Titus Lucretius Carus

Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum

From: Arno Manhattan: Vatikas's Holocaust

There is no more criminal ideology in the history than Roman CCatholicism.

Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum

"Professor of Catholic Studies".. That's brilliant!! What do you do all day?

Faith is DEFINED as: "Belief WITHOUT evidence"

Ms Beattie likes not to have evidence it would seem.

That, and clinging to a much-modifed set of Bronze-Age goatherder's myths.
How very progressive, enlightened and educated she is not.

He was wrong, only we can save ourselves, for there is no one else. Perhaps I should apologise, being atheist with not a scrap of divine belief within my soul.

(I use the term soul, as we humans tend to use words in literature and colour in art, to stir the heart without literal meaning.)

The apology itself would stand for the lack of nihilism, for the lack of materialism, for the charity I give and the hope I feel. For, in short, not being the defeated, depairing wretch I should be in the absence of the divine.

Or, as I would usually put it, sorry to burst your bubble matey, but atheists aren't inherently filled with depair and given over to decadence. I loved the marriage in your article of money and atheism, how deliciously low of you.

Oh, and Merlin? Please don't speak twaddle and call it science. There is no 'science-based moral code', you're confusing it with evolved morality, uncovered but not created, by science.

In any event, there is nothing original or provocative about that banal agnostic slogan.

It has provoked your essay. ;-) But anything stronger would have led to a more violent response from the likes of Christian Voice, which would not be good.

This is what atheism looks like, to those who have eyes to see. This is what it feels like, to suffer without hope, to have the courage and the truthfulness to live in fidelity to a vision of Darwinian despair about the human condition.

If atheism wasn't as you describe it, perhaps the only thing turning your doubt into an engine of self-loathing rather than freedom would be removed.

It is as if the artist's mourning and raging against the death of God

Who's mourning? We're celebrating. Come join the party.

For some of us, faith is a positioning of our lives upon a fulcrum of possibility, challenging us to live with the unanswerability of the questions it poses and the doubts it accommodates.

Why spend all your time in this beautiful garden with your eyes closed tight in case you see there are no fairies at the bottom of it?

I'm not convinced that most religions are dominated by men, if by that you mean (as you seem to, in context) that men are their most fervent adherents and the drivers of their growth. In fact, I remember reading that the opposite is often the case...

Globalisation requires a Science-based “Moral Code”

In essence, a Science-based Moral Code accepts that there is “Intelligence” at work, but that it is an integral part of every aspect of the universe, rather than a separate “Deity”.
By combining elements of traditional scientific and religious beliefs within a complimentary framework, we broaden and strengthen both.
The scope of scientific application is broadened through accepting the presence of Intelligence, attributing its application to known and quantifiable aspects of both the human condition and the universe at large.
Traditional Religious belief is adapted to lessen the degree of subjective interpretation, whilst also upgrading its moral responsibilities in acknowledging the need for our evolutionary change as a society and species.
A science-based moral code would provide purpose to life, enabling us to see a “Living & Working” Universe of which we are an integral part, functioning within quantifiable parameters and propelled by a perpetual motion of interacting opposites, (expanded upon later).
Coming from this perspective, it argues that this Intelligence did not create every aspect of life but rather provided an exploratory “universal” environment within which life operates, managed by basic and non-judgemental disciplines.
The structure of this universal environment allows interaction between all aspects within it, through a perpetual motion that generates and assesses information continuously, providing practical experience and a growing knowledge and understanding about a universe at work.
At the heart of this activity, the Darwinian principles of survival of the fittest and the core values of the myriad of religious and spiritual beliefs interact to identify, understand, interpret and support every other aspect of the universe.
I believe the depth and breadth of the structure that provides for the process of information gathering that we call life shows Intelligence beyond human comprehension.
I say this because each part of this management system operates in such a way that none of it can be influenced by human action or agenda of any description, thus providing a means of investigation and analysis that is completely unbiased and non-judgemental.
These simple disciplines appear not to control us but rather to stimulate extensive investigation of who and what we are.
The most obvious seem to me to be:
Time – The true outcome of our, or any other, actions result from the passing of time and take into account their effect upon the whole and connected Universe. Within this discipline, we find knowledge and wisdom through experience, which, in human terms, can take minutes or millennia to achieve.
Ignorance – By the very nature of its vastness, the Universe imposes ignorance upon its individual components, from stardust to humans. Indeed any journey of investigation identifies ignorance implicit within the venture and the motivation behind its launch. It is also worth considering that if we were not in ignorance we would be a very different entity, capable of operating within this thing called life without fear of danger or catastrophe.
Balance – Imbalance creates learning, and balance true understanding.
Diversity – The very essence of investigation is the ability to compare and evaluate. Limitless diversity, with its core of Opposites and Paradox, ensure a perpetual motion of conflict, experience and learning.
Procreation – Without a powerful sex drive providing the ability for limitless procreation and diversify, no investigation could occur.
Connectedness – Only by being connected is it possible for the universe to interact, function and evolve. Vast though it is, connectedness shows that there is no such thing as coincidence, which is counter productive to information gathering. Through a better understanding and acceptance of this connectedness, we can come to revere our individuality and the part we each play.
Awareness – The level of awareness and perception of ourselves, each other, and our surroundings is in no way determined by our physical or mental capabilities, but is fundamental to the evolutionary process of life. In as much as our mental and physical attributes are as different in each of us as our DNA, so too is our personal awareness, guaranteeing and stimulating our continual investigation and interaction with all that we meet during our individual lifetimes.
These seven disciplines are the primary engines that drive life, as we know it. Indeed they come together to fuel constant change with an energy that has always eluded the best minds – that of perpetual motion.
It is the non-judgmental nature of these disciplines, together with other aspects of life that directly affect all of us, that are at the very heart of this science–based moral code, placing responsibility for our actions firmly in our hands and not those of a distant and judgemental deity.
We are very much a part of a “Living and Working Universe” where our recent evolution to a “Globalised” environment now provides new and exciting challenges, requiring equally new and exciting perspectives and thinking for our continued survival and development.
I began this series of three articles with reference to Professor Richard Dawkins, and I would like to close in a similar fashion. When I refer to the “engines” of the universe and their perpetual motion, it is with Professor Dawkins in mind.
His entrenched position in praise of Darwinism and denial of religious doctrine causes immediate reaction from the religious, in a fervent exchange of views that has been mirrored by our forefathers for centuries.
Out of this interaction knowledge and understanding are achieved, as religious belief is challenged or accepted by scientific investigation and visa versa.
Our universal environment comprises a myriad of opposites like these which, when taken as a whole, provide a “perpetual motion” through the conflict their interaction automatically generates in the search for “truth”, whilst also supporting our evolution as a species.
Our rush to construct organisations of “global” proportions, be they political or corporate are already meeting resistance in operating efficiently, with purpose for human good. History teaches that domination by this or any other human activity is doomed to failure, because of the requirement for diversity within this working universal environment.
However, we need to understand this process better as we enter and adapt to the new Global Village. We need leaders that understands who and what we are and can encourage our gentle detachment from the past in an effort to elevate our species to a new level of human interaction in the 21st century.

I believe it's interesting that the slogan Dawkins wishes to produce across London says: "if there is a God, she has a rather wicked sense of humour."

The key subject here is "she". Especially when the second paragraph states "The fervour of their worship is familiar: a horde of over-excited, gesticulating men (like most religions, this one is dominated by men), shouting their prayers and petitions at the great glowing icons above them"

In a society that has benefited men through politics, religion and economics we see once again someone using women as a scape goat for the fall of man. Now he may have been trying to be socially conscious and global by using she instead of he. But, we are seeing the same repeating history made by men through aetheism.

To be honest we must quit bickering about who is right and begin concentrating on what it means to be alive and why we should help each other instead of bickering.

I have thoroughly enjoyed your text, you are very eloquent. I liked the theme, structure and rythme. In short, I take my hat off.

Style, however, is a very powerful tool and some tools can be used as weapons. I do feel that your language seduces and through its pleasing qualities confounds, thereby damaging a more complete representation of the atheist ideology.

The structure of your text suggest that there is atheism versus hope and you also suggest, if I understood you correctly, that there are only two kinds of atheism: there is a consumer oriented type and a nihilistic type.

This thesis, I believe, is misleading. Are there not more possibilities than being misguided or being negativistic?

What about a social atheism? Or a happy atheism? Maybe a giving atheism should counter the devouring consumer atheism?

Is it inconceivable to think of humans as a darwinian species, rather than a horde of darwinian individuals?
This would imply competition between the species rather than between the individuals. Thereby, the human would be able to construct meaningful relations with others, without depending on God.

In any case, I utterly agree with your analysis of a consumer ideology, which functions as a new religion. The golden calf and new idols...

I have, however, difficulty agreeing that the denial of the existence of gods should be equated with nihilism.

Although your analysis of Francis Bacon's work is equally fascinating---and once again I take my hat off--- but I would strongly advise those who read Ms Beaties's text to consider that amazing parts do not make the whole true.

That is to say, in a style less eloquent than Ms Tina Beattie's, the use of a rethoric strategy that depends on either/ or confounds and hides that there is a third possibility.

Beware for the horns of the disjunction.

Shorter Tina Beattie: In this time of opportunity for religious proselytism, why can't atheists have the good taste to be miserable and tortured?