Why Are Atheist Books Best Sellers?

[MARIO]

Jefferson rejected evolution? That's amazing considering that the theory of evolution wasn't even espoused by Darwin until the late 19th Century...

Inasmuch as he expressed belief in a Creator, yes, I'd say he rejected "evolution."

Here's Jefferson:

"[W]ithout appeal to revelation," he told fellow founder John Adams on April 11, 1823:

I hold … that when we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examine in all their minutest particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses; it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms.

We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power, to maintain the universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view; comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets, and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful agent, that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed through all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal preexistence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable, than that of the few in the other hypothesis.

[FightingFalcon]

Had he been alive today, I'm sure a man as intelligent as Thomas Jefferson would reject mounds of scientific evidence in favor of religious insanity....

[MARIO]

fightingfalcon said:

Had he been alive today, I'm sure a man as intelligent as Thomas Jefferson would reject mounds of scientific evidence in favor of religious insanity....

That's nice. Great rhetoric. So those of us who happen to be religious are also insane.

Nobody knows how we came about. No living scientist does. No religious person does. You know that. So debate the issue without the pretension.

[cataracts]

fightingfalcon said:

Cataracts - You can join Jfree in the corner for making idiotic comments that I won't respond to.

I've already addressed the whole "Atheists have no morality" argument. I won't again.

Actually Falcon, you don't have a defense. Say what you will, you are standing on very thin ice.

It would be my pleasure to go into the corner with Jfree.

Cat.

[dustdevil28]

fightingfalcon said:

This is why I don't speak for all Atheists. Some of them succumb to hedonism and simply waste their lives. I have absolutely no respect for an Atheist who, after years of academic inquiry about religion, philosophy, etc. turns around and does nothing with their life. I at least have respect for a Theist who truly believes in his or her religion and works hard to defend it.

I agree with that statement, but if you really feel that way than why have you become hostile towards religion? I use the word hostile just because someone who states "I don't live in fear" "I hate anything that denies free thought" and "have fun reading fairy tales" should be seen as nothing else but hostile.

The Constitution provided the frame-work for the greatest and *only* moral country in the history of the world. The only moral country because it was the only country in the world that didn't expect anything from its citizens. It established a country of independently thinking men who came together as a group on a strictly voluntary basis to form contracts.

The Constitution is great because of the selfless acts of the founders. It sets the framework for what should be a responsible government and allows the individual to come to their own conclustions and to walk the path that suits them best.

And to whom are they taking that oath? What consequence do they believe will happen to them if they don't stay true to that oath?

I can only speak for myself, but I have to answer to people that I respect much more than the Christian god. I have to answer to the Constitution, the American Republic, myself and my historical heroes. I have to answer to people like George Washington, Cato the Younger, Brutus, etc. People that have had a tremendous impact on my life and help guide my development. Most importantly, I have to answer to myself. I could not live with myself if I broke the Oath that I took on 16 May. I would have to end my life. If I ever waver, I look back to my heroes and see what they did when the going got tough. They always end up giving me the courage I need to stay true to my ideals of Liberty, Truth and Justice for all.

End your life? A little extreme there James. I look up to that actions of George Washington, Lincoln and others as well, but I also look up the the acts of Jesus Christ. In life and death he was selfless and he did die in the hopes of saving mankind. Once again this goes back to selfless acts of sacrifice for the good of all.

Humility and fear are a healthy part of a person's life as well. The humilty to know that noone's view is above the others and that each have a equal voice.

Again, this is why I only speak for Objectivists. For Objectivists, honesty is an extremely important quality. All forms of lying, dishonesty, etc. are severely frowned upon and rejected. Some people, without the fear of eternal punishment, might act in a more dishonest way than they would otherwise. Not with me - my devotion to the Truth comes, again, from my philosophy and not from god.

And why does your philosophy demand truth? When you first came out as a Athiest, didn't you make a comment about it being natural for a person to be selfish and to work for their own pleasures? How can you hold a view of only striving to make yourself happy, while having a philosophy of truth?

I do not believe that the use of force is an acceptable method of changing policy and I believe that all have an equal voice.

agreed.

A very simple example off the top of my head is a Catholic refusing to go to war if the Pope deemed the war to be against the Just War Theory and a mortal sin to participate. I would have no such hesitation if the Constitution was threatened.

And if you went against the Pope could you not just ask forgiveness afterwards?

The Objectivist inside me sees the Tower of Babel as a monument to the greatness of the human mind and human achievement. Judeo-Christians see it as an example of man's arrogance in challenging god. I guess that's ultimately the difference between us.

I don't see much difference between us. In a world full of great buildings, that is just one more thing to give thanks for.

I've said many times that even if god happens to exist, I will still choose hell after I die. I neither kneel before nor serve anyone. If god promised me eternal paradise if I simply kissed his finger, I would refuse.

Once again, hostility. The family I grew up in was not one that viewed God as as any kind of tyrannt, but as someone who showes as a path and gives us the choice to walk that path.

If you have some free time when you're finished with the book about the Iroquois, feel free to pick up The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. If nothing else, it will go a long way toward understanding the way that I think.

Thanks, but I'm more into history books. The book I'm reading right now goes over the philosophy of people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. it just had a section on the iroquois as well. As for Ann, some of my friends have read her book and liked it, so perhaps one of these days

[FightingFalcon]

I agree with that statement, but if you really feel that way than why have you become hostile towards religion? I use the word hostile just because someone who states "I don't live in fear" "I hate anything that denies free thought" and "have fun reading fairy tales" should be seen as nothing else but hostile.

Because I equate religion with academic stagnation, violence and intolerance. Because I hate the privileged status that religion is granted in our society without question. That I can rightly condemn a Communist for having evil ideas but a person's religious beliefs are off-limits. Because I see Theists constantly whine about being persecuted while at the same time being the overwhelmingly dominant portion of society. Religion is given an unquestionably privileged status in our society (like certain religious groups not having to pay SS tax) while Atheists get no such advantages. It's wrong and it pisses me off.

The Constitution is great because of the selfless acts of the founders. It sets the framework for what should be a responsible government and allows the individual to come to their own conclustions and to walk the path that suits them best.

Don't forget that the rebellion against Great Britain was fundamentally economic in nature. The Founding Fathers may have put their lives on the line but they weren't exactly selfless. They obviously had economic considerations in mind when signing their names to the Declaration. This isn't a knock against them (I love the fact that they rebelled for economic freedom) - I'm just pointing it out.

End your life? A little extreme there James. I look up to that actions of George Washington, Lincoln and others as well, but I also look up the the acts of Jesus Christ. In life and death he was selfless and he did die in the hopes of saving mankind. Once again this goes back to selfless acts of sacrifice for the good of all.

A man who does not keep his word and betrays an oath that he took does not deserve to live. The word of others might not mean much to them, but it means a lot to me. As for self-sacrifice - in the world that I envision, such sacrifice would not be necessary.

And why does your philosophy demand truth? When you first came out as a Athiest, didn't you make a comment about it being natural for a person to be selfish and to work for their own pleasures? How can you hold a view of only striving to make yourself happy, while having a philosophy of truth?

No, I never said that people should work for their own pleasures. People should work for their own rational self-interest. It's in the rational self-interest of all human beings to further their education, be as productive and creative as possible, excel at their jobs and to exceed the standard set by their parents. It is in no one's rational self-interest to be lazy, serve only bodily pleasures, etc. This is hedonism, which I reject as fully as I do religion. As Ayn Rand said through one of her characters in Atlas Shrugged, the most depraved man in the world is a man without a purpose.

The Truth that I refer to is scientific knowledge about anything and every thing in our universe. All I care about is what is true - not what someone wants to believe, what their religion or culture tells them to believe, etc. I don't twist the truth to meet my beliefs. Rather, I modify my beliefs based upon new evidence so that I can always be aligned with what I know to be true.

In his book, Dawkins describes a story that moved him to tears with admiration and a story that I greatly appreciate as well. This describes the type of person that I really admire:

I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesmen of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artefact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said - with passion - "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." We clapped our hands red. No fundamentalist would ever say that.

Those are the type of people that I truly respect and the type of person that I am. Someone who does not sacrifice Truth to meet their belief system. Rather, we cater our belief system to the Truth.

And if you went against the Pope could you not just ask forgiveness afterwards?

Maybe someone else could do that but not I. I couldn't knowingly and willingly go against my belief system if I would just ask for forgiveness later. I do not betray my belief system out of convenience.

Once again, hostility. The family I grew up in was not one that viewed God as as any kind of tyrannt, but as someone who showes as a path and gives us the choice to walk that path.

Anyone who purports to give you a "choice" but then tells you that if you make the wrong "choice" you will end up in eternal torture is a tyrant in my eyes. I see no difference between god's "choice" and Saddam Hussein' "elections". Sure you could vote against him but you'd die.

Thanks, but I'm more into history books. The book I'm reading right now goes over the philosophy of people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. it just had a section on the iroquois as well. As for Ann, some of my friends have read her book and liked it, so perhaps one of these days

I've taken a break from philosophy myself for right now. Currently I'm reading about the Spanish Empire because I'm trying to pick a subject for my Masters. I keep going back and forth between the Austrian Habsburgs and pagan mythology. Not sure which one yet.

I also just found out about this awesome program that the AF has. You can get any book that Air University prints for free. All the books are about air power, military history, doctrine/strategy, etc. and you can literally just walk in and take 10 books per day, for free. I really want to get into air power doctrine eventually so I'll be all over those books.

[dustdevil28]

fightingfalcon said:

Because I equate religion with academic stagnation, violence and intolerance. Because I hate the privileged status that religion is granted in our society without question. That I can rightly condemn a Communist for having evil ideas but a person's religious beliefs are off-limits. Because I see Theists constantly whine about being persecuted while at the same time being the overwhelmingly dominant portion of society. Religion is given an unquestionably privileged status in our society (like certain religious groups not having to pay SS tax) while Atheists get no such advantages. It's wrong and it pisses me off.

It's wrong and that's life. You think religion is accorded a special status in this country, yet I look at the same situation and I get a different feeling. We live in a place where people can use curse words, make rap songs about killing cops, and display art that is grossly offensive to Christians and defend it with free speech, but when someone would like to offer a prayer before a sporting contest, or a business gathering, it is compained about and denied because it is somehow "insensitive" to a athiest. Bottom line, if you want to talk about whiners, than they are on both sides.

Don't forget that the rebellion against Great Britain was fundamentally economic in nature. The Founding Fathers may have put their lives on the line but they weren't exactly selfless. They obviously had economic considerations in mind when signing their names to the Declaration. This isn't a knock against them (I love the fact that they rebelled for economic freedom) - I'm just pointing it out.

Taking on the worlds greatest empire with a smaller, ill trained and equiped group. I'd say their belief system came into play a little bit more.

The word of others might not mean much to them, but it means a lot to me. As for self-sacrifice - in the world that I envision, such sacrifice would not be necessary.

The world you envision? I don't see this world ever changing much more than it has in the next 20 years or so. I see a moral decay that I hope slows down as time goes on, but I recognise that there is little I can do to effect it. Do you think the people of the world will adopt a similar philosophy as you?

No, I never said that people should work for their own pleasures. People should work for their own rational self-interest. It's in the rational self-interest of all human beings to further their education, be as productive and creative as possible, excel at their jobs and to exceed the standard set by their parents. It is in no one's rational self-interest to be lazy, serve only bodily pleasures, etc. This is hedonism, which I reject as fully as I do religion. As Ayn Rand said through one of her characters in Atlas Shrugged, the most depraved man in the world is a man without a purpose.

My mistake. It is in a person's best interests to seek to better themselves, but most lack the desire. Once again I look at a world where people just stood in line for 2 days in order to buy a stupid iphone. About a few years back people spent 600 dollars on ebay for new a new X-box. It's in their interests, but the world promotes a attitude of laziness.

The Truth that I refer to is scientific knowledge about anything and every thing in our universe. All I care about is what is true - not what someone wants to believe,

And what about what science cannot explain? Where science stops belief and theory begin and we all choose one side or the other.

In his book, Dawkins describes a story that moved him to tears with admiration and a story that I greatly appreciate as well. This describes the type of person that I really admire:

A very humble man. A person who can admit their mistakes and face them is always better and wiser because of it.

Anyone who purports to give you a "choice" but then tells you that if you make the wrong "choice" you will end up in eternal torture is a tyrant in my eyes. I see no difference between god's "choice" and Saddam Hussein' "elections". Sure you could vote against him but you'd die.

And yet you think that if you betray your beliefs, you should kill yourself. If I could borrow a line from Chris, that sounds like tyranny of the self. It seems that you reject God just because of the you don't feel you would be in control of your life with him. You reject the him, yet I see little difference in the life he'd want you to life and the life that you seem to want to lead. I guess that's the ultimate difference between us. Where you see restriction, I see stucture and choice. Only time will tell.

I've often wondered how I'll be viewed by God when I die. I've never been that religious, don't pray that often, and I don't ever see myself becoming that religious. I enjoy drinking beer and I enjoy going out on the town. For the most part though, I try to lead a good life by working hard and being fair in any dealings I have with others.

I've taken a break from philosophy myself for right now. Currently I'm reading about the Spanish Empire because I'm trying to pick a subject for my Masters. I keep going back and forth between the Austrian Habsburgs and pagan mythology. Not sure which one yet.

I also just found out about this awesome program that the AF has. You can get any book that Air University prints for free. All the books are about air power, military history, doctrine/strategy, etc. and you can literally just walk in and take 10 books per day, for free. I really want to get into air power doctrine eventually so I'll be all over those books.

Good deal. The spanish empire. Now those guys were really ruthless when it came to fighting the indians. Good luck with whatever you decide for your masters. I'm hoping to have my associates degree here by October, After that I'll look into whatever degree would give me the better options in the future.

[FightingFalcon]

We live in a place where people can use curse words, make rap songs about killing cops, and display art that is grossly offensive to Christians and defend it with free speech, but when someone would like to offer a prayer before a sporting contest, or a business gathering, it is compained about and denied because it is somehow "insensitive" to a athiest.

I don't see how you could possibly relate the two. If I wanted to offer a "prayer" to Reason and deny the existence of god before a sporting event, would you be fine? What if I wanted to pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster? O I get it - my beliefs aren't as "important" as a Christian's beliefs. It's a double standard and you know it Zach.

I also fail to see how prayer before a sporting event is equivalent to tax breaks. Pray all you want before sporting events if it means I don't have to pay SS tax like the Amish or Mennonites don't.

Taking on the worlds greatest empire with a smaller, ill trained and equiped group. I'd say their belief system came into play a little bit more.

Of course they were fighting for liberty - social and economic. But I wouldn't call them selfless. If anything they were selfish because they were fighting for their highest value. The word selfish has been turned into something evil but its actually quite the opposite. All it means is serving your highest values - what exactly is wrong with that?

Do you think the people of the world will adopt a similar philosophy as you?

The greatest thinkers who share my philosophy (Hayek, Friedman, Rand, Smith, etc.) have already come and gone so I doubt I'd be able to do more than they could. I foresee the failure to heed their warnings about economics being disastrous for the entire world. No, I don't think the world will ever adopt a similar philosophy to mine. Ayn Rand covered this many times over in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Our philosophy will never become popular because Capitalism does not offer a Garden of Eden to mankind. It is the only moral system in the world in that it objectively gives you back what you put in. A system such as this, that denies laziness and only rewards hard-work, will never become popular. In addition, thanks to an unholy alliance of economic liberals and the religious right, the world has become convinced that humans owe each other something and that they are their brothers' keeper. Any world that adopts such a philosophy is doomed for ultimate failure. It breeds resentment, hatred and statism. No society can last long that values the charity worker or the priest higher than the businessman or entrepreneur.

And what about what science cannot explain? Where science stops belief and theory begin and we all choose one side or the other.

Theists like to see questions as 50/50 propositions. Does god exist? Well he either does or doesn't so therefore its a 50/50 chance. No, not quite.

There will always be questions that science can't answer with 100% confidence. Hell, science can't even prove that you won't be able to poke through a solid wall with 100% confidence either. There is always a small chance, however slight, that the atoms in the wall and your hand will react in such a way that your hand goes through. The chances are so small that it will "never" happen - but it could.

My point is that ultimately the side with the most evidence will prevail. No amount of church propaganda, torture and inquisition could stop the fact that the Earth rotates around the Sun and not the other way around. Sure, there will be debate in-between (which is a very healthy thing as there is no idea more dangerous to a free mind than group think) but in the end the side with the most evidence will prevail. Then one day new evidence could be discovered and destroy everything that we thought we knew. We may never be completely certain about the secrets of the universe but that doesn't mean we can't try. That doesn't mean we can't have a general idea how it works. That doesn't mean we need to entertain fantastical ideas about mythical beings just so we can please others.

And yet you think that if you betray your beliefs, you should kill yourself. If I could borrow a line from Chris, that sounds like tyranny of the self.

People always tell me that I belong in another era. I belong in either the Roman Republic or Medieval Europe. I believe in things like honesty, integrity, justice, loyalty, etc. I abhor corruption, lies, back-stabbing, etc. I have extremely high standards for myself and I do not tolerate personal failure.

It seems that you reject God just because of the you don't feel you would be in control of your life with him. You reject the him, yet I see little difference in the life he'd want you to life and the life that you seem to want to lead.

The difference is that I came to choose this life - it wasn't forced upon me. Central to my belief system is the idea of Individuality and the fact that all humans are free. That no one should live for another human being or serve another human being. I simply take this one step further and refuse to serve any mythical being either.

I've often wondered how I'll be viewed by God when I die. I've never been that religious, don't pray that often, and I don't ever see myself becoming that religious. I enjoy drinking beer and I enjoy going out on the town. For the most part though, I try to lead a good life by working hard and being fair in any dealings I have with others.

And yet, Theism would have you feel guilty for drinking and going out on the town. Because you aren't completely devoted to your god and serving others. Because you haven't sacrificed your life for the happiness of "others". What others? It doesn't matter - just anyone but you. Religion constantly preaches that you have to live for anyone. Anyone but yourself, of course. You are probably a very good person who is loyal to family, friends and country. Yet that isn't enough. Anything done for "selfish" reasons (drinking and enjoying time with your friends) is evil and should be rejected. Perhaps this all sounds strange to you because you admit not going to Church all the time. That is ultimately what Theism is about - rejecting self and serving only others. That is ultimately what Christ was about. I want nothing to do with that.

You and I sound very similar. The problem with me when I was religious though is that I enjoyed doing those things while knowing that they were wrong as according to Christianity. A person can only fight against himself for so long before one side wins. The mind-body dichotomy that Theism preaches (denying what makes you happy so that you can serve god) will either drive someone to reject Theism or destroy them. The amount of inner strife that I had as a Christian was overwhelming. I do not suffer anymore though - I am finally free. Yet I am just as devoted to my family, friends and country than I was as a Christian. Nothing else has changed.

I'm hoping to have my associates degree here by October, After that I'll look into whatever degree would give me the better options in the future.

OTS/OCS?

Good on ya getting your Associates. I'm not sure how the Navy is but the AF is really harping on education right now. The un-written rule is that you won't reach Major without your Masters, won't reach SNCO without Associates/CCAF (Community College of the AF) degree and you won't reach E-9 without a Bachelors.

[dustdevil28]

fightingfalcon said:

I don't see how you could possibly relate the two. If I wanted to offer a "prayer" to Reason and deny the existence of god before a sporting event, would you be fine? What if I wanted to pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster? O I get it - my beliefs aren't as "important" as a Christian's beliefs. It's a double standard and you know it Zach.

What I know is that the double standard goes both ways.

The example you mentioned is not the same because someone who goes on a loudspeaker to declare there is no existance of God, or to mockingly pray to flying pasta is doing this to spite those that believe in God. Offering a prayer before a game is not being done to spite a athiest.

All it means is serving your highest values - what exactly is wrong with that?

Nothing really. I was thinking more of Washington's example of giving up command, than serving two terms despite wanting to retire.

The greatest thinkers who share my philosophy (Hayek, Friedman, Rand, Smith, etc.) have already come and gone so I doubt I'd be able to do more than they could. I foresee the failure to heed their warnings about economics being disastrous for the entire world. No, I don't think the world will ever adopt a similar philosophy to mine. Ayn Rand covered this many times over in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Our philosophy will never become popular because Capitalism does not offer a Garden of Eden to mankind. It is the only moral system in the world in that it objectively gives you back what you put in. A system such as this, that denies laziness and only rewards hard-work, will never become popular.

Yep, everyone want's something for nothing. Normally for any real mass change to occur, it comes because a need has been created. Earlier you noted how religion and belief are usually strongest during economic hard times. During those times though, people become more appreciative of hard work and the value of a dollar. It is in that enviroment that materialism quickly loses it's style, but because we thankfully don't live in such a system others will take the path that offers the least resistance. I guess best thing we can do is realize we only have control over our own conduct and to work on being what we would like others to be. No real change to others will happen, but at least I'll feel better.

Theists like to see questions as 50/50 propositions. Does god exist? Well he either does or doesn't so therefore its a 50/50 chance. No, not quite.

There will always be questions that science can't answer with 100% confidence. Hell, science can't even prove that you won't be able to poke through a solid wall with 100% confidence either. There is always a small chance, however slight, that the atoms in the wall and your hand will react in such a way that your hand goes through. The chances are so small that it will "never" happen - but it could.

Trading a belief in God for a belief in probability doesn't seem like that great a deal to me. Everything has a starting point somewhere and science and probability will only go so far. When I grew up in the desert I spent plenty of time in the hills, camping, fishing or otherwise enjoying nature. Everytime I continue to go out and see the beauty of the world I think that some force must have created it. Is that a irrational belief?

My point is that ultimately the side with the most evidence will prevail. No amount of church propaganda, torture and inquisition could stop the fact that the Earth rotates around the Sun and not the other way around. Sure, there will be debate in-between (which is a very healthy thing as there is no idea more dangerous to a free mind than group think) but in the end the side with the most evidence will prevail.

Evidence will have not decide this, the individuals will. Faith is that which cannot be proven, and your side will never prove that God does not exist. People will have to look at the evidence and the stories and decide which belief is right for them.

Then one day new evidence could be discovered and destroy everything that we thought we knew. We may never be completely certain about the secrets of the universe but that doesn't mean we can't try. That doesn't mean we can't have a general idea how it works. That doesn't mean we need to entertain fantastical ideas about mythical beings just so we can please others.

And I wouldn't try to stop you.

People always tell me that I belong in another era. I belong in either the Roman Republic or Medieval Europe. I believe in things like honesty, integrity, justice, loyalty, etc. I abhor corruption, lies, back-stabbing, etc. I have extremely high standards for myself and I do not tolerate personal failure.

That should really tell you about the times we live in, when honesty is viewed as a bygone era. I really don't get why people would say that to you. I don't talk that much about the need for honesty and a hatred for corruption, but back home that would be common whenever your in a small town. Of course, when you live in a place where the community is much smaller than the east coast, you tend to be a little kinder in your dealings for the sake of harmony in your neiborhood.

The difference is that I came to choose this life - it wasn't forced upon me. Central to my belief system is the idea of Individuality and the fact that all humans are free. That no one should live for another human being or serve another human being. I simply take this one step further and refuse to serve any mythical being either.

and a living the same life with the acknowledment of God would be forcing something on you? You stated earlier in this thread that someone who breaks their word does not deserve to live. It is your belief that a person should be responsible in how they live that doesn't seem that different from God. He wants people to live clean, responsible lives, and for the wicked who don't, they have their place.

And yet, Theism would have you feel guilty for drinking and going out on the town. Because you aren't completely devoted to your god and serving others. Because you haven't sacrificed your life for the happiness of "others". What others? It doesn't matter - just anyone but you. Religion constantly preaches that you have to live for anyone. Anyone but yourself, of course. You are probably a very good person who is loyal to family, friends and country. Yet that isn't enough. Anything done for "selfish" reasons (drinking and enjoying time with your friends) is evil and should be rejected. Perhaps this all sounds strange to you because you admit not going to Church all the time. That is ultimately what Theism is about - rejecting self and serving only others. That is ultimately what Christ was about. I want nothing to do with that.

And that has never really effected me. I've never felt guilty and I don't feel any shame about not feeling guilt. It is because of that that I'm pretty sure I'll never be that religous. I will do what I feel is right and always strive to better myself. In the end my fate will be decided and I'll be content with whatever may come because I lived as I felt I should.

The problem with me when I was religious though is that I enjoyed doing those things while knowing that they were wrong as according to Christianity.

I'll have to remember when I die to ask how I was not serving God by having a beer on a friday night.

The amount of inner strife that I had as a Christian was overwhelming. I do not suffer anymore though - I am finally free. Yet I am just as devoted to my family, friends and country than I was as a Christian. Nothing else has changed.

It would seem our difference is my indifference. Where religion caused you grief, it guided me and infuenced my moral beliefs. I know I have a tendency towards selfishness, and I could see myself as a dishonest person if it wasn't for growing up in a family that made a point of going to church, of instilling discipline and always setting a example of honesty for me to follow. I'm sorry for your suffering and I hope that someday you'll return to Christianity, but either way I respect you choice.

I'm hoping to have my associates degree here by October, After that I'll look into whatever degree would give me the better options in the future.

OTS/OCS?

Nah, I enjoy working for a living

Good on ya getting your Associates. I'm not sure how the Navy is but the AF is really harping on education right now. The un-written rule is that you won't reach Major without your Masters, won't reach SNCO without Associates/CCAF (Community College of the AF) degree and you won't reach E-9 without a Bachelors.

The Navy is similar. It's a requirement now to have a Associates to make Senior Chief (E-8), and without a Bachelor's degree you'll more than likely never make MasterChief. The command I'm at gives me a ton of free time so I'll try and get as many classes knocked out as I can. I don't see myself getting out of the Navy though, as much as I'd love the money a contractor makes, I prefer the travel and experience the militry continues to give.

Take it easy

-Zach

[cataracts]

Fighting Falcon,
When I was approximately 20 years old, (quite a few years ago), I read all that Ann Rand had. Starting with Atlas Shrugged and then on to the other books. I don't remember the names of those other books. I fell for her hook, line, and sinker. If anything you have fell for her to a much greater degree than I did. It was a gruelling chore to get out of her grip. However, out of her grip I did go. I was totally insufferable to all those around me. I knew it all and good old Ann backed me up with her philosophy. I suggest that you watch those around you and pick up some clues as to how their lives are quite a bit different than yours. I certainly hope that you get out of her clutches.
Cataracts

[FightingFalcon]

Really cataracts? That's amazing - somehow I find it hard to believe that you actually read all of Ayn Rand's works and became an Objectivist when you can't even spell her name nor remember the names of her books...

[cataracts]

Falcon, this is pretty stiff stuff. A man deserves death if he betrays an oath or doesn't keep his word. This unbending and judgemental behavior is just like an atheist. Christianity is much kinder and far more forgiving.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A man who does not keep his word and betrays an oath that he took does not deserve to live. The word of others might not mean much to them, but it means a lot to me. As for self-sacrifice - in the world that I envision, such sacrifice would not be necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesmen of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artefact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said - with passion - "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." We clapped our hands red. No fundamentalist would ever say that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falcon,
Dawkins talks about how his professor thanked the cell biologist from America for setting the professor straight after 15 years of error. Dawkins ends by saying "no fundamentalist would ever say that".
How totally judgemental and falsely superior Dawkins sounds. How does he know what all fundamentalist would say. Typical atheist comment.
May I also say that back when Dawkins was a student, ideology was a much kinder subject than it is now. Even back then, the professor wasn't innocent.

Cataracts