Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Faith

Meet the Atheist Professor Who Brings His Family to Synagogue & Dismisses Atheist Activists’ ‘Anti-Intellectualism’

Oct. 5, 2012 11:00am Billy Hallowell

Dr. Jacques Berlinerblau Speaks Out About Secularism, Atheism & Faith

Photo Credit: Jacques Berlinerblau

It’s not everyday that one meets a non-theist who differentiates himself from the outspoken atheist activist community. It’s even rarer to locate a non-believer who actually attends a house of worship on a regular basis.

However, these are exactly the attributes, among many others, that TheBlaze encountered in Dr. Jacques Berlinerblau, the director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University and the author of the new book, “How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom.”

To say that Berlinerblau’s views are unique is an understatement. While he is Jewish in heritage, the professor considers himself an atheist. When asked to recap when it was that he realized his lack of a belief in a higher power, Berlinerblau said that there was no “epiphany moment.”

On a grander scale, he provided a fascinating background as to why he believes some Jews found themselves, particularly in the post-Holocaust generation, having difficulty embracing God. Considering his own Jewish upbringing with parents who were a part of this cohort, his explanation was fascinating.

“For a lot of Jews in the post-Holocaust generation, atheism was sort of…an easy go to,” Berlinerblau explained. “[Especially] if you had parents who were either survivors or were European and had escaped to another country.”

The professor and author went on to explain that his parents grew up during this time frame and that “folks who grew up in that kind of generation tended to not have parents who too forcefully accentuated God.” While he was careful to distinguish that not all post-Holocaust Jews were non-believers, he noted that the traumatic world event in which millions of individuals were exterminated, made God a difficult concept for some to embrace, particularly in the event’s aftermath.

Berlinerblau connected these themes to his own upbringing in the 1970s.

“Like many Jews of that generation, I had a bar mitzvah,” he explained, going on to say that it was often easier to sell kids in his generation on Jewish culture than it was on God.

Now, remember that tidbit about Berlinerblau attending synagogue? TheBlaze asked him to explain why he still goes to a house of worship, despite actively embracing his non-theism.

“I have a tremendous debt to Judaism, to my parents — to the history,” he explained. “It feels all very very natural. I have children who I want to be Jewish [too].”

Naturally, one wonders how the professor’s world-view is impacted by these divergent ideologies. Specifically, with dueling theological constructs coloring his experience, one ponders which wins out. On the atheism front, Berlinerblau said that non-belief has “very, very little” impact on his worldview.

He then went on to describe how he frames the current breakdown of secularists — a designation that will be helpful to anyone attempting to better understand the atheist frame-of-mind.

Dr. Jacques Berlinerblau (Photo Credit: Twitter)

“I think there’s two general categories of atheists. A lot of American atheists today are like refugees from very severe fundamentalist homes and they believe that these homes were abusive, that there was brainwashing and intolerance in others,” he explained.

For these individuals, the atheist movement is “a place of refuge.” The second group takes a very different stance and finds itself unmoved and uninvolved with the atheist activists’ (the first group) more abrasive tactics.

“There’s another strain…[those] who don’t live their atheism out on their sleeve, because they never had to,” Berlinerblau noted. “They never found religious people to be particularly oppressive or diabolical. The conflicts never occurred probably because they were living in a state of equality with these folks.”

As for this first group, Berlinerblau had some tough words, at least in terms of the tactics they use to progress their non-belief. In the end, he likened some activists’ activities with those embraced by the Christian right in America, claiming that he “sees parallels between the two groups.”

“I’m a Washingtonian. I wouldn’t go about it the same way,” he said of controversial actions taken by secular groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), American Atheists and others. “The courts are moving away from all-out separation. I understand why they (atheists) do what they do — I’ve often asked the same question of the hard, Christian right.”

Citing one example, TheBlaze asked Berlinerblau how he feels about American Atheists’ battle against the Ground Zero cross. The educator’s advice to secularists is to “let it go.”

“There’s no threat of establishment there. Everyone understands many non-believers, Muslims and Jews died there [too],” he said. “I don’t think it’s necessary to get involved in that atheist activism.”

To the chagrin of atheist activists, Berlinerblau also noted the “anti-intellectualism” that some atheist leaders embrace, admitting that, despite being a non-believer, he has been hard on this cohort.

“They don’t understand the history of religion, so they tend to make sweeping generalizations about religion which don’t really pass muster,” he said.

As far as America’s Founding Fathers go, the never-ending debate surrounding whether they were favorable of faith in the public square forges on. As for Berlinerblau, he believes that there are some important determinations to be made on this front. While he claims that there were some concerns among the Founders over federal versus state establishments of religion, it is clear, in his view, that they didn’t want a federal promotion of faith.

“I do think there were quite a few Founders who had no problem with state establishments. Massachusetts had one until 1833,” he proclaimed.

That said, Berlinerblau did note that collusion between state and religion makes him nervous, mainly because religious minorities tend to suffer as a result. Still, he says that these are important issues for secularists to “think through,” specifically when it comes to the state and local level (the majority of atheist activists would argue, though, that state and local government should have no relations with religious sentiment).

In his new book, “How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom,” Berlinerblau discusses many of these issues. Rather than allowing semantics to run amok, the author told TheBlaze that he wants to explain to people that “secularism” isn’t about taking God away from people — and it’s certainly not about persecuting the religious. Instead, it’s about ensuring freedom from and of religion.

And as a surprise factoid, Berlinerblau claims that it’s actually an ideal with roots in Christian lineage. If there were no Protestant Reformation, he claims there would be no secularism. He even refers to the phenomenon as “a protestant invention” and “gift.” Secularism, according to the dictionary, is defined as, “the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of religious element.”

“What I’m trying to explain to Christian folks is that secularism is far from being [foreign],” he explained.

The professor expands the aforementioned definition in the following words and explains how he believes it should be introduced and practiced in public life:

“Secularism is a political philosophy which is preoccupied with and often deeply-suspicious of any and all relations of government and religion. That doesn’t mean strict separationism — that is one strain. There are other ways of being secular.

My personal preference is for a soft separation, not a hard separation. Government argues for accommodation, which is actually a form of secularism. Its argument is that, as long as the state establishes no one religion, it has every right to engage with religion and do so regularly.”

In this way, it is entirely possible to separate atheism and secularism. In fact, Berlinerblau claims that the two ideals don’t share intellectual DNA, as the latter is more about maintaining separation than it is about personal views on the existence of deities. In the end, the professor believes that there are both good and bad religious people; just the same, this dynamic also exists among those who do not embrace a higher power.

“Put it this way — I dont accept the civil Republican premise that religion is an unambiguous good,” he said. “I can see the good in the believer, but I think there’s a lot of moral good in the non-believer as well. I don’t make moral prioritization.”

Be sure to find out more about Berlinerblau and his book, “How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom.”

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (113)

Chatikh
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 7:59pm
Leave Jews out of this, they do not agree with you. They believe you do force your beliefs on others. They do not agree that we are infringing your beliefs. They do not agree with your definition of “Basic Goodness”. And they do not agree that America is founded on Christian principles.

The only governments described by the bible are leadership by “judges” and later “kings”. In the new testament, the government was an empire with a local king (Herod). Even Jesus was “King of the Jews”. So no democracy or republic. Obviously no freedom of religion in the bible. I would count stoning as cruel and unusual punishment. There’s no ability to “amend” the bible like amending the constitution. Basically nothing in our government is based on the bible, except the state amendments that enforce one group’s definition of morality upon a minority group that can’t defend itself (I’ll stop seeing anti-gay amendments as hypocrisy once I see Christians seeking to revoke no-fault divorces). The things we have in common are basic common sense things like outlawing murder and stealing. Even our punishment on rape is different, in the bible the rapist had to marry the woman, pay the daughter 50 shekels, and could never divorce her. But he could rape another woman and get a second wife that way.

So until you can support anything you said with evidence instead of religious text, Jews want nothing to do with you.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- apologies0
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:55pm
  @Chatikh,
  
  Christianity is the worldview responsible for most of the freedoms you enjoy and take for granted today.
  Remove Judeo-Christian history and the world would have been vastly different. Cultures and beliefs didn’t grow through time because people were just less barbaric and “good”, but because they were given GUIDANCE to do what is morally RIGHT by GOD Himself through His revelation to man.
  
  Hinduism, buddhism, islam, naturalism would never have framed America.
  The Declaration of Independence says that “we are all created equal, that it is a self-evident truth and that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
  Hinduism would never have said that, because we are not created equal in Hinduism’s eyes.
  Islam would never have said that, because we don’t have inalienable rights or freedom or autonomy in Islam.
  Naturalism wouldn’t have said that because it doesn’t believe in a Creator!
  
  Everyone takes marriage between one man and one woman for granted and don’t realize that it is something God told us. This was written thousands of years ago and without it, polygamy and all other sorts of relationships would be “permissible”.
  
  The fact is, whether you want to believe in God or not, a simple study of the effect He has had on human history will show that his presence has influenced the world in immeasurable ways and that His absence would have resulted in a world hardly recog
  
  Report this comment
- Pontiac
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 9:27am
  @apologies0
  No, the “Age of Enlightenment” is responsible for most of the freedoms you enjoy and take for granted today.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
  
  [The Declaration of Independence says that “we are all created equal, that it is a self-evident truth and that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”]
  Where in the bible does god endow us unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Where does the “Three Fifths Compromise” come from? Slavery never was condemned in the bible. You’re quick to forget it was “christians” that institutionalized slavery and owned slaves in this country. Slavery is completely condoned if not endorsed by the bible.
  
  [Hinduism would never have said that, because we are not created equal in Hinduism’s eyes.]
  Yet slavery is strictly prohibited in Hinduism.
  
  [Naturalism wouldn‘t have said that because it doesn’t believe in a Creator!]
  Naturalism is a philosophy dealing with the laws of nature. Why would it cover equality? “Philosophy” is the root of equality, not god. “God” is used to snuff out opposing philosophies when someone can’t otherwise verbalize a reason why the opposing philosophy is bad.
  
  [polygamy and all other sorts of relationships would be “permissible”.]
  Oh except for those gay and bestial relationships…
- Joudicca
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 9:47am
  “Jews largely keep to themselves. They don’t try to use deluded reasoning to put their morality into law. That’s why I love Jews. I studied Hebrew for 4 years, went to hillel, I even joined a Jewish fraternity (Alpha Epsilon Pi) and I’m not even a Jew.”
  Very interesting to learn the above about you. Good for you. Just to let you know that I speak Hebrew and thus know what ‘Chatikh’ means. Perhaps you can post a picture of yourself so I can judge whether you are or not…!
  You sound like a really good and pleasant person so I hope you won’t mind if I ask Hashem to Bless You All The Days of Your Life…and Thereafter. Shalom.
  
  Report this comment
- Pontiac
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 10:02am
  Reply eaten?
  @apologies0
  No, the “Age of Enlightenment” is responsible for most of the freedoms you enjoy and take for granted today.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
  
  [The Declaration of Independence says that “we are all created equal, that it is a self-evident truth and that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”]
  Where in the bible does god endow us unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Where does the “Three Fifths Compromise” come from? Slavery never was condemned in the bible. You’re quick to forget it was “christians” that institutionalized slavery and owned slaves in this country and that slavery is completely condoned if not endorsed by the bible.
  
  [Hinduism would never have said that, because we are not created equal in Hinduism’s eyes.]
  Yet slavery is strictly prohibited in Hinduism.
  
  [Naturalism wouldn‘t have said that because it doesn’t believe in a Creator!]
  Naturalism is a philosophy dealing with the laws of nature. Why would it cover equality? “Philosophy” is the root of equality, not god. “God” is used to snuff out opposing philosophies when someone can’t otherwise verbalize a reason why the opposing philosophy is bad.
  
  [polygamy and all other sorts of relationships would be “permissible”.]
  Except for those homosexual and animal relationships…
- Pontiac
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 12:45pm
  @apologies0
  No, the “Age of Enlightenment” is responsible for most of the freedoms you enjoy and take for granted today.
  http://tinyurl.com/a4qak
  
  [“we are all created equal, that it is a self-evident truth and that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”]
  Where in the bible does god endow us unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Where does the “Three Fifths Compromise” come from? You’re quick to forget it was “christians” that institutionalized slavery and owned slaves in this country. Slavery never was condemned in the bible rather slavery is completely condoned if not endorsed by the bible.
  
  [Hinduism would never have said that, because we are not created equal in Hinduism’s eyes.]
  Yet slavery is strictly prohibited in Hinduism.
  
  [Naturalism wouldn‘t have said that because it doesn’t believe in a Creator!]
  Naturalism is a philosophy dealing with the laws of nature. Why would it cover equality? “Philosophy” is the source of equality, not god. “God” is used to snuff out opposing philosophies when someone can’t successfully verbalize a reason why the opposing philosophy is bad.
  
  [polygamy and all other sorts of relationships would be “permissible”.]
  Except for g4y relationships…
  
  3rd post. I don’t really know why this wont go through.
- Pontiaku
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 1:46pm
  @apologies0
  No, the “Age of Enlightenment” is responsible for most of the freedoms you enjoy and take for granted today.
  http://tinyurl.com/a4qak
  
  [“we are all created equal, that it is a self-evident truth and that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”]
  Where in the bible does god endow us unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Where does the “Three Fifths Compromise” come from? You’re quick to forget it was “christians” that institutionalized slavery and owned slaves in this country. Slavery never was condemned in the bible rather slavery is completely condoned if not endorsed by the bible.
  
  [Hinduism would never have said that, because we are not created equal in Hinduism’s eyes.]
  Yet slavery is strictly prohibited in Hinduism.
  
  [Naturalism wouldn‘t have said that because it doesn’t believe in a Creator!]
  Naturalism is a philosophy dealing with the laws of nature. Why would it cover equality? “Philosophy” is the source of equality, not god. “God” is simply used to snuff out opposing philosophies when someone can’t successfully verbalize a reason why the opposing philosophy is bad.
  
  [it is something God told us.]
  No… No it’s not. It is something you believe someone was told by god but simply attributed to an imaginary god to instill fear in ignorant people.
  
  Report this comment
- Deeduck
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 3:22pm
  @Pontiac
  Why did the “Age of Enlightenment” occur in Christianized nations and not elsewhere? Did the founding fathers give credit to the Judeo-Christian worldview for the moral underpinnings of freedom? Of course they did. Any other answer is truly disingenuous. Really. Be honest.
  See, this is the problem. You get a thoughtful post from a Christian and a smug put-down from an Atheist. Disagree by all means but don’t insult people. What gives you the right to judge others as ignorant?
  
  Report this comment
- apologies0
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 4:24pm
  Any honest study of the Bible must acknowledge that man, as God’s special creation, has been blessed with certain “human rights.” Any true student of the Bible will be stimulated toward ideals such as equity and justice and benevolence.
  The Bible says that man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Because of this, man has a certain dignity and was given dominion over the rest of creation (Genesis 1:26).
  
  The Mosaic Law is full of examples of how God expects everyone to be treated humanely. The Ten Commandments contain prohibitions against murder, theft, coveting, adultery, and bearing false testimony. These five laws promote the ethical treatment of our fellow man. Other examples in the Law include commands to treat immigrants well (Exodus 22:21; Leviticus 19:33-34), to provide for the poor (Leviticus 19:10; Deuteronomy 15:7-8), to grant interest-free loans to the poor (Exodus 22:25), and to release all indentured servants every fifty years (Leviticus 25:39-41).
  
  The Bible teaches that God does not discriminate or show favoritism (Acts 10:34). Every person is a unique creation of His, and He loves each one (John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9). “Rich and poor have this in common: / The LORD is the Maker of them all” (Proverbs 22:2). In turn, the Bible teaches that Christians should not discriminate based on race, gender, cultural background, or social standing (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11; James 2:1-4). We are to be kind to all (Luke 6:35-36).
  
  Report this comment
- apologies0
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 4:25pm
  The Bible gives strict warnings against taking advantage of the poor and downtrodden. “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God” (Proverbs 14:31).
  
  Concerning Slavery in the bible:
  Christianity is a worldview that teaches that Human life is SACRED! It does NOT support slavery! The following are 2 examples of great men who were responsible for ending slavery in the British empire and in America:
  
  1) William Wilberforce was a devout Christian who gave his life truly to Christ in 1775. His love for Christ and the truth of Christianity was what led him to so strongly fight against slavery in the British empire. On March 25th 1807, William Wilberforce’s long fight to end slavery resulted in the royal assent to ‘An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade’, which abolished the buying and selling of humans throughout the British Empire. This was after 20 years of struggle and repeated previous defeats of his anti-slavery bills in Parliament. The campaign eventually led to the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833 which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire. Wilberforce died just three days after hearing that the passage of the Act through Parliament was secure.”
  
  2) Martin Luther King Jr., whom I’m sure you’re more familiar with, is one of the icons of today and one of the most prominent leaders of the African-American civil rights movement that eventually outlawed
  
  Report this comment
- apologies0
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 4:26pm
  outlawed racial discrimination.
  Martin Luther King Jr. was a baptist minister! He had given his life to Christ and that’s exactly what fueled his success!
  
  The concept of slavery mentioned in the Bible is not the same as the modern understanding of slavery, such as Africans being captured and forced to work in plantations.
  Remember, this was thousands of years ago. In these times, there were no welfare programs for the poor or other governmental help. So people who could not provide for themselves and their families voluntarily worked as slaves for wealthier people so they could receive food and housing in exchange for labor.
  The Bible’s mentioning of slavery is actually there as GUIDELINES so that slaves were NOT abused and were treated fairly! In fact every mention of slavery in the Bible is to protect the slave and not the owner.
  
  To answer your rebuttals about
  -Hinduism : still they don’t believe in equal rights
  - naturalism, according to wikipedia: is any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses, commonly labeled as supernatural, are either false or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.
  
  Report this comment
- Pontiaku
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 6:35pm
  [Any true student of the Bible will be stimulated toward ideals such as~]
  You could say the same for anyone that studies any philosophy. The christian “golden rule” is about 500 years late seeing as Confucius beat Jesus to it with no knowledge of mosiac law.
  
  [The Mosaic Law is full of examples of how God expects everyone to be treated humanely.]
  By stoning offenders to death? Because that was often what mosaic law called for.
  
  [The Ten Commandments contain prohibitions against murder, theft, coveting, adultery, and bearing false testimony.]
  As is the case with many other religions and nations throughout history far removed from mosiac law.
  http://tinyurl.com/g4ktu (2 pages)
  
  [to grant interest-free loans to the poor]
  Socialism. Wonderful.
  
  [ and to release all indentured servants every fifty years (Leviticus 25:39-41]
  Sorry no, if you cannot be leave your “employer” for 50 years, you’re a “slave”.
  
  Since you like Deuteronomy here’s some more:
  “He that is a eunuch by crushing or mutilation shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.”–Deuteronomy 23:1
  
  “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.
  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.”–Deuteronomy 22:28-29
  
  I could go on about how dysfunctional Deuteronomy is but I think those sum it up nicely.
  
  cont
  
  Report this comment
- Pontiaku
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 6:45pm
  [In fact every mention of slavery in the Bible is to protect the slave and not the owner.]
  “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
  Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money/property.”–Exodus 21:20-21
  IOW you can beat your “servant” as much as you like, just don’t kill them…
  
  [-Hinduism : still they don’t believe in equal rights]
  Neither does Christianity.
  “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”–Ephesians 5:22
  
  The bible and 10 commandments are very contradictory to the constitution. I could go on but this gets VERY tiresome.
  
  Report this comment
- bravjim
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 8:39pm
  I like the way you blow past the system of the judges, which was determined by each family choosing a member, then every group of 10, every group of 50, every group of 100, all the way up to Moses. That is democracy. God then directed them in the law that they were to follow, the basic principle behind each of those laws was to love the Lord your God, who delivered you out of the bondage of Egypt and into the promised land, and the other was to love your neighbor as yourself. It gave specific direction in exactly how to live, and when you walk in those statutes, you walk in His blessings. When you disobeyed the law, you lived under the natural consequences of your sin, until you turned back to God through repentance. His greatest desire is to lead each person in their life, after all, that is what we are created for, to live dependent upon Him, trusting in Him, honoring Him by obeying Him.
  You notice that when they came into the promised land, they had no king, but God was their king. But they would always stray through disobedience, and He would send a great judge after they turned back to ‘God. This was to demonstrate how individuals are to live in obedience to Him, and we still suffer the natural consequences of our sins, and how He would restore when we repented and turned back to Him. That is why the Bible emphasizes belief, trust, and obedience. Sometimes He tells us to do things that we don’t understand in order to test our faith in Him. It’s a test of
  
  Report this comment
- bravjim
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 8:51pm
  trust. And what eventually happened? Israel rejected God as their king, as demonstrated when God told Samuel that it was not him they were rejecting, but God. But He still told them what their king would do, and because they wanted to be like the world, they chose a human king over God. How did that wind up working out for them? Well, when they had a ‘good’ king, who obeyed God, they nation prospered. When they had a bad king, the people wound up suffering.
  Now, perhaps I am wrong, but isn’t that what it appears America is doing right now? First, our courts rejected Him because we appointed judges who had no fear of God. Then they rejected Him from out of our state houses, then out of our townships and public square and schools, and gee, have you noticed the correlation in a certain loss of virtue and morality? I sure have, and it’s really strange because our founding fathers stated boldly that this is exactly what would happen if the people rejected God from out of their minds and hearts and institutions of learning.
  
  Report this comment
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 11:29pm
  Our founders wrote of life liberty and pursuit of happiness while owning other human beings.
  
  Yup, they were right on EVERYTHING…….you people are a riot.
  
  Report this comment
- apologies0
  Posted on October 7, 2012 at 5:45am
  @Pontiaku,
  
  I’m not going to keep arguing with you about this except to say one last thing:
  
  The Bible says that God has written his law into each of our hearts. That is why you and every human being knows deep inside that the 10 commandments are TRUE. That is why we feel guilty when we think of stealing, or committing murder or adultery. Everyone deep inside knows these are truths, but what most don’t realize is that these moral truths require a God (or superior being) to be valid. Otherwise, what possible reason would anyone have to believe these things? Truth to one person would not have to be truth for another. In that way there is no absolute truth, “believe in whatever you want” (which is what is happening today, by the way)
  
  In any case, I’m obviously not going to convince you; you’re set in your beliefs and you’re entirely entitled to that.
  Whatever I say, however logical it is to me, you will deny by looking for another objection.
  The fact you’ve made clear so far is that you don’t like the concept of God or the Bible, you don’t want to answer to anyone, and you know what, that is entirely your choice.
  
  My personal opinion is that unless you know God (Yes, He can be known), then the Bible will make no sense to you, because it reveals His purpose, but how can you understand His purpose if you don’t even know who He is?
  It’s as nonsensical as saying to your girlfriend/boyfriend, I want to marry you, but I don’t want to know anything about you.
  
  Report this comment
- Pontiaku
  Posted on October 7, 2012 at 12:45pm
  http://i50.tinypic.com/2q8vlzc.jpg
  
  Report this comment
Rex Whitmer
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 6:13pm
Once, long ago when I was in my teens, I came to a crisis in my thoughts. “How did God come to be, will he too die? Who or what created him? ” I prayed and fasted long and thought for a time I was suffering a break down. Finally I came to an understanding with myself. “If I believe in God and there is no god, then at life’s end, what have I lost? On the other hand, if there is a God and I do not deport myself properly, then what have I lost. I decided that I had much to lose with the second question over the first, so I remained faithful, and today in my older age, know of an assurity that God does exist and live. Over the years, I have been blessed much beyond my worthyness, and know beyond doubt that God does exist and that he lives and loves me as no mortal can. I also know that the name Father, fits our relationship. Those claiming atheism are my brothers and sisters, but they have no idea of how badly their claims of hurt feelings affect us. We can only pray that THEY will yet one day find their place before HIS throne.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- thinknotrepeat
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 6:56pm
  funny how EVERY atheist activist organization is funded by jews
  
  Report this comment
- Chatikh
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 7:24pm
  You just described Pascal’s wager. If god doesn’t exist, then you have nothing to lose… Well, by being Christian, you’re making an assumption that Allah doesn’t exist. What if you’re wrong? You just wasted your life believing in the wrong religion. What if the right religion is scientology? You spent your whole life believing in the wrong religion. What if the right religion is… etc. So by being Christian, you’re risking your eternal soul that might to go Islam/Mormon hell. By your logic, you should believe in all the religions just in case you’re wrong!
  
  Atheism is just like that, only we see that Christianity is just as unlikely to be the right religion as Islam is. And so I have no problem risking my soul by believing that souls don’t exist period.
  
  Now I’m going to disagree with you when you say, “Those claiming atheism are my brothers and sisters, but they have no idea of how badly their claims of hurt feelings affect us.” I really don’t think it hurts you, or other Christians. Every time I see Christians commenting on the secular world, they’re patting their back by “seeing the truth” despite all the “immorality” and “persecution”. No, I think there is a group that is genuinely being hurt, and it’s not by atheists. Gays are way more likely to kill themselves than the straight population, and it’s not because Satan has turned their blood into petroleum. It’s because there are people who won’t keep their views to themselves. That’s what at
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 8:31pm
  Funny how Jews are members of the only major religion that doesn’t proselytize.
  
  Some Buddhists don’t either, but then Buddhism blurs the line between theology and philosophy–you can basically drop all the metaphysical beliefs attached (in some sects) without changing the core ideas at all. Wicca doesn’t either…but then that’s HARDLY “major” (in a numerical sense–I’m sure Wiccans consider their religion very “major”).
  
  Report this comment
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 11:42pm
  @CHATIKH
  
  I like your post but have one small problem with it.
  
  When describing your viewpoint on the “soul” you said ” I don’t believe souls exists.”
  
  Belief is irrelevant here. There has been no proof that a soul does exist, so the only “belief” that is required is if you “believe” a soul exists.
  
  Once a soul is PROVEN to exist, you no longer need to “believe” it.
  
  Therefore, belief is utterly irrelevant and a hinder on human understanding.
  
  Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 6:11pm
““Put it this way — I dont accept the civil Republican premise that religion is an unambiguous good,” he said. “I can see the good in the believer, but I think there’s a lot of moral good in the non-believer as well. I don’t make moral prioritization.””
The sin of religion is not that its followers are especially virtuous or vile people–its fatal flaw is that it is an egregious affront to the uniquely human birthright, and the ONLY known method of judging veracity, of logical reasoning. Such a challenge is a challenge to the very foundation of how we come to know and believe things as true versus false. And as a result, though it NEED NOT BE destructive per se, it is ALWAYS deeply dangerous. Because it does not “play by the rules” of debate on objective matters of truth and falsehood, it cannot “lose” the debate–it makes claims that are outside the realm of challenge, and this is not something laudable as many have taken it, rather it means religion also cannot “win” the debate either, the belief of many contrariwise notwithstanding. It removes itself FROM the debate by making claims undebatable (because they are unverifiable), and should be treated accordingly.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- bravjim
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 8:54pm
  The only problem with your premise is that you seem to think that believing in a religion is a sin because it removes the human birthright of reason. This is a complete and total fallacy. I myself don’t believe in a religion, I believe in God. I believe that He is the one who created the universe, along with the earth and everything there in. I believe that as our Creator, He used the laws of nature to help govern the world. These laws range from mathematics to chemistry to the laws of physics to the laws of human nature. But because we are born ignorant of these laws, He gives us our parents to begin instructing us, and then He gives us His word to instruct us further, and then He gives us His Spirit to lead us into all truth, all wisdom, and all understanding. It is from there that our reason comes into play, as the Holy Spirit guides our reason to the truth. By walking in obedience to God’s word, and His Holy Spirit, it produces harmony within our society. Failure to walk in these precepts, however leads to, well, human history. Humans are fallible creatures, but they are all created equal, all are endowed with certain rights, and those rights can only be maintained and protected as we obey God’s precepts and meet our obligations to God and to man. When we walk in obedience, it leads to blessings, and when we disobey, it leads to correction. When we fail to obey, it winds up leading to oppression.
  
  Report this comment
- Deeduck
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 11:21am
  @bravjim
  Beautifully written, succinct Truth. Thank you.
  
  Report this comment
- acidovorax
  Posted on October 7, 2012 at 8:09pm
  BRAVEJIM wrote: “But because we are born ignorant of these laws, He gives us our parents to begin instructing us,”
  
  So where did our parents get the knowledge they instruct us with?
  
  Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 6:02pm
“And as a surprise factoid, Berlinerblau claims that it’s actually an ideal with roots in Christian lineage. If there were no Protestant Reformation, he claims there would be no secularism. He even refers to the phenomenon as “a protestant invention” and “gift.” Secularism, according to the dictionary, is defined as, “the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of religious element.””
True, religious schism within Christianity was the major animus behind secularism.

On the other hand, secularism wouldn’t be NECESSARY in the first place, if there were no religion.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The Third Archon
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 5:55pm
““I do think there were quite a few Founders who had no problem with state establishments. Massachusetts had one until 1833,” he proclaimed.”
They also didn’t have a problem with compromising on the ownership of other human beings as chattels–they’re HARDLY paragons of moral authority to look to for guidance.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- bravjim
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 10:35pm
  “They also didn’t have a problem with compromising on the ownership of other human beings as chattels–they’re HARDLY paragons of moral authority to look to for guidance”
  
  What a weak argument. The fact that they there was slavery, even thought it was opposed by a majority of our founding fathers, it was all based upon the laws of Great Britain. The fact that the majority of the states immediately upon separation abolished slavery in their states is all the proof that you need. The fact that the states most reliant upon slavery as their means of economic stability kept it around doesn’t prove that all of our founding fathers liked it. This is one of those issues that most of the founding fathers regretted not being able to put a stop to it, including Jefferson and Washington, both of whom inherited their slaves and were prevented from releasing them by the laws of Great Britain and then later by Virginia law. Washington found a loophole by granting them freedom upon the death of Martha within his will, Virginians then proceeded to close that loophole, preventing Jefferson from following suit. If you think that it is an issue that should have been handled by the Constitution, remember the situation they were facing. The union was on the verge of breaking apart, and the south would have never signed any constitution abolishing slavery altogether. They did everything they could to bring it to an end (3/5ths clause), but even that was countered with the Missouri
  
  Report this comment
VS
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 5:38pm
No matter what we say to nonbelievers it will Never change Their View on this Issue!
So smile and walk away!
If we live Our Own Lives as best as we can it is Our Silent Testiment to Our Beliefs and this is what sways nonbelivers!
I will not try to force my Beliefs on them and I Will NOT ALLOW THEM to Infringe On MINE!!
The US Was Founded on Chrisitian Beliefs and Nothing can change the Reality of that …nor should WE ALLOW that Basic Goodness to be Changed or Altered!
We have allowed other religions into the US now however we have people trying to deny Christians and Jews the freedom to worship and to be recognized!!
This is NOT ACCEPTABLE!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 5:59pm
  “No matter what we say to nonbelievers it will Never change Their View on this Issue!”
  What a hilarious, and deliciously ironic, thing to say for one who identifies as a faith-based “Believer”.
  
  Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 5:10pm
““There’s another strain…[those] who don’t live their atheism out on their sleeve, because they never had to,” Berlinerblau noted. “They never found religious people to be particularly oppressive or diabolical.”
No, just gullible and prone to irrational decision-making on the basis of unfounded beliefs–that’s all. But if you don’t think that’s a danger to human welfare, then no big deal; it’s all the same.
“The conflicts never occurred probably because they were living in a state of equality with these folks.””
A state of equality, which only exists in SOME parts of the world, established in SPITE of a long, long, LONG human history of religiously motivated violence and domination by religions against those of differing religious persuasions. And a state of equality which is not absolute either now, nor in the past (Salem witch trials, anyone? How many “Christian Fundamentalist trials” have there been in American history?).

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- acidovorax
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 5:21pm
  ARCHON wrote: “A state of equality, which only exists in SOME parts of the world, established in SPITE of a long, long, LONG human history of religiously motivated violence and domination by religions against those of differing religious persuasions.”
  
  I believe that the professor is speaking about America, not other countries.
  
  “And a state of equality which is not absolute either now, nor in the past (Salem witch trials, anyone? How many “Christian Fundamentalist trials” have there been in American history?).”
  
  Undoubtedly such events did occur in the past, but given the recent environment of religious freedom, I would argue that we have far more equality, relative to such times. And undoubtedly not freely accepted by many religious individuals, who probably were drug into our current state kicking and screaming. Absolute equality? Not really a possibility under a State, seeing as such restrictions ebb and flow depending on the whim of the voters and elected officials.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 5:39pm
  America isn’t exactly innocent of such things either. Whether it’s things like the Salem Witch trials, the imposition of Puritanical (literally, the Puritans, a religious sect which came to America FOR the purposes of “religious purity”, not freedom for ALL, freedom for THEM) moral sensibilities as law, or the more recent codifications based upon theological moral sensibilities criminalizing things like sodomy (really though, only homosexual sodomy was what was prosecuted most often) laws against which have been around and charged against individuals as late as 1998 (see Lawrence v. Texas), and the current practice of preventing homosexuals who wish to marry from doing so, again on religious grounds.
  
  So these (a sampling only–not exhaustive by any means) practices of religious inequity are hardly insignificant or ancient history. Moreover, they AREN’T impossible to solve–one merely must support and believe in the necessity of a secular public government that respects and enforces the justified rights of ALL equally, REGARDLESS of religious persuasion, and is free (hence secular) from either control from ecclesiastics, and refuses to legislative on the SOLE basis of theological tenets and/or beliefs.
  
  Report this comment
acidovorax
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 4:39pm
The title is misleading, as it attempts to insinuate ALL atheist activism as “anti-intellectual”, which the professor does not claim.

“To the chagrin of atheist activists, Berlinerblau also noted the “anti-intellectualism” that some atheist leaders embrace, admitting that, despite being an atheist, he has been hard on this cohort.

“They don’t understand the history of religion, so they tend to make sweeping generalizations about religion which don’t really pass muster,” he said.”

Key word is SOME. This same argument is equally accurate for SOME religious activists.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ROCKETSMOM
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 4:34pm
SEEMS TO ME, AS AN OLDER WOMAN….that the males that claim atheism for themselves have one thing VERY MUCH IN COMMON…..THEY TO A MAN, SOUND LIKE BOYS IN DESPERATE NEED OF A FATHER…..or more to the point….THE ETERNAL FATHER…..

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
mmcdole
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 4:14pm
This will be my first post on the Blaze… I am frequently labeled an atheist but I don’t consider myself such. I don’t disbelieve in a higher power of any kind, nor do I specifically believe in one. I lack the faith to wholly embrace something I cannot see, hear, feel, or otherwise come in contact with.

That said I was raised in a Lutheran church, and attended until my early twenties, long after I had already come to terms with my lack of faith. I am now a father of two and my elder daughter who is nearly five attends Sunday school with her Grandmother every week. Her mother (also an agnostic) and I will continue to ensure both of our kids attend church until such time as they are old enough to make the decision to attend on their own (see also: when they are no longer under our roof.)

People like the gentleman mentioned in the article are probably more common than many people think, and in my experience quite common within the Jewish culture. They, like many of us, recognize that most religions are not in the business of subjugating individuals but liberating them, despite what a few posters here seem to think. Putting resources into one’s church isn’t paying into a business. It’s ensuring that something you appreciate continues to operate, not unlike union workers paying dues.

Whether an individual finds faith or not is irrelevant in my opinion, the teachings of the Bible are paramount to the foundation of good moral individuals and societies.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ROCKETSMOM
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 4:24pm
  WELCOME…..have you been following this room for a while?
  
  Report this comment
- mmcdole
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 6:42pm
  Been reading since about the start of the year, started listening to Beck when I started working out here, talk radio station back home didn’t carry his show.
  
  Report this comment
- ToddH
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 1:36am
  Your kids might see your lack of attendance with them as hypocrisy and they may resent it. I hated how my father always slept through church and then asked me later what the sermon was about. I wondered why he dragged me out of my comfortable bed each week to go if all he planned to do there was sleep. Both my parents stopped attending the minute I left home. I thought that spoke volumes about what they truly believed. I felt lied to.
  If church is “just for the kids”, then yes you are raising atheists. They will quickly dismiss that which their parents clearly think is rubbish, and they’ll wonder why you ever wanted them to believe it. I appreciate the church too and fully understand what you are saying that it is a valuable asset in our community in that it teaches morals and values, but many of these churches also teach children to worry about the “unsaved”, in this case your children will be taught to worry about your soul, especially if they get the idea you don’t believe in this stuff.
  Of course: it all depends. You may not be sending them to THAT type of church. Jews who are atheists/agnostics attend synagogue as an appreciation of their traditions, but some of those synagogues and rabbis are pretty secular.
  For them, it truly is all about tradition.
  
  Report this comment
- Deeduck
  Posted on October 6, 2012 at 11:28am
  I hope you feel welcome here. You may find yourself fired upon from both sides however. Don’t give up. ;)
  As I said to a poster above, without the underpinnings of Truth going to Church is not of much use. Swimming in the ocean doesn’t make me a fish, it just gets me wet. The fundamental transformation has not occurred. Faith comes from the inside out. You will feel the pulling of God’s spirit like a small longing. Reject it, drown it out, ignore it and it will go away. God forces himself on no one. That would be spiritual rape. Many of the vocal atheists here seem to want God to do that in order to prove his existence, but then, of course, they would scream that God is a rapist. Sigh!
  
  Report this comment
- mr.goodvibe
  Posted on October 7, 2012 at 11:37am
  Welcome to the Blaze, I think your point of view on this subject is very close to mine and very well articulated. Grew up in a Catholic houshold and enjoyed the experience, gave me a good moral compass, one that I try to pass on to my children, they read the bible and we talk about the stories and the lesson to be learned from them.
  
  Report this comment
Cavy2see
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 3:34pm
I am a Catholic I seek God at all times…sometimes it is easy…sometimes hard…depending on what has happened to me…I am not a sick person…as some athietists seek to make me…I love something I cannot see or hear…who doesn’t the air we breath we should love it but we do not see it…the love people give us we do not see the word love about their person or written in the air…they give it to us…freely…so we should take God’s love freely…praying doesn’t hurt anyone’s soul/mind…with so much pain in the world today…love and praying is a good thing to do…God Bless…one day we will see…I read my bible and pray and go to mass…Peace will then be ours to know…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Chatikh
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 7:09pm
  One can take air, put it into a container, apply so much pressure that the gasses turn to liquid, and then we would be able to see air. We could then possibly apply the liquid to our skin, and we’d be feeling the burning sensation of freezing liquid air. One cannot take god, put him in a container, and make him visible. You can’t use him to save a person dying of malaria. You can’t use him to stop murderers. Even if he does exist, he is useless.
  
  A pro-christianity pseudoscience organization called “The Templeton Foundation” did a study on healing using prayer. They found people who were about to undergo cardiac bypass surgery, and divided them into three groups: One who were prayed for and weren’t told if they were being prayed for. The second group were being prayed for and were told they were being prayed for. The last group was not prayed for, but were told that they might or might not be prayed for.
  
  If prayer actually works, the two groups who were being prayed for should have had better outcomes than the group not receiving prayer. What actually occurred was that the group that was being prayed for but didn’t know it and the group who was not being prayed for had virtually identical chance of complications. Not only that but 59%(!!!) of those who were told they were being prayed for had complications. Being told they were being prayed for made it worse.
  
  Prayer doesn’t work. Spend your Sundays helping the poor. Give your tithe to charities instead. Do so
  
  Report this comment
woulddragon
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 3:25pm
When I first saw this article’s headline, I nearly fell out of “my” chair and yelped ‘WHAT?’ Then, I thought that it must have been some bizarre misprint. I can just “see” and “hear” Madalyn Murry-O’**** and Christopher Hitchens spinning (and fuming and fulminating) in their (presumptively unmarked) graves, screaming: WAIT UNTIL WE GET THAT !@#$%^&*`~ SO-AND-SO, WE’LL LET HIM HAVE IT!”

Who’s up for a plateful of irony with a side of fries? ;)

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Cavy2see
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 3:40pm
  funny words can hurt…so much…that is why we have the 10 commandments to keep our minds on the good…we were given freedom of choice from God…but some cannot see it…He wants us to be with Him…not against…that is love…Jesus died for us that is not a myth…I always say not too many people come back after death the real one…from pain of illness to trade to come back to the illness…it is their time to go…no one should rush them along…God wants them home that is all…be good folks we shall know one day…religions are made of people we all kind of goof up from time to time…
  
  Report this comment
Elena2010
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 3:19pm
One day, should the Lord Jesus tarry, there will be a festival like Purim for the Holocaust. While the Holocaust destroyed the bulk of Judaism in Europe, it also permitted Jews to leave Exile for the Holy Land.

Purim, for those who don’t know, commemorates the Jews surviving a monster named Haman who wished to kill them all. Hitler failed in his ridiculous quest to kill all the Jews, too. Instead, he destroyed his own country and military culture.

So one day the Jews will again say: Ha! Ha! Missed again! The LORD put you who seek our deaths to shame.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
fcbs46
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 2:24pm
I believe(feel ) that there maybe a God like being but I think that it is probably a myth. I go each weekend to church with my believing wife but I think that the magic invocations are the churches effort to please the people . I know some priests think (not feel) the same way. So I say leave the real believers alone and spent the time examining ourselves and trying to make this world a greater and better place. With or without religion. Amen according to Me.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- scarebear83
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 3:35pm
  What made you come to this conclusion if I may ask?
  
  Report this comment
- ReasonableDem
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 4:15pm
  Here you go, FCBS. Take a look at the writings of Dr. William Lane Craig, a man who has debated all of the great atheist thinkers of his day. Both Hitchens and Harris admitted that before debating him, their atheist professor colleagues had emailed them nervously and wished them good luck and to “make them look good” out there, due to his reputation of, well, making atheists look bad in the debate circuit. And do you want to know why? (I’m looking at you Archon and JohnBoston)
  
  Because just as you all contend that many theists conflate oft-repeated beliefs or inductive reasoning with empirical proof, so do atheist scientists put their conclusions before their hypotheses in matters that have anything to do with a “higher power” and frequently committing the logical fallacy known as petitio principii. When you see atheist physicists and cosmologists drawing (unsound) philosophical conclusions based on scientific findings or extrapolating beyond what the data will bear, or suggesting workarounds which egregiously violate occam’s razor, you realize that everyone operating in the furthest, most abstract corners of human understanding is making unjustified logical leaps. Did any of you gents seriously read The God Delusion? Are the scientists who still cling to the coattails of a past-eternal universe aware of the Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem? Wishful thinking is everywhere, my friends, and a good thinker, whether atheist or theist, owes it to himself to call it like he see
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 5:51pm
  Firstly, there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between making a mistake of reasoning or judgment of veracity (what you claim atheists and certain scientists do), and having NO respect or care for these principles (i.e. logic) TO BEGIN WITH (what theology does). Theology makes no ATTEMPT to find any premises upon which its propositions can reasonably stand–they simple claim them, and demand that they be accepted, usually on the basis of a, fallacious, appeal to authority (yes, it is tautologous to call an appeal to authority fallacious–but since that’s clearly not understood by everyone it bears making explicit).
  Secondly, ALL empiricism is probabilistic–an exercise of INDUCTIVE not DEDUCTIVE reasoning. You seem to believe that anything short of certainty is not “reasoning” but that’s not what reasoning consists of, either in whole or by majority. Reasoning certainly consists in concluding that that which MUST, of necessity, be true IS in fact true–but it also consists in making an assumption of truth for that which is most PROBABLY true in view of the evidence. And ALL empirical science consists in this, specifically BECAUSE science does not, a priori, know the logical rules governing the phenomena it observes–that is precisely what it attempts to probe. Only logical abstractions can be CERTAIN truth. Simply the POSSIBILITY of being mistaken is NOT in and of itself a fault–it’s how one manages that possibility that may be blameworthy.
  
  Report this comment
Individualism
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 12:36pm
I am an Atheist and i understand what religion tries to do but the way to get people away from religion is for harsh reality to smack them in the face like a tough economy. in the meantime you can profit off their needs cause religion is a business to.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 1:04pm
  Tell that to the guy in the foxhole.
  
  Report this comment
- Pontiac
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 1:24pm
  [Tell that to the guy in the foxhole.]
  If you’re so inclined to think about such things in a foxhole then you have plenty of time to get yourself shot in the process.
  
  Report this comment
- louie louie
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 1:37pm
  Getting “smacked” by a tough economy helps separate the sheep from the goats. Either it will harden your heart against God or it will humble you and make you realize your dependence on God and your need for repentance. It will either cause you to hate God and abandon him, or it will encourage you to love God and move closer to him. But hating God is not the same as disbelieving in him. A teen who is mad at his parents may ignore them, stop speaking to them, and pretend they don’t exist. But he does that out of anger, not because he no longer believes they exist. By the same token, if you think you are getting back at God by proclaiming your atheism, it’s not because you don’t believe God exists, it’s because you’re angry at him. Many of the in-your-face atheists are clearly in the “angry with God” category.
  
  Report this comment
- circleDwagons
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 2:51pm
  i find it very sad. True Christians seek GOD. it is a personal relationship with God that is important Not Religion. Pray that these athesits hear God. Love and Liberty. God so loved the world that He gave….
  
  Report this comment
- acidovorax
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 4:48pm
  INDIVIDUALISM wrote: “I am an Atheist and i understand what religion tries to do but the way to get people away from religion is for harsh reality to smack them in the face like a tough economy.”
  
  As an agnostic, I have no desire to proselytize anyone. It is not my desire, nor goal, to “get people away” from their beliefs. If we discuss the issue, it is simply to present my opinion.
  
  Report this comment
fire_fighter557
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 12:35pm
Feel free to spread this around:

Atheism + Objective Thinking = Agnostic (by default)

There is no such thing as a true atheist as none of them can disprove the possibility of God….which of course makes them reluctant agnostics, but NOT atheists. Usually they just hate bad religious people OR they directly hate God for not giving them the sinful things that they want. So they call themselves atheists and go to war like wicked men….I should know, I used to be one of them.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- diverdan
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 12:50pm
  Well said.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 1:09pm
  It’s not the existence of God that atheists take issue with and/or “seek to disprove”–it’s the great myriad of, contradictory both within and between religions), assertions humans make ABOUT the existence and nature of God. THAT is what CAN be objectively examined, and THAT is why they are called a-THEIST, as in the root of THEOLOGY (what is SAID about God), not a-DEISTS which deals with the broader metaphysical question of DEISM (the ontological status of “God” or “Gods”). True, given the nature of the question it would seem to be impossible to be any more certain than agnosticism on the question of DEISM, but this does THEISTS no good, because they make logically fatal claims that are PREMISED upon a positive assertion that they CANNOT seem to make given any evidence available to humans (i.e. that God exists, something they can no more positively affirm, than atheists can positively deny). Thus while some of what they claim MAY (or may not) be true, they have no logical basis to form a JUDGMENT about the veracity of its metaphysical claims, and examining the internal logical structure of claims made be various religions, one finds substantial grounds (in the form of contradictory assertions) to doubt that even if SOME of their claims MAY be true (again, speculating since no proof has been offered, in many cases COULD be offered it would seem), ALL of them CERTAINLY are not. Hence, atheism is on very firm grounds to call theists on their ********.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 1:16pm
  That’s ALL atheism is–nothing more, nothing less.
  
  Report this comment
- Chatikh
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 6:44pm
  Well I was only kind of disagreeing with you until I read this, “OR they directly hate God for not giving them the sinful things that they want.”
  
  This makes me believe that you have never been an atheist, because only religious people make the argument that atheists “hate god.” One cannot hate something which one does not believe exists. This is an absolutely ridiculous statement, and I really wonder why it continues to be propagated, because anyone who can think rationally and logically can dispute it in a second. I am sincerely worried about anyone who actually believes that atheists “hate god”, because I wonder what else they don’t think about.
  
  And yes, it is impossible to disprove the existence of god. But the burden of proof is on followers of religion, to prove that god exists. This is how science works, and dismissing the idea that things should be believed simply because there’s no evidence to disprove it is one of the things that makes modern science so successful.
  
  So no, atheists can’t disprove god. But they can reduce the likelihood of the existence of a deity so much that the likelihood of the existence of god is about the same as the tooth-fairy or leprechauns. And no, little people don’t count as leprechauns.
  
  Report this comment
- Grubmeister
  Posted on October 8, 2012 at 2:13pm
  It depends upon how you define atheism. If atheism requires proof that god does not exist then you are correct. No Atheist could deliver the goods. If you define atheism as a lack of belief in a god then you are incorrect. In this case, even agnostics are atheist. It is unfortunate that no solid definitions of atheism (or agnosticism) have been settled upon. It would clear up quite a few misconceptions.
  BTW, I personally define atheism as a lack of belief in a god. I reject the definition of agnosticism that states it is impossible to answer the question as to whether god exists. I believe it is an error to state the limits of knowledge. I would prefer to consider myself an agnostic on the grounds that I lack proof to support either atheism or theism. I have had no personal experience of a god. I cannot intellectually demonstrate the existence of a god. I therefore do not believe in a god so I consider myself atheist.
  Having a bad attitude because I didn’t get everything I wanted Xmas morning has nothing to do with my atheism. Because I have no hangups about god, I do not have the bad boy syndrome. I do not want to do everything I’m told not to just because it’s fun to break the rules. That is for children.
  
  Report this comment
momrules
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 12:15pm
I think there two types of atheists. There are the ones that for whatever reason do not believe in a God. There is no hatred in there hearts for Him. There is just no belief.

Then there the active, militant atheists such as those in the FFRF. I think those are people who do believe in God as much as I do but they hate Him as much as I love Him.

Their constant battles to have Him removed from public view, the derision, the profane and blasphemous language they use toward Him denotes hatred, not unbelief.

I’m sure they would argue against my opinion but it makes sense to me. One does not hate something they do not believe in.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- johnboston
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 12:32pm
  You are confused.
  
  We “militant” atheists don’t hate god. We hate his followers who seek to justify they desire to limit the rights of others based on their antiquated fables. We hate his followers who seek to deny people the right to do to their bodies as they see fit based on the “teachings” of 2,000 year old stories.
  
  See, if you thesists simply kept your personal relationship with god personal then you would never hear from us “militant” atheists.
  
  Report this comment
- Individualism
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 12:34pm
  to simplify it for you there are radicals in every group and mostly normal people in every group.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 12:36pm
  Look, his story is one of many in the Jewish community, but his use of the Holocaust is misleading. Both Moses Hess and Karl Marx preceded the Holocaust by over a hundred years. Both were of rabbinic ancestry. The secular Jew was not uncommon, nor was it historically uncommon for Jews to become chameleons. Dates back to the 14th century: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10388-marano
  
  Rabbi Sherwin Theodore Wine simply organized these cultural changers in 1963.
  
  Report this comment
- pdw
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 12:36pm
  Like all religions there are also Jews who study their scriptures because they believe it is a good social lesson but do not believe in God nor the resurrection. Years ago a friend of ours was asked to teach a lesson in their synagog. He did not know what to teach so he chose Adam and Eve. While teaching the class they started to laugh so he asked them. That was when they told him they only believed the scriptures were only a good social lesson on how to live their lives.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 12:50pm
  The Talmud like the Qur’an is both religious and secular.
  
  Report this comment
- Swimming-with-the-Sharks
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 1:32pm
  @JOHNBOSTON > Based on your previous diatribe you would seem to be more of an anarchist, a person who believes that doing anything he wants is perfect freedom; and laws withing society derived from religious underpinnings is being oppressed. The truth is people can already do what they want with their lives and bodies. It is called “free agency”, the right to choose. So your argument falls weak at that point.
  
  It was God who showed us how to have freedom, safety, health, and civilization all at the same time. The ten commandments are the template (even if you only observe the last five). I know that you don’t believe this and you see lifestyles and laws based on religious precepts as further oppression. But the day will come when you will see clearly
  
  And your defense will be indefensible.
  
  Report this comment
- jman-6
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 1:37pm
  You exposed what she said-you have hatred towards the faithful! See we actually understand that your hatred is really toward GOD so you naturally attack us! See GOD warned us that remember they hated Me first so they will hate us also as we are not over our master!
  
  Report this comment
- tzion
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 6:31pm
  @Jerk
  This Jew isn’t what I’d call secular. To be precise, he isn’t secular in the sense that he is non-practicing. He follows Judaism but doesn’t believe in G-d. That may sound strange to many Christians but it is actually not that unusual. Judaism is a cultural as well as religious system.
  
  In comparison, I seriously doubt that Marx even thought of himself as a Jew and Hess probably didn’t even show up in synagogue for Yom Kippur (when all the “once-a-year Jews”, as we call them, show up). To compare them to this guy is like comparing green apples to red ones: they may look similar on the outside but they taste quite different.
  
  Report this comment
rosegrower
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:58am
Mr. Berlinerblau reminds me of a joke I heard about the son of an atheist who asks his father, “Why do you go to synagogue when you don’t believe in God?”
The father answered, “You know Greenbaum? He goes to shul every Friday and talks to God.”
The son said, “Yeah, but why do YOU go?”
Father answered, “I go to talk to Greenbaum.”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- blackyb
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 12:08pm
  Many people, Jews, included are a part of this Marxist machine that is playing out in this country. They have their people in every aspect of American life. This Obama thing in the presidency was not a singular event. This is a progressive disease. It is where it is now and at a high stage of danger to the Republic. The media is owned by the left to keep people from getting the truth where they can fight this malignant thing that is taking hold in this country.
  
  Report this comment
Zer0
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:43am
I know plenty of atheists that are not associated with these bigoted douchebags who are at perpetual war with people of faith.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- johnboston
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 12:51pm
  Then what you’re really saying is that you’re friends with lots of atheists who lack conviction of their own beliefs to combat the daily assault of Christian theistic dogma into our personal lives.
  
  If Christians don’t want to marry members of their same sex that’s great for them but they have absolutely zero freaking right demanding that others are not free to make that choice.
  
  Unless Christians who demand an immediate cease of abortions are ready, willing and able to adopt and care for all the unwanted kids in this country then they need to shut the hell up.
  
  Your “atheist” friends may be willing to live in a country where scientific advancement is slowed by theistic idiocy and where scientific fact is taught alongside religious superstition but I certainly am not.
  
  Your friends may be willing to live in a theocracy but I certainly am not.
  
  Report this comment
- Chatikh
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 7:35pm
  Jews largely keep to themselves. They don’t try to use deluded reasoning to put their morality into law. That’s why I love Jews. I studied Hebrew for 4 years, went to hillel, I even joined a Jewish fraternity (Alpha Epsilon Pi) and I’m not even a Jew.
  
  Christians and Muslims both use their numbers to impose restrictions on gays, the only support they have being their religious texts. The only difference between the two is that Muslims will kill gays. Christians just create an environment where gays kill themselves. The hands of Christians and Muslims are dirty because of this.
  
  Report this comment
jlancecombs
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:40am
I’m an atheist. I still don’t attend church, but I defended my local courthouse for having the ten commandments displayed. I don’t respect the “atheists” who denigrate religion, whom have become so dogmatic about their anti-theism that they can no longer truly be called atheist anyway. They have invented a new religion to replace the old.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DetritusScreener
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:49am
  I think there are many of us out here but you would never know it. Just the way it is supposed to be. To each his own as long as you are not hurting others.
  
  Report this comment
- MrButcher
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:54am
  Ditto here.
  
  I can’t stand these fundamentalist Atheists. They are anti-free-thought and anti-free-expression.
  
  Report this comment
- red1
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 2:19pm
  I am an atheist also and I don’t find Berlinerblau’s views unique at all because they are the same as mine. I battle with these anti-intellectual atheist activists all the time. Their claim is always that their beliefs are based on science and reason, but I rarely find them to be reasonable. I was debating one a few days ago over some quotes he attributed to the Founding Fathers that he claimed showed they did not believe in God. I looked up his quotes and found that in one the person was saying the opposite of what he claimed and in another the person had never said what he claimed.
  
  The truth is that atheism is not what motivates these people. They are Leftists and they are willing to abandon reason and make things up to further their Leftism.
  
  Report this comment
- acidovorax
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 6:14pm
  RED wrote: “I am an atheist also and I don‘t find Berlinerblau’s views unique at all because they are the same as mine. I battle with these anti-intellectual atheist activists all the time. Their claim is always that their beliefs are based on science and reason, but I rarely find them to be reasonable.”
  
  So you are saying that your atheism is based on irrationality?
  
  “The truth is that atheism is not what motivates these people. They are Leftists and they are willing to abandon reason and make things up to further their Leftism.”
  
  And your evidence for this is?
  
  Report this comment
- red1
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 7:18pm
  ACIDOVORAX: So you are saying that your atheism is based on irrationality?
  
  No, I was saying that the activist athiests are dishonest and often irrational, to the point that they often reject obvious truths that contradict their position. My atheism is based on only one thing: I do not believe in God.
  
  My evidence is only my experience. I have been an atheist for 40 years, I understand their arguments, and I debate them often. I understand their arguments so well because I once agreed with them. I matured. Their arguments didn’t. If you want some proof, I offer the posts made by the atheists here. I assume most of us are conservatives and it appears that most of us agreed with Berlinerblau. If you want to find athiests who disagree with Berlinerblau, you might want to read a liberal site. As I said, those people are Leftists.
  
  Report this comment
termyt
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:27am
Finally a hint of reason.

This is what a secular society needs to look like. It is not the absence of all religion in the public square. It is the acknowledgement of many different faiths (including non-belief) that share the space without on getting preference over the other.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation and others like them are not secular. They push for the supremacy of their belief system as much as other religions do. They aim to make Atheism the state religion.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- johnboston
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 12:37pm
  So let me see if I’ve got this straaight.
  
  I’m pretty sure that you would agree that displaying the 10 commandments in public is acceptable.
  How about some of the holy prayers from Islam? Would that also be okay?
  How about some of the holy icons from buddhism, hinduism and the dozen or so other religions out there?
  
  I mean, you said we have to acknowledge ALL The different faiths so just stop and think of the cost associated with that. Besides having a Christmas display there would have to be a Hannukah display, an Muslim display, a Winnac display, a Hindi display, etc.
  
  No. Far better to keep religion personal and out of the public square.
  
  Far cheaper too.
  
  Report this comment
- bravjim
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 10:14pm
  “Such a challenge is a challenge to the very foundation of how we come to know and believe things as true versus false. And as a result, though it NEED NOT BE destructive per se, it is ALWAYS deeply dangerous. Because it does not “play by the rules” of debate on objective matters of truth and falsehood, it cannot “lose” the debate–it makes claims that are outside the realm of challenge, and this is not something laudable as many have taken it, rather it means religion also cannot “win” the debate either, the belief of many contrariwise notwithstanding. It removes itself FROM the debate by making claims undebatable (because they are unverifiable), and should be treated accordingly.And as a result, though it NEED NOT BE destructive per se, it is ALWAYS deeply dangerous. Because it does not “play by the rules” of debate”
  
  You can debate all you want, the truth will stand as the truth. You can argue for a lie, you can argue for the truth, but you are only right when you are arguing for the truth. You can claim that 2 + 2 = 5 all day long, but as long as I have the ability to add and subtract, your argument will continue to be false. To argue that standing on the truth is dangerous is a ridiculous statement. And just because you state that religion is unverifiable doesn’t mean that it is. The existence of God is verifiable if one studies science from an objective point of view, recognizing that the laws of nature come from somewhere. They don’t just h
  
  Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:20am
Twisted, but he is certainly welcome to his own views. At least he is not rabid like so many other atheist who want all life and laws to be their way, and their way only.
Not to worry everybody. NAVIN, THE_JERK will be along in a moment to make matters even worse.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- johnboston
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 12:38pm
  “At least he is not rabid like so many other atheist who want all life and laws to be their way, and their way only.”
  
  You mean like the Christians who want American life their way and no other way? You know, like the majority of Christians who want Creationism taught as scientific fact and want to be able to dictate what woman are able to do with their bodies.
  
  Oh! Let’s also not forget that these are the same people who want to be able to deny homosexuals equal rights and actually think that their homosexuality is a conscious decision.
  
  I know you’re not equating me with those people.
  
  Report this comment
- bravjim
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 9:28pm
  John boston, I sense you are one of those that the professor is talking about. What I, as a Christian libertarian want, is to follow the laws of nature, the very principles that our founding fathers founded this country on. The entire embodiment of my politics can be summed up in one phrase from the Declaration, “WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, AND ALL ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS, AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THESE RIGHTS, GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE GOVERNED.”
  
  Now notice, that they define the purpose of government to protect the rights of the governed. If all men are created equal, and life is the fundamental right from which all of our rights are derived (you can’t be free to make a choice if you don’t have life, just as you cannot pursue happiness if you do not have liberty), then life is the premier right that the government must protect. If all men are created equal, then it doesn’t matter what color, what gender, what sexual orientation, or your maturity level, the government must defend the life of all of those created. If I do harm to another person, then I have violated this truth. It applies to all men, even those that are in the womb, because they have been created just as equal as those who have been born.
  
  Report this comment
- bravjim
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 9:40pm
  A homosexual is also entitled to equal rights, and equal protection under the law. And they are afforded those in our society. Your argument is that they cannot marry. This is not true. They can marry, just someone of the opposite sex. If it doesn’t make them happy, then they can divorce and live their sinful lives outside of God’s will. It’s their choice. Now, are they born that way? Yes, just as i was born a sinner, you was born a sinner, my brother, my mother, my sister, my father, and every other man is born a sinner. We sin because we are sinners, we are not sinners because we sin. And just as I don’t have to live according to God’s word, but I must deal with the consequences of not doing so, and so must they. One of those consequences is that they cannot participate in the perpetuation of the species, meaning they are not entitled to marriage. Marriage is a religious institution anyway, after all, it is called HOLY MATRIMONY. It existed before government existed, and thus predates government, making it outside of the government’s scope of responsibilities.
  
  Report this comment
DetritusScreener
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:18am
I very much agree with this man. I am an atheist and I attend church. I think that the church and Christain culture are very important. I cannot stand the activist atheist groups that run around causing problems for religous folks. They are nothing more than trouble makers and a drag on society.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DetritusScreener
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:31am
  The morals and values that you learn in church are some of the most important lessons you learn in your entire life. Who wouldn’t want to be surrounded by good caring honest people? You don’t have to believe in God to believe in the value of Christain teachings and the church community.
  
  Report this comment
- Deeduck
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:48am
  As a Christian, I thank you. I am comfortable with atheists like yourself and the author. You are honest. But I am curious as to why / on what basis you reject the existence of a higher power, if you don’t mind replying.
  
  Report this comment
- DetritusScreener
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 12:17pm
  I believe that Jesus Christ was a very intelligent and gifted teacher and philosopher. He gave rise to his learned students and many more educated philosophers that made it their duty to continue to add too his teachings.
  My personal reckoning with Jesus’ teachings is that he lived in a very chaotic and violent time. There needed to be order and respect for your fellow man and he rightly recognized that.
  
  At the time, there were two options or methods of motivation to bring people in line with righteous morals and values. You could learn from Jesus and his teachings or you could do what the Romans told you to do under penalty of Roman law backed by brute force.
  Jesus and his followers and ultimately the Church needed something as strong or stronger in order to motivate compliance from those who were either too ignorant or just antisocial to comply.
  
  The best answer was to create an all knowing and all seeing eternal entity in order to create a “God Fearing People” in order to enforce moral code. The threat being, no matter what you do ‘God’ will always know and if you did not pay for it in this life, there is no escaping your sins, you will pay for them in the next.
  This has turned out to be the very best and most motivational system to ensure that people treat each other the way they would want to be treated. Hence, the “Ten Commandments” and guidelines for a civilized social society.
  
  Anyway, this is how I reason with it and understand it. I completel
  
  Report this comment
- DetritusScreener
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 12:25pm
  Continued -
  Anyway, this is how I reason with it and understand it. I completely believe in the value of the Christian faith and the Church and would defend it to the death. I just cannot make a logical leap to ‘God’ as expressed by many religious people. I would be happy to discuss it more but I am not sure this is the most appropriate setting and I don’t want to become a target. There are people on each side, religious and atheist that would gladly go after me in inappropriate ways for my thoughts on the bible and religion.
  
  Report this comment
- acidovorax
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 4:36pm
  Atheist and religious believers who wish to use the State to impose their values on the public are problematic. No reason to target one group as worse than the other. They are both statists, who wish to limit individual liberty.
  
  Report this comment
- Deeduck
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 6:25pm
  Hi, not sure I follow you exactly. Are you saying a group of people purposefully invented God with the view that it would keep people in line? Who would have the power to do that? I’m not disrespecting your view, I’m just trying to understand how it could happen. I agree this isn’t the right venue for an in depth discussion so if you want you can contact me at dcc.rlm@juno.com. Thanks!
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 5, 2012 at 8:25pm
  @DEEDUCK
  It’s called “an imagination and the perception of authority” plus a gullible enough audience–if you couple the those together, it doesn’t take too much intellectual effort to imagine a set of metaphysical assertions which justify the status quo and one’s power and privilege therein. Whether or not religion was manufactured with that purpose in mind, it has certainly been USED for that purpose throughout history. Marx was indeed right when he said “religion is the opium of the people.” It functions exactly like opium does–it makes the subject happy, docile, passive and clouds clear-thinking.
  
  Report this comment
Chromo200
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:17am
Mumbo Jumbo. The vocal minority bullies and threatens the majority till there is hatred on both side. If I pray in public and it makes him nervous … so I can’t express my freedom, but he can. The professor looks at the crazies and says that is Christianity. He does not have an open mind.

I know at the end, God will sort all of this out.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ChristandCountry
Posted on October 5, 2012 at 11:16am
Even as a Christian I see this as a refreshing perspective on theistic or non-theistic belief

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.