly as much as those humans who claim to speak for God, and who are obsessed by it and everything connected with it (such as contraception and abortion).

83) Comment by prbeav - 11/09/2012

I have the impression that natural abortion frequency exceeds by orders of magnitude the frequency of abortion by decision. Does anyone know the facts and a reliable source of the numbers? To tie this back to chem's point, abortion legislation should not be decided on religious belief, and I think I am quoting H. A. Overstreet, 1949.

84) Comment by krl777 - 11/09/2012

Anti-abortion interest groups have committed themselves to spreading bogus claims about the emotional trauma of abortion; for a scholarly review, see http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1991-02358-001. The Russo-Marin study of the 1990's did find an interesting kind of trauma after an abortion, however -- conservative Catholic women and others living in communities which severely disapprove of abortion had more emotional trauma after an abortion. Most other women were found to feel mainly relief. Zygotes and embryos are aborted freely by nature -- or would that be by God?

85) Comment by DMJ - 11/09/2012

Perhaps the emotional toll supposedly experienced by women who get abortions is due to the millions of busy-body yahoos calling them "murderers" and "baby-killers." If the good conservatives would mind their own business for once, maybe women could make reproductive choices in peace without fear of harrassment.

86) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 11/09/2012

Better watch yourself eastta, that same holy book of yours called for the killing of witches, before they took those parts out after the witch trials...

87) Comment by eastta - 11/09/2012

2 Kings 1:10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

88) Comment by potkcalb - 11/09/2012

Triple you refer to a statistic that you once read that women who have an abortion suffer long lasting and devastating emotional effects. Certainly that can be a result in individual instances, but in 2008 the American Psychological Association, after examining two decades of peer-reviewed studies, found that mental health problems were no more common among women having first- trimester abortions than among women generally.

89) Comment by Triple - 11/09/2012

krl777,  Agreed, complex issue, but if we are to protect human life (beings), and if we (you), are unsure of day one, I believe we should err on the side of life. Your arguments are compelling and I appreciate your time to pen a response.  One more observation from your last post, the discarding of a fetus without a second thought is not the norm, I once read a statistic about the emotional toll on most women after an abortion, the negative effect on the majority was devastating and long lasting.  Flushing a clump of developing human cells resulting in phycological trauma for so many suggest that this is a complex issue, as you stated. BTW, I support protecting the turtles too. Regards.

90) Comment by chem - 11/09/2012

This whole discussion came about from the letter stating that religion is a myth. I can understand a believer not wanting to pick the bible apart because to do so exposes the contradictions in it. For those that think the bible is the inerrant word of a god, than that god was not very bright as the writing in the bible clearly shows. As far as the ten commandments go, almost half, the first four to be exact, are proscriptions to what can only be called a selfish, egotistical god. The rest of the commandments people can derive from an evolutionary basis. I will ask just as the letter does: Why even invoke such silliness when it is absolutely unecessary to do so? One is simply thinking like someone from the Middle Ages or earlier when essentially nothing was known about the Earth and the universe.

91) Comment by ABayouBoy - 11/09/2012

Yes, chem, Man is just a "parasite". That is exactly why we need to believe in something greater than ourselves. To strive for perfection, even though we ourselves are not. That's what faith is about. It exists to keep us humble, but also to continue to learn through science and technology the limits of our universe. It's what makes us, and keeps us human. Don't try to pick apart the Bible, but just take it on faith, and believe in what it stands for. I simply believe in the 10 commandments, and that's enough to set my moral compass....

92) Comment by krl777 - 10/09/2012

Triple, the fact that you have struggled with the notion of a constitutionally protected human being just means, in my view, that you are a serious person. These aren't easy issues, as much as we might simplify them for discussion on these boards. But we don't have to believe that turtle eggs are turtle beings in their own right to decide that we have an interest in those eggs hatching live turtles. The biologists you mention might have taken a sentimental interest in these turtles, or they might have thought that the reproduction of turtles is important to the ecosystem of the area. Likewise, we don't have to assume that a human embryo or early fetus is a human being in order to recognize somebody's stake in that embryo or fetus developing into a human being and being born as such. If a couple want to have a child and manage to conceive, the resulting zygote and embryo embody their hopes, even if we decide that ontologically the zygote, embryo and early fetus is/are not a human being. To link back to a point raised by hemogoblin (great name!) on this thread a day or two ago, a couple may think of an embryo or early fetus as their "child" -- as indeed it will be if development proceeds normally -- and they may reasonably mourn it if it miscarries, since the miscarriage dashes their hopes. Our legitimate interest in fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses, and the hopes and dreams they may carry, must be distinguished from their ontological status. A pinprick embryo isn't a human being deserving the protection of society and the law, but it can carry the hopes and dreams of a couple nevertheless. And that doesn't change the fact that another couple, with no such interest in their own embryo, might choose to discard it without a second thought. Eggs and embryos represent potential. But so does every pair of sperm and egg cell of the same species. That potential may be of importance to some people, but we have to resist reifying that potential into a being which doesn't yet exist, or confusing it with an actually existing being.

93) Comment by Triple - 10/09/2012

Chem, R U that agent that tortured Morpheus? Just curious.

94) Comment by Triple - 10/09/2012

Potkcalb, Just following logic laid out by krl777. These were eggs, not turtles.

95) Comment by chem - 10/09/2012

My previous rant was in reply to saving turtle eggs. I did not make that clear. So what if another species is being saved. We are using up the Earth at an alarming rate.

96) Comment by chem - 10/09/2012

I may take heat for this, even from my atheist brethren, but I think that humans are parasites on this planet. We fit the definition of one pretty well. We consume, inordinately, the resources of Earth, we kill off not just each other, but other species on this planet, and we really do not contribute anything to the well being of the planet. I refuse to add more parasites to this planet, which is why I never had children. I know, I can hear it now -- then why not just kill yourself. Thank "god" you have no progeny, etc. Whatever. For those who think that there was a god that created everything, a god that is omnipotent and ominscient, you think it could have done a better job of it. If he had not made sex so pleasurable, we wouldn't have so many human parasites on this planet.

97) Comment by potkcalb - 10/09/2012

I may have to revise Triple. You say that the turtles were not endangered. I'm Curious as to how you know that?

98) Comment by potkcalb - 10/09/2012

Triple my guess is that if humans were an endangered species like the turtles efforts would be made to protect human eggs too.

99) Comment by potkcalb - 10/09/2012

By responding to kevinparnella I may be making myself as foolish as he is, but Kevin evolution is not determined by "accident" or by "coincidence" or by "random chance." Can you understand that Kevin? Can you understand that Kevin? Can you understand that Kevin? Can you understand that Kevin? Can you understand that Kevin? Can you understand....

100) Comment by Triple - 10/09/2012

Krl777,  to be honest I have often struggled with day one of a constitutionally protected human being.  This summer, on the beach in Destin, during the night, a sea turtle came a shore, and laid eggs.  Biologists had found the nesting site, barricaded the area and posted the strongest warning about stiff fines and imprisonment for disturbing the nest, these weren't endangered turtles, just new eggs, right next to our umbrella.  I found it ironic that these eggs were a priority for our government to protect, after all eggs are not turtles.   Wouldn't you agree?

101) Comment by krl777 - 10/09/2012

kevinparnella is just one step removed from "My god can beat up your god," the most primitive religious reflex of them all. Except that atheists and agnostics don't have a god, so it becomes, "My god can beat up you" by consigning us to perdition. If you like your religion red in tooth and claw, this is the stuff.

102) Comment by potkcalb - 10/09/2012

You're scary kevinparnella, really scary. Try to learn something about science. The Bible is a book of myths and legends, truths and half truths, fact and fiction, allegories and parables, fantasies and superstitions, interpretations and reinterpretations, scribes and transcriptions compiled over a span of approximately fifteen hundred years by forty or more people few of whom ever met. Most of what you have written is so nonsensical that it would take a tome to respond to it, and its obvious that it would be a waste of time. I will reference one thing that you referred to, that old creationist canard the Anthropic Principle, that conditions on earth must have been fine tuned by an entity for life to occur. In common parlance its known as the Goldilocks and the Three Bears scenario, not too much of this, and not too much of that but just enough of everything to be just right. I don't think we will be hearing much about that from now on because currently it is estimated that there are billions and billions of planets within the observable universe with habitable environments that could sustain life.

103) Comment by chem - 10/09/2012

Further, Isaac Newton did not belived jesus to be a god, nor did he belive in the christian trinity. So it seems to me that he did not think that much of jesus. But again, what's the point?

104) Comment by chem - 10/09/2012

Man, parnella, if you are serious, you really drank the kool-aid. How about this, if there were really a god, how come he made things so "complicated"? Seems to me a god would make things as simple as possible. For life to arise, there has to be a certain set of criteria, so of all the planets in this solar system, Earth is the one that works. Nothing mysterious about that. The bible is history written in advance. How naive. Only a poor deluded soul could think such tripe. Where, for the last 2000 years, has your god been? On vacation. You would think it would stop in now and then to say hello and ask how we are doing. Oh, wait, I forgot, he is omniscient and ominpotent. You are correct, though. It is a shame for such ignorance -- In believing in a fictitious god. ••••• Newton belived in jesus. And your point is? Einstein did not believe in the fictitious jesus or god. Again, what would be the point?

105) Comment by kevinparnella - 10/09/2012

One of the greatest scientists man has ever known Sir Isaac Newton was a ardent believer in Jesus Christ. If you truly believe in science, you may want to study his life and learn from his brilliance.

106) Comment by kevinparnella - 10/09/2012

Wow, It's such a shame for such ignorance. The Bible is history written in advance and if having hundreds of examples of prophecy being fulfilled is true, that's a pretty neat trick. I cannot believe for the life of me that people just are so full of hate for our creator that he cannot see the obvious. If we were any closer or further away from the sun, life as we know it could not exist. Why is it natural for men and women to be attracted to one another? I suppose that's purely accidental too. How is it that the most complicated supercomputer man has ever created pails in comparison to the human cell. I suppose its just a coincidence on how the respiratory, circulatory, excretory systems all work in harmony. Yes, it's just another coincidence. I've got hundreds of more of these "coincidences". The bottom line is this, the Bible is history written in advance. It details over 300 examples of Jesus' first coming and those were historically written and translated into Greek three hundred years before Christ was born. Agnostics acknowledge that. Second, look around you and once you figure out that it is impossible for life to exist as we know it, you will begin to ask questions and those answers are in the Bible... But don't listen to me- you are blinded by your hate for God. In closing once you discover you are wrong, it's going to be a shame where you end up for eternity. Don't be an idiot and ignore the obvious just because you don't want to submit to God.

107) Comment by chem - 10/09/2012

Here's a question for the faithful: Scientists are very close to creating life in a laboratory. What happens to your god when that occurs? When life, or proof of past life, is found on another planet, what happens to your god? Religious folk have been saying forever that only god can create life and that we are the only life in the universe. When science does either of the above, I guess that debunks the whole god thing, huh? But I'm sure there will be some lame excuse to get around that, also.

108) Comment by potkcalb - 10/09/2012

I would reverse your statement ABayouBoy: For every scientific breakthrough we realize how much more we know than we knew before. Scientific knowledge is increasing almost exponentially. How much more can we knows? Who knows? We do know that most of what we know now was deemed unknowable not long ago.

109) Comment by nimby? - 10/09/2012

a lot of word twisting going on , yall enjoy ....

110) Comment by HRoark - 10/09/2012

A little humility?! Is it not the height of arrogance to think your omnipotent god of the universe cares one iota more for the human condition than he cares for that of a flea or speck of mud on some faraway planet? Or that fervent prayer that the LSU Tigers will beat Alabama (badly) this year will actually bend their performance in your direction? The very idea that you can have a personal relationship with god or that he/she answers those prayers for wealth and health are about as arrogant as it gets. Humility indeed...keep praying. I'll take the vagaries of science any day.

111) Comment by ABayouBoy - 10/09/2012

Maybe a little humility is needed here. Keep an open mind. We can only perceive the universe based upon our 5 senses. Plus some ingenious devices that expand and extend our perceptions of it. Science cannot even describe the nature of time. How is it that we are expected to understand infinity? Distances so vast that even were we an ant, the earth could not be any more infinite to it than our own little galaxy is to us. And lets not forget dimensions that may also exist beyond our understanding. For every scientific breakthrough that occurs, we realize how much less we know of the marvel of Gods creation.

112) Comment by krl777 - 10/09/2012

Black political machine in Appalachia?? nimby? -- you seem to have some unhealthy obsessions with race.

113) Comment by Protean - 10/09/2012

nimby?, so how is "high ranking black (or any other race) political figures leaving office in disgrace" related to religious beliefs, other than the surety that all such political figures would have sworn that they are "good, god-fearing christians" (othewise, the powerful *religeous* machine would have ensured they would have never made it as a viable candidate? It's good you mention Hitler and Stalin, both of them deities in their own cult of personality.

114) Comment by nimby? - 10/09/2012

Protean and krl777 , cities controlled by a democratic political machine , high poverty, low education as you said , have had high ranking black political figures leave office in disgrace , then there's DC's Marion Barry , go figure . not aware of Hitler or Stalins' religious beliefs , outside of their persecution of such . man is evil ...

115) Comment by krl777 - 10/09/2012

@Whatnow: Any human life is meaningful. That isn't under dispute. The abortion debate hinges on the question of whether zygote, embryo, early and late fetus are all human BEINGS, deserving of protection of society and the law. Not all human life deserves such protection as I argued before -- I destroy countless live human cells every time I scratch. The issue is human BEINGS. At some point, I have to conclude that those who ignore this distinction in arguing against abortion rights are not merely being dense, but are actively and deceitfully avoiding the real issue.

116) Comment by krl777 - 10/09/2012

I disavow the "common theme" that nimby? seems to have in mind. I had in mind the South, the inner city, and Appalachia, which are among the most highly religious and most violent and corrupt parts of the country, and don't exhibit a common thread other than high poverty, low education, and high religiousity. But I take correction: it might have been better for me to reverse things and ask ABayouBoy to explain why the most violent and corrupt parts of the country are among the most religious. Utah and the Amish are thereby irrelevant. I'm not saying that being religious CAUSES people to be violent and corrupt. I'm saying religion is not necessary for people to be good. Sources and facts cited by chem and potkcalb attest to this.

117) Comment by chem - 10/09/2012

Religion, for the most part, is evil. Certainly the three largest ones, christianity, judaism, and islam. Most conflicts have been about religion. In modern times, the ethnic cleansing (genocide) in Bosnia and other areas in that part of the world were entirely due to religious differences. Anything in the muslim world is religious. Even our own revolution against the British had a religious component to it. Hate and bigotry comes straight out of the so-called holy books. I have heard numerous times from religious people the justification for hating blacks because of some ridiculous story about the mark of cain in the bible. Those that say there would be no morality without religion are deluding themselves. My previous post gives a link to a study that shows religion does not mean good and peace. The nicest people I have ever met are non-religious. Every time I get around so-called religious types, there is always some talk of hating this group or that group. Spouting foolishness about how others are going to hell and only “they” will be saved. I never hear such stupidity from secular people.

118) Comment by potkcalb - 10/09/2012

AbayouBoy we are not a religious family, but we certainly know the difference between "right from wrong." Krl777 is correct that the most religious parts of the country are the most violent and the most corrupt. According to the U.S.Census Bureau website for 2008, violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, assault) were more rampant in the 16 states considered to be part of the Bible belt than in the remaining 34. The average number of crimes was 495 for the former, 361 for the latter.

119) Comment by chem - 10/09/2012

Here is a link to a thorough investigation about religion and secularism related to violence: http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman _on_Atheism.pdf. There are many others that show the same type of result. ••••• Some of the conclusions are: Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries." ••••• "And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon." ••••• Zuckerman also points out that atheists are very much under-represented in the American prison population (only 0.2%). ••••• Atheists and agnostics actually have lower divorce rates than religious Americans. ••••• The most secular nations in the world report the highest levels of happiness among their population.

120) Comment by Protean - 10/09/2012

Whatnow. Sure. Just as science, in all its wisdom, already does everything in its power to preserve all kinds of life. Take the humble mosquito, for example. Surely deserving of protection. Just to be sure, maybe we should pass laws to forbit mosquito abortions. Gotta keep them larvae safe, y'know.

121) Comment by Whatnow - 10/09/2012

@krl777, yet science in all it's wisdom would do everything in it's power to preserve that life, wouldn't they? Is a human life any less meaningful?

122) Comment by Protean - 10/09/2012

nimby?, lemme guess about the cities you mentioned. Could the common theme be population density or, perhaps, number of churches, temples and synagogues? Or are those cities as afflicted by religion as the rest of the country? So if there are as many susperstitious people in these cities as, say, Baton Rouge ... then what?

123) Comment by nimby? - 10/09/2012

so much violence in Utah , those bloodthirsty Amish . krl777 , there is a common theme between New Orleans , Chicago , Detroit , has little to do with religion . could you explain further ?

124) Comment by Protean - 10/09/2012

Spiderman, and may the great flying spaghetti monster dribble the holy marinara sauce the meatballs of the willfully self-deluded. As for the "compass" of religion, may the FSM protect us from those with character so weak that they must be frightened away from their overwhelmming urges be thieves, murderers, molesters... And just to pick a fine christian name out of the air, one of many such examples, let Dennis Rader tell you how the church and its religious "guidance" prevented the binding, torturing and killing of women.

125) Comment by krl777 - 10/09/2012

Perhaps ABayouBoy will explain to us why the most religious parts of the country are the most violent and corrupt.

126) Comment by DMJ - 10/09/2012

You can teach right from wrong without teaching the bit about the burning bush. And by the way...if you want to teach your kids about morality, I'd suggest staying away from Exodus, which which your god kills innocent children for the sins of their parents. I thought christians were against killing innocent children. I'm confused...

127) Comment by spiderman - 10/09/2012

May God have mercy on your pathetic, non-believing souls.

128) Comment by ABayouBoy - 10/09/2012

I think of religion as a compass pointing to morality and ideals set forth by the 10 commandments. If our children are not taught right from wrong, then what you will see happening, is the breakdown of the fabric that holds society together. Its the glue that binds us together. Love, giving, trust, friendship, honor, respect, integrity, just to name a few. Without Christian values to point the way, we are left with only justifications to point the way to the "material" things of the world. Where "success" is measured according to personal possessions or financial wealth. In such a world the good, well-intentioned people are overwhelmed by the selfish and greedy. I would like my family and children to strive for high moral standards and ideals based on Christian principles that are taught within the Bible.

129) Comment by chem - 10/09/2012

What could be sillier than a sports team praying to god to win? Isn't the other team doing the same silly thing? Do they really think that if there is a god that it would choose sides in a football or baseball game? What nonsense!! •••••• A person can be the most violent low-life this world has known, killing and raping and robbing his entire life. But on his deathbed, all he has to do is say he's sorry and accept "jesus" and have some priest or preacher say some stupid words over him and he miraculously "goes to heaven." What utter nonsense! Wake up people. There is no god, no jesus, no angels, no heaven, and no hell. Just a bunch of stories told to you as a child. Grow up and join the 21st century.

130) Comment by Protean - 10/09/2012

gofigger, goforit. Your mumbled magic spells - what you call prayers - remain nothing more than a waste of time (yours), regardless of their topics or targets. So, what's not to like?

131) Comment by gofigger - 10/09/2012

I'm still praying for you all, like it or not

132) Comment by prbeav - 10/09/2012

That's your opinion and that's good.>>>>My opinion is that "why am I here" is a very interesting and attractive question. Unfortunately, religion, especially the god vendors have persuaded many people from creative, personal responses.>>>>The response I like best is, "I am here to discover and practice my personal preferences. At this point on my path, ethical behavior without exception is my goal.">>>>This is the best of times, and the impressions we share here are part of it.

133) Comment by krl777 - 10/09/2012

A single cell found on Mars would be life. It could even be human life if it had human DNA. But it wouldn't be a HUMAN BEING, deserving protection of the law, unless it had human thought and feeling. There is no reason we should accept Whatnow's conflation of human life with a human being. My stomach is alive and human, but it is not a human being. But I guess you don't have to have reasons if you are ready to dismiss all who disagree with you as cold-hearted "liberals" or cold-hearted "conservatives," or some other meaningless label. I'm not impressed by argument by labeling.

134) Comment by chem - 10/09/2012

ex-louisianian has brought up a point that is extremely important to religion, i.e., indoctrination of children. The imprinting of religious dogma on the brain of a child is very powerful. So powerful that for the most part, it stays with the person even through adulthood. That is why the inculcation starts early-on and continues through the formative years. If religion was first taught when someone reached adult age, there would not be many takers. I suspect only the simple-minded and easily-led types would accept the fairy tales. Even so, poll after poll shows that the world is becoming less religious, even the U.S. It makes sense. As people become more educated and learn more about the natural world, there is no need for superstitious nonsense and all of the silly musings about "why am I here."

135) Comment by ex-louisianian - 10/09/2012

The organized and politically active creationists and others have great reason to force public schools (private and parochial schools educate [by memory] fewer than 10% of American children nationwide) to teach religious doctrine as a course subject. They are familiar with atheist and scientific sociological studies that show that if a child isn't indoctrinated into a (or any) religious tradition by middle-school age, the child never will be. Nonreligious children grow into nonreligious adults who think of all churches, all dogmas, and all traditions and taboos as nothing less than "weird". In other words, secularization takes place within a single generation, and is generally irreversible. The Family Research Council, or whatever they call themselves, is one generation away from extinction.

136) Comment by prbeav - 10/09/2012

@ScotB; I appreciate your position, but would ask you to consider mine.>>>I can move about, freely passing by every meeting of believers and every place where they gather. It matters not what literature describes the god they worship. There is neither tyranny in those believers meeting together nor arrogance against whatever controls existence--whether it be chance, the laws of physics, or something unimagined. However, I cannot attend a town hall meeting with either my US Congressman or my US Senator without encountering prayer, usually Christian prayer. I AM OUTRAGED!>>>>Second, the moment someone claims God, tyranny against humankind and arrogance against whatever controls existence have begun, and the claimants do not realize it. For example, Thomas Jefferson was honest when he wrote, “"I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." However, he lacked the integrity to admit his contradiction and there was no need for the oath in his statement: “I have eternal hostility against . . . ,“ would have been effective. AWARE OF JEFFERSON’S ARROGANCE, I WILL NOT FOLLOW.>>>> Abraham Lincoln addressed the evil of man’s creation and use of God when he wrote, “Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it.”>>>>I am prepared to die with my opinion, because I do not know. If I knew, there would be no need for opinion. And, I cannot deny my hard-earned opinion, because in so doing I would lose my character. I HAVE NO INTENTION TO TRUST MY DEATH TO MY GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER INSTITUTION.>>>>I think believers and non-believers are in the same situation: they hold opinion because they do not know. However, the believers insist that if the non-believer wishes to contribute to We the People of the United States, he must compromise his opinion; if he would pledge allegiance to his flag, he must utter “under God.”>>>> I would appreciate the believer who would consider the preamble to the US Constitution and then work with me to purge the arrogance of God, a phantasm of men’s intellectual construction, from US governance.>>>ScotB, will you help end the tyranny of God against non-believers? I would warmly appreciate it.

137) Comment by Whatnow - 10/09/2012

A blood-pumping machine? Geesh, the book "Time Machine" comes to mind. @potkcalb, I do apologize, it was Chem I should have been referring to with my rebuttal. @DMJ, that's is stretching, Dude. You know who the founders were talking about. Are you the only one who doesn't know? @krl777, A blood-pumping machine? Geesh! How cold hearted liberals are. And if a single cell were found on Mars, science would proclaim it as life.

138) Comment by nimby? - 10/09/2012

" the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God' , JFK ....

139) Comment by DMJ - 10/09/2012

Wow. Best anti-religion letter yet. Well done, Mr. Polito. I think you've pretty much said it all. Oh, and why can't the "Creator" in the Declaration of Independance by someone's parents? It seems a stretch to automatically assume they were talking about a god. Just sayin...

140) Comment by krl777 - 10/09/2012

Triple, your criterion is entirely cogent. "If one condition exists that defines life then protection is warranted." [end quote] But every cell in your body satisfies several conditions for human life -- it has a human genome and participates in metabolism. So your criterion would make us protect every cell. Beware of scratching an itch, since you thereby kill hundreds of human cells, each of which partakes of human life on your view. I don't know about you, but this doesn't answer at all to my intuitions about what we protect. We protect human beings, and to be a human being, it is not enough to satisfy some of the mechanical criteria of human life.

141) Comment by Triple - 10/09/2012

So you have taken the high road with Phil? I stand corrected.

142) Comment by potkcalb - 10/09/2012

Triple the "bag of hammers" phrase did not originate with me. Please everyone, read more carefully.

143) Comment by Triple - 10/09/2012

PotkCalb, reflect on your comments to and about Phil. Bag of hammers may not be "stupid" but it sure isn't flattering. krl777, "A human body with a pulse but no brain or neural function is just a blood-pumping machine." .... IMO human life is the greatest priority and it's protection is paramount. Life determined by the mechanics of life, not sure I can agree, but I understand your position. The embryo develops, there is metabolism. If one condition exists that defines life then protection is warranted.

144) Comment by potkcalb - 10/09/2012

Whatnow I have never called Christians "stupid" on this or any other post. I have never called anyone "stupid" on this or any other post. You must have mistaken some other comment for mine.

145) Comment by krl777 - 09/09/2012

And ScotB, Muslims will assure you that Allah is with you. Or does that not work so well when the shoe is on the other foot?

146) Comment by ScotB - 09/09/2012

This nation was founded on the belief that our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from our Creator, not government. If it is indeed government who decides on what rights we have, then government can take them away. It is the belief that any government that infringes these rights can be justifiably cast off that defines America as a place of freedom. The first of the bill of rights is to guarantee all Americans the free exercise of their faith, which shows how important the founders understood faith to be to the moral foundation of the greatest nation the world has ever seen. It is called faith for a reason. The desire to know God has been written in the hearts of men since the dawn of civilization, creating many different faiths claiming to know the truth. The truth cannot be known until the end of a man's days, but one thing that has remained constant for the great majority of God's greatest creation - the desire to know Him. I respect the views of those who disbelieve because I completely understand their doubt due to the lack of empirical evidence. But what troubles me most, is the disrespect I see in today's society for opposing views and the vitriol with which they state their views. I humbly say that if you hope to sway anyone's opinion other than those who already agree, you may be best served to seek another way. May God bless you all, as I am sure he will, whether you believe in Him or not - He loves you.

147) Comment by krl777 - 09/09/2012

Triple has it right -- on my view, there is no human being in the womb at the beginning of gestation, and gradually one comes into being. Lots of natural processes are like that. A 10-year old is not an adult, but a 20-year old is. In between 10 and 20, an adult comes gradually into being. Unlike Triple, I think the pulse is a trivial matter. What makes us human is not a pulse, but the possession of the neural and brain structure which makes human thought and feeling possible. The spinal cord is laid down early, and the brain is well under way to development by five months, but the most distinctively human features of the brain are the last to develop. The fetus never really has fully human neural structure, but it is far enough along for us to worry about abortion anytime in the last three months, which is of course exactly what the Supreme Court determined in Roe v. Wade. So I am indifferent to the abortion of an embryo, but quite concerned about the abortion of a third-trimester fetus. I am also aware that abortions of third-trimester fetuses are usually in difficult cases when developmental problems are detected. In these difficult cases, I would rather leave the decision in the hands of the woman, and her family or the father if they are involved, with the advice of whatever counsel the woman has, than to put the decision in the hands of the government by outlawing late abortions. A human body with a pulse but no brain or neural function is just a blood-pumping machine.

148) Comment by Whatnow - 09/09/2012

@potkcalb, " No one is expected to prove what you or I or anyone else believes." Your quote, and you are right. You also call Christians stupid, but state "I think it is unnecessary, but that is for me." It may be unnecessary for you, so you criticize Christians as a whole. How very tolerant of you. Until you know what Christians know in their minds and hearts, you don't know what you are talking about. You criticize because you don't understand, so it's stupid to you. And you know what? We don't care that you think so. Do you care that I think liberals are ruining this country? I think their motives are evil and self serving. And their agenda's are shoved down our throats. You can fight for what you believe, but we also have that right. It's not going to be your way on everything. Just like we lose to our beliefs all the time. But, we have the right to our beliefs just as much as you do.

149) Comment by prbeav - 09/09/2012

I argue that the US is a democratic republic; a republic because elected delegates divided into House and Senate together make the laws and because the laws are somewhat upheld yet a democracy because the delegates are elected by the people. “Somewhat” is needed, for several reasons.>>>> First, the delegates who wrote the US Constitution were theists, whose ideas reflected no appreciation, respect, even toleration for non-theists. For example, James Madison repeated George Mason’s idea, “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. “ WHAT TYRANNY THAT STATEMENT IS! Madison is without excuse, because he read David Hume.>>>> Second, the first Congress started a tradition of unconstitutional legislation, leaving it to the people to demand justice. For example, the first House of Representatives hired a chaplain. Furthermore, the first Congress was responsible for the First Amendment, which does not guarantee freedom of thought, which is the real issue. The people need to amend the First Amendment so that it addresses freedom of thought rather than freedom of religion, a subset of the issue.>>>>The effects of democracy are evident in, for example, the change of the pledge of allegiance to include the prayer, “under God,” a very arrogant claim indeed.>>>>Last, but not least, American operates under a vast set of judicial decisions that have lost their relevance to the US Constitution but now have force because they have been used for so long.>>>>The people will have to revolt to get back to the preamble to the US Constitution.

150) Comment by Triple - 09/09/2012

KRL777, "If you believe, as I do, that a human being comes into being gradually during ontogenesis", so if I were to believe as you do, this gradual transition is complete at some point while life is still in the womb. I would argue human life is protected, by law, when a pulse is present. So a person in a coma, with limited or no cognitive  brain function is protected, a fetus in the first month develops a heart beat, does a pulse qualify as sufficient progression?  This gradual development to earn the right to life is slippery stuff.  With your logic, at some point during the nine month development, abortion becomes murder.   These zygotes and fetuses are human zygotes and human fetuses, I experienced both,   just too young to remember.  To me it's about the life stuff not the "ghost stuff".

151) Comment by potkcalb - 09/09/2012

Again, very well said chem.

152) Comment by chem - 09/09/2012

I also agree that your comments were well stated, krl777. That, and all of the other reasons including just being a plain stupid thing to believe, is why I will always speak out about the dangers of religion. ••••• If everyone were moderate and had common sense, people like nimby?, I would not be so vehement in my opposition to religion. People like that believe in their god and are happier for it. I think it is unnecessary, but that is for me. Nimby?, and those like him, seem to want to live and let live, and that is a fine way to be. The problem is the fundamentalist. They want everyone to bow down to THEIR god and will do ANYTHING they can to bring that to fruition. They have infiltrated politics and are a real danger to the freedoms we now enjoy. These fanatics truly want a theocracy in this country, just as in Iran, Afghanistan, and other islamic countries. And we would be ruled just like those countries with no freedoms at all. Not a very pretty picture.

153) Comment by potkcalb - 09/09/2012

Very well said krl777. That is why we must always remain on guard.

154) Comment by krl777 - 09/09/2012

I'm afraid that the US Constitution would permit the United States of America to become a virtual theocracy if a sufficient majority of people are persuaded to permit that to happen. When alcohol prohibition was instituted by Amendment XVIII of the Constitution, and then repealed by Amendment XXI, both happened because of the force of public opinion, not because of compelling judicial arguments. If the majority of Americans come to believe that a zygote, embryo and early fetus are all human beings deserving of the protection of the law, then everything in the law pertaining to the right to be free from murder will come to bear to outlaw abortion and some forms of contraception, and there is nothing the First Amendment separation of church and state can do to stop it. That's why some religious beliefs really matter -- we cannot insulate ourselves from them with the First Amendment. If you believe, as I do, that a human being comes into being gradually during ontogenesis, and is not present in the embryonic and early fetal stages, then you must get into the trenches and argue with those who believe that life begins at conception. And if the argument for the latter view is that human beings are souls -- bits of ghost stuff injected into matter at conception -- we are fully justified in critiquing that position and ridiculing it if we think that is the best way to cast it in the appropriate light. We have to respect the fact that many people really do believe these things, even as we recognize the harm they will do if they become ascendant. The Constitution prevents establishment of religion, but there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the ascendancy of a totalitarian religion of the sort practiced by the Taliban. Just remember how easy it was to get all alcohol banned.

155) Comment by hemogoblin - 09/09/2012

iPS cells represent the best science.

156) Comment by chem - 09/09/2012

We do have separation of church and state in this republic. Public policy should be based on the best science and economics available, not what the bible says, or some crazy fundamentalist purporting to speak for families. Why is that so difficult to understand. This is a republic, not a democracy, so what the majority of people want does not necessarily hold sway. The constitution gives protections not to the majority, but to the minority so that there rights cannot be trampled on. I say this yet again -- Believe in all the nonsense you want but leave it out of public discourse. Religion does not belong in public policy and law making.

157) Comment by hemogoblin - 09/09/2012

Chem, democracy means that people can speak their opinions and vote according to their interests. Just because you disagree with pro-life people doesn't mean you should dismiss them. There is a spectrum of thought on when life should be protected. For example, if someone injures a pregnant woman and she loses her baby, I don't think to myself, "oh, she has lost the little bit of extra tissue.". I think, "how sad, she has lost her child. ". I myself would like to see other contraceptives used, rather than abortion. Embryonic stem cells,sure, just made from a little ball of cells. But if you then move on to creating fetuses to destroy for organ transplants, human life gets a little bit cheaper. How about iPS cells? No embryo destruction, and potentially more useful than ES cells since there would not be the problem of immune rejection. As for gay marriage, homosexuality was illegal in the Lenin/Stalin Soviet Union, showing that atheists persecute minorities just like the rest of us.

158) Comment by nimby? - 09/09/2012

chem , nothing would please me more than for schools to return to the business of education ; neighborhood schools , no political/religious agenda , no teaching of test , accountability scores , social engineering , just education , period . but as a teacher you have no control over what goes on outside the classroom , and are limited as to within . therein lies the rub . it's like being back in the infantry ...

159) Comment by chem - 09/09/2012

nimby? it is even easier than that. Just do not teach religion in public schools. If parents want to ruin theri kids at home, then so be it, but not in public schools. And going further, I resent othre aspects of public life that is infringed upon by religion. For example, gay marriage. If two women want to marry than why not? The only reason I have ever heard is because the "bible" says it is a sin. Well, there you go. I don't believe in the bible, but if I were gay and wanted to marry, I couldn't. What about stem cell research? Once again, the only reason that it is objected to is based on "fundamentalist" interpretations of the bible. A womans right to abort a pregancy is another example of religion reaching into the lives of people who do not agree with it. If not for fundamentalist groups and politicians pandering to them, there would be not discussion about any of these things. Religion should not be used in any way to make public policy.

160) Comment by chem - 09/09/2012

nimby? it is even easier than that. Just do not teach religion in public schools. If parents want to ruin theri kids at home, then so be it, but not in public schools. And going further, I resent othre aspects of public life that is infringed upon by religion. For example, gay marriage. If two women want to marry than why not? The only reason I have ever heard is because the "bible" says it is a sin. Well, there you go. I don't believe in the bible, but if I were gay and wanted to marry, I couldn't. What about stem cell research? Once again, the only reason that it is objected to is based on "fundamentalist" interpretations of the bible. A womans right to abort a pregancy is another example of religion reaching into the lives of people who do not agree with it. If not for fundamentalist groups and politicians pandering to them, there would be not discussion about any of these things. Religion should not be used in any way to make public policy.

161) Comment by nimby? - 09/09/2012

this issue , from a logical standpoint , makes little sense , for several reasons . there is no need for the school to brainwash if it has or been attempted at home . most will rebel against such pressure , question authority and go completely opposite their parents wishes , or they will introvert themselves , becoming a walking time bomb . estimates in EBR an annual dropout near 30 percent , most by the 8th grade . they aren't learning anything ! they could care less about any of this . same came be said for the smart kids . they know this has little bearing as to how they prepare themselves for the world tomorrow . I'm thinking the priority should be getting the kids in school , keeping them there , preparing them for the future . as a nation we have lost our standing , our edge . sorry , but I think we should worry more about where we're going than where we came ....

162) Comment by potkcalb - 09/09/2012

Anyone in public schools or any other government agency funded by tax payers who have religion imposed on them Chucky. Is that so hard to grasp? What do you call it when religion or pseudo- science disguised as religion is imposed on public school children? Are you aware that is a violation of separation of church and state.?

163) Comment by HerbF - 09/09/2012

The prime reason man created religion, to explain the unknown, is in evidence today. An article in The Advocate today, is about a woman who's recovery from an accident was deemed a "miracle" by the Catholic church. Since they can't explain it, they have to conclude that god did it. :) And, I have never understood how "god" gets the credit for the recovery, but none of the credit for the accident itself. Religion does have a good bit of amusement value. :)

164) Comment by Chucky - 09/09/2012

potkcalb-chem - they swallow who else ?

165) Comment by potkcalb - 09/09/2012

chem is correct: Religion most certainly is "shoved down your throat" if in spite of separation of church and state it is officially incorporated into public schools and is infused into science education.

166) Comment by chem - 09/09/2012

If religious doctrine is being used to make public policy, i.e., laws, than one has no choice but to swallow.

167) Comment by Chucky - 09/09/2012

"I rail against religion because it is being shoved down my throat by overzealous politicians and "family" groups that want to make public policy based on religion. I seemingly rail against christianity only because it is THE religion in America. The others are minor players".Dude man , it will only be shoved down your throat if you open your mouth and swallow.

168) Comment by phil - 09/09/2012

I see all of these comments by the atheists who have not figured out that there is both good and evil in the world. The evil, including those who use religion for evil purposes, comes from Satan or the Devil. The good comes from God. Perhaps those who try to run down God and use terms like "right-wing nuts in the republican party" and "claptrap" are not being influenced by God. Besides, which political party is pushing abortion, if you really want to talk about murder and politics.

169) Comment by potkcalb - 08/09/2012

You're losing me GoldenSage. It seems to me you are splitting hairs differentiating religion from belief in a supernatural entity. Its the problem that "most brilliant people have" you say? I'm not brilliant (only moderately intelligent) so why am I having the same problem?.

170) Comment by chem - 08/09/2012

As I said a few posts ago, I rail against religion because it is being shoved down my throat by overzealous politicians and "family" groups that want to make public policy based on religion. I seemingly rail against christianity only because it is THE religion in America. The others are minor players. ••••• Regarding muslims (islam) I think that is a vile cult. As bad as I think christianity and judaism is, they are mild compared to islam. This world would be much better off without that lunatic, hate-filled, and violent cult. ••••• I still do not understand why, when someone looks at the night sky, he has to invoke a god. Is not the wonder of physics laws and chemistry not enough? When looking at our own planet, the wonders of biology are more than enough to have me stand in awe of what I see. I do not have to resort to supernatural creators to make me see and feel the wonder of nature. ••••• And the bottom line is, I probably would not care who believed in what as long as it was not being forced on me the way it is now. I would still think that those who believe are silly to do so, but I probably would not be so vitriolic about it.

171) Comment by krl777 - 08/09/2012

If someone looks into their heart and says, "My existence does not make sense if there is no god," I don't see who I am to say they are wrong. That doesn't prevent me from recognizing that some "perceptions" of god are delusions of the insane. It doesn't prevent me from knocking down specious "arguments" for the existence of god by seeking the "first cause" or "prime mover" of the universe. It doesn't prevent me from recognizing that the Book of Mormon was obviously fabricated out of thin air, the Old Testament is inconsistent, and the Book of Revelations demented, and the claim of some Buddhists to "fly" during meditation a delusion. It doesn't mean that I think we would lack a basis for our morality if some of us didn't believe in a god or gods. It doesn't prevent me from recognizing that the conception of God in many versions of Western monotheism is of a vicious tyrant. But again, if someone says, "My existence doesn't make sense to me if there is no god," who am I to say they are deluded or wrong? It seems to me much less important for me to judge their faith, then it is for all of us to focus on the story in the paper today about the 11-year old mentally challenged girl in Pakistan who was recently released on bail from imprisonment on charges of blasphemy because a probably corrupt cleric accused her of burning pages of the Koran. THIS, and the drift in this direction by our own extremists (Louisiana Family Forum, are you listening?) is what ought to concern us.

172) Comment by HerbF - 08/09/2012

I think they were two main reasons we created our gods: 1. To explain the unknown, and 2. To establish values. Other than that, I agree completely. Been saying the same things for years. The religious deny evolution, but ignore obvious evolution in religion. The evolutions of the different religions have been documented for many years. And, certainly religion is based upon magic. What else is superstition? Interesting to me is that there seems to be a genetic predisposition to follow, that is perhaps in play. And, I saw a similar argument from a sociological standpoint, in an article about conservative and liberal. beliefs and expectations. The good thing about this is that there are many more of us today. Twenty years ago it was a bit lonely. Best wishes. :)

173) Comment by nimby? - 08/09/2012

chem , you defiantly have a problem with christians , christianity , primarily the old testament perhaps in relation to childhood , as you had spoken of . to a point a can agree . but to caste all religion in the same light is rather closed minded . there is none of what you speak of in my religion . women are equal to men , their voice is welcome in political matters . the widows and orphans are cared for , the old are respected , no one goes hungry . in the language of the people there is no word for "gay" or "homosexual" . you have much to learn ...

174) Comment by GoldenSage - 08/09/2012

For such an intellectual, you seem to have the same problem most brilliant people have. You can't separate religion from God. They are not the same thing. And it is amazing you single out the Christian religion, so apparently, you know the strength of one's religion or otherwise you would have mentioned other religions...sure we know which one. I do not believe in religion for myself, but I can see there is a God. No one needs a religion for that...just common sense and the ability to realize there is more to God than any man will ever know. Look in the midnight sky and tell me anyone can truly understand the vast universe. Or, can you look at such a vast universe and tell me there is NO reason for life...no reason for existence. No, I have faith man will one day get closer to God. Now day, many people need a religion to get closer to God and who is to fault them. Not all people are strong enough to make through everyday life without support. No, religion shouldn't be in school, but God should be everywhere. And I believe He/She is....

175) Comment by chem - 08/09/2012

Oh, yea, religion teaches us how to play together. Let's see. It teaches us to terrify a young child by dragging him to some altar, hands and feet bound, to sacrifice him/her to some "benevolent" god. It teaches us to sell our wives and daughters ot unruly crowds so that they may have their way with them. It teaches us to hate those that do not follow the same "benevolent" god. It teaches that it is then OK to kill those same people. It teaches to murder those that commit very minor offenses because they are "sins." It teaches that homosexuals are to be put to death. Yea, that's some kind of wonderdul lessons.

176) Comment by hemogoblin - 08/09/2012

What does religion offer? A set of rules for everyone to play by. A community that supports its members in bad times and nurtures their children. The idea that we are all brothers and sisters, none better than any other. The hope that there is a reason for our existence.

177) Comment by Chucky - 08/09/2012

No witches ? Tell that to the witches . It seems you are envious of those who believe or at least have scorn for those that do.

178) Comment by nimby? - 08/09/2012

logic and emotion ; as an educated man I know what creates a rainbow . as an emotional man I marvel at its' beauty and am a thankful witness ...

179) Comment by Human Ape - 08/09/2012

God = Magic = Idiotic Fantasy. Only gullible cowards believe in it. darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com

180) Comment by chem - 08/09/2012

Just because I do not know something does not cause me to start invoking gods and other supernatural foolishness. Just as every other superstition has been overturned with reason and logic, the same can be said for what is not known at this time. Do I know how the universe began? No, I don't. But neither does that justify my saying that because I do not know, then a god must be involved. Thinking like that is simply nonsensical.

181) Comment by nimby? - 08/09/2012

chem , I will agree our president is "wrong and delusional" . christianity is but one religion , your bias against religions is based on what you know rather than what you don't , very conservative thinking . there is much more to religions than pulpit demi gods , George Burns in a cloud , holy wars and flying horses . ever considered far eastern religion , philosophies ? or the beliefs of those who 1st walked this land . as suggested earlier , God is Red by Vine Deloria . there will always be what we didn't/don't know , such is the great mystery ...

182) Comment by chem - 08/09/2012

I still do not understand why someone would "believe" in such idiocy. Everything points to religion being nothing but myth, no different from zeus, hercules, posiedon, etc. Why would rational people, other than being brainwashed with such stories since birth, believe in this claptrap. There is no evidence. And I would not be so adamant in my hostility toward religion if it were not being shoved down my throught by self-righteous politicians. Yes, I am talking abouth the right-wing nuts in the republican party that want to thump their bible and invoke their mythical god everytime they want to craft a bill, or pass a law. And it does not matter to me who believes in a god. If they really believe, they are all wrong and they are all delusional.

183) Comment by hemogoblin - 08/09/2012

I have asked chem to look at religion scientifically, and I ask that again. Put aside your personal prejudices and treat religion like any cultural phenomenon. Are there things about religion that have helped cultures survive? I suggest monogamy, for example, cuts down on the incidence of STD's and makes for a stable environment for children. As for me, I decided long ago that the 2 Commandments (love God above all things, and love your neighbor as yourself) were the best way to live, and that is why I am a Christian. A graduate student friend, who is an atheist, asked me if I would live the same way if there were no God. I said yes, because I think it is the best way to live. You might say, why do you need to believe in God, then? I, and all the believers whom Dr, Polito is scoffing at, hope and believe there is a point to the universe. We don't "know" it, we can't prove it, but we believe. I think that may be the ultimate failure of atheism. If there is no point, why bring children into this often terrifying and cruel world? So, fellow travelers on the earth, I don't ask that you become believers, but I do hope that you avoid the worst aspects of religion: intolerance and dogmatism.

184) Comment by potkcalb - 08/09/2012

You are the one claiming there is a god Whatnow. A claim at the very least requires evidence. I would assume you would know that if you have dealt with an insurance agency. No one is expectedd to prove what you or I or anyone else believes.

185) Comment by potkcalb - 08/09/2012

nimby I believe this is the second time you have asked the same question about how the Supreme Court would rule on belief in God. The Court does not rule on the validity of myths and legends. It can and does rule on religious beliefs being infused into or promulgated by state funded government agencies even when the beliefs are disguised in pseudo-scientific language.

186) Comment by Whatnow - 08/09/2012

To all you non-believers, what you believe is your choice and what we believe is our choice. It is called free will. You tend to protest too much and judge worse than any Christian I ever knew. You don't see as many Christians trying to criticize science, logic and reason (unless you count abortion) as much as the atheists trying to debunk God. You don't know what Christians know and you don't feel the power of the Holy Spirit like Christians do and it seems that it is eating you alive. Everything in the holy books has been debunked by man's science, man's logic and man's reasoning. They think that they know all the answers. Scientists and non-believers put too much faith in man. Human logic and reason is a man-made artifact to explain the unexplainable. Man didn't start the universe nor did he create man in the beginning. You have to start with something and man didn't start it. Why do we have to prove to the closed minded that there is a God? If it bothers atheists and scientist so much, please, prove there isn't a God.

187) Comment by nimby? - 08/09/2012

the democratic party and our president recognize the existence of god , are they gullible as well , or is this something the white house will explain later ? it has also never been proven god does not exist . while I have little tolerance for organized religion I will continue my faith in my higher power . my fellow man and the government have both admitted to "half-truths" , why should I trust them ?

188) Comment by chem - 08/09/2012

The reason people believe in such nonsense is that they have been brainwashed since childhood to believe in myths. No god has ever left any evidence of itself. In modern times, no one has seen or heard from a god (except those in asylums). The bible is so full of inconsistencies and contradictions that it is obviously a disjointed work of ancient man. Everything about religions is "magical" -- magical angels, magical flying horses (islam), magical golden tablets (mormon), and magical virgin birth. Come on guys. Y'all can't be that gullible to believe such nonsense.

189) Comment by nimby? - 08/09/2012

wonder how the supreme court would rule whether or not there is a god .....

190) Comment by potkcalb - 08/09/2012

A well state letter in every respect Dr. Polito. It is no wonder that we are held up to ridicule by most of the western world.

191) Comment by prbeav - 08/09/2012

Good letter. >>>> Some writers seem to take their god for granted. How does a god react to being taken for granted? An ancient thinker wrote, “I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” We have no idea what the writer meant, but the words are provocative. Does claiming your god is God constitute the “hate” and evoke the “jealousy?” In life’s brevity, does focus on God diminish your chance with nature/reality and your personal character building? It seems so.

192) Comment by jdk944 - 08/09/2012

Such arrogance Mr. Polito. This letter of yours reinforces the common understanding of Ph D. standing for "piled high and deep". For you to NOT be able to see the human travesties in our country over the turning away from God's law, like murder on demand - Abortion, tells me that even when evidence is presented before you today, that is factual, you deny it.

193) Comment by nimby? - 08/09/2012

there is religion then there is the business of religion , which have nothing to do with each other . for every Jimmy Swaggart there are thousands of Mother Teresas working in deplorable conditions , healing the sick , feeding the hungry , teaching reading , writing , with little or no fanfare ; no political/religious agenda . I with them well and pray for their safety ...

194) Comment by phil - 08/09/2012

As someone who believes in God (or a supreme being) I will take a bold step and for a minute say for discussion purposes that everything in The Bible is not true. What are we left with then? What we are left with is a field called science that has no true explanation of why we are here or how the universe was created etc. We get to a point that you could say both science and religion are separate but equal fields of philosophy. Given that, since I prefer to make a choice of which field to believe in for many issues, I chose to take the side of God. Actually I feel kind of sorry for atheists with no faith who can believe we are all here by just some chance of science. We are not here by just some random outcome of genetics and science. People who think they have all of the answers concern me a lot also. Our Creator developed an elaborate chemical program that scientists now know a little about and all of a sudden we think we are smarter than our Creator. Yes, there is a God.

195) Comment by Being_Stupid - 08/09/2012

Have you folks seen the sunset on Mars? There is a picture of it under the NASA Website.

196) Comment by bourbon-soda - 08/09/2012

This is a great issue because it distracts liberals from redistributing money for reverse social darwinism, if only for a few moments at a time.

197) Comment by chem - 08/09/2012

1/3 of the world is christian, so 2/3 of the world is wrong. That is one other reason that religion is a crock. Each of the thousands of religions think it is correct. So many superstitions have been overturned by science, shown to be natural phenomena, it really is amazing that people still think of a god.

198) Comment by Whatnow - 08/09/2012

@ Big Hug, only 7% of world's total wars are caused by religion. Why should the absurdity of religion be immune from criticism? It's not. You atheist get a kick out of criticizing it every day with a passion. 1/3 of the world's population are professed Christians. Isn't it strange that so many people believe and know in their hearts that there is a God? How come there are scientists that believe in God? Why does Christianity seem to frighten some people so much? Because, in the end, it won't matter much, now will it? Well, except to Christians.

199) Comment by potkcalb - 08/09/2012

A poll of 34 western nations reveals that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolutionary theory. So much for The Age of Reason!

200) Comment by Bighug - 08/09/2012

I agree, Dr. Polito, and will add that religion means more than just wasted time. Think of the many wars and other atrocities committed against humanity in the name of religion. It is in the news every day. Any thinking person would question why he accepts a certain religion and see that it is because of where he was raised and what his parent's religion is.

201) Comment by serenade - 07/09/2012

Speaking as one of the resident (I don't think only, but I could be wrong), progressive Christians, I agree that religion has no place in the science classroom. More surprisingly to some, I even agree that there are elements of myth in Christianity. The creation stories (yes, there are two separate stories written at two very different times), for example, are regarded by most mainline Protestant and Catholic scholars as myth. But like all myth, they point to a larger truth - that God created. Of course, that truth is a matter of faith, and I respect those who embrace a different truth. But regardless, of whatever truth your faith leads you to, it doesn't belong in public school classrooms, especially in the sciences.

202) Comment by lovemykids - 07/09/2012

Faith in a higher power is very important to some people and cannot be proven. That is why it is called faith. If you need this to help you get through life, by all means use it, but keep it out of the science class.