I am not that removed from India’s heritage of religious dissension which has been alive and well from first millennium BC How did you make this tradition of religious dissension when you say that its writing was lost ? I guess you kind of followed an oral tradition ? By the way what do you have to say about Budha whose opinions were contradictory to Charvaka, I mean it is political acceptable to talk good of Buddha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism

BTW, if you’re not entirely certain what you are, take the Belief-O-Matic spiritual orientation quiz and get yourself typed. That way you’ll know for certain which line to stand in after you shuffle off this mortal coil:

http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Quizzes/BeliefOMatic.aspx

Atheists might want to take the test also. The existence of an afterlife may not depend upon the existence of a God or gods. Reality as we know it, for example, might be a program running on somebody’s computer. And the higher-order reality containing that computer might just be a program running on somebody else’s computer…

If you argue you have free will, you are saying there is something different about you. You are cognizant of good and evil in a way, for example, a grain of sand on the beach is not.

What is the element which makes you different? The grain of sand reacts to light particles, electromagnetism (gravity), tide and the position of the moon. It has no choice and no free will.

“Basically, I think your argument is unsound, because it is based on religious premises (I think you just don’t notice it), and inappropriately sets everything up in a very black/white condition to try to make its point.”

My argument is based on my love of philosophical discourse and not as an apologist for religion. My entire point is dichotomy between religion and the existence of God. To use an argument based on the criticism of organized religion and it’s abuses is not a valid argument for atheism.

If you want to argue based on the concept of creation of the universe as mechanical, it is illogical to then argue you have a choice or free will. The machine will continue to churn out sunrises and sunsets until it runs out of gas. Nothing has meaning outside this reality. You think you have free will and you think you are moral, but in reality the words have no meaning in this physical machine which began on its own eons ago and will end eons from now when there is nothing left.

What I want from the author of this post is to admit this is what he believes instead of saying he doesn’t believe in God based on his observation of religious behavior. He has made some statements to “prove” his assertions which don’t hold water and has made some assumptions based on those assertions.

btw, Bertram Russell was not an atheist. Another comment claimed Albert Einstein was an atheist which is also not true.

We can have free will, without having the ability to change the course of everything (which religion accords to whichever god it thinks is the real one).

And unimportant? Yeah, we probably are. It’s religion that says that humans are superior to the other very animals we are. We’re all just creatures sharing a planet. It’s only the humans who think they are the superior species. ie – it’s a human construct, this argument.

But being only one of many doesn’t mean our lives are meaningless. We can enjoy our lives, we can help and love others, we can create art which can please future generations. That’s not meaningless. It’s only meaningless when you’re starting from the premises of a religious argument.

Finally – there doesn’t need to be an argument for agnosticism – it’s our natural state. It’s how we are born. That’s why churches and families get little kids into church even before school – it’s the process of indoctrination. And that’s not meant as a snark – forcing children to learn unproven things without question and threatening them with hell sounds like indoctrination to me.

Basically, I think your argument is unsound, because it is based on religious premises (I think you just don’t notice it), and inappropriately sets everything up in a very black/white condition to try to make its point.

So to many more people, that old, old “no atheists in foxholes” line proves that religion is based on fear, not what you frame it to be.

There are, after all, different ways to view things.

Some wonderful quotes from the great man himself:

I want to know God’s thoughts; the rest are details.”
“I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.”
“God is subtle but he is not malicious.”
“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”
“God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.”

These have nothing to do with God, but I threw them in because they are great:

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Some moral and kind people may be drawn to religion, but it may be a stretch to say it “made” them moral and kind. Especially since there are many other religious people that weren’t “turned good”.

It seems more likely that other reasons make people moral and kind. Some are taught that this means they should join the church, some continue their morality and kindness in a secular lifestyle.

IMO, if religion didn’t need to try to remain the arbiter of morality (in order to stay relevant), we’d all be able to accept that all kinds of people are moral and good, with or without religion….

Just look at how we always term it – a “mythology”. That says it all to me. I doubt they considered it a mythology at the time – they considered it their religion. What is the difference between current beliefs and the old Greek beliefs – only that one is no longer practiced and has no current supporters – so it has been relegated to “mythology” status.

I think labeling it “mythology” was religion’s way of distancing itself from something which so clearly seemed “out there”, so that their current “out there” claims wouldn’t be equated with it. IMO.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Charmed-dia-w.png