I think you're looking for the word "empathy" when writing REspect.

>>> That's correct. REspect is the treatment resulting from empathy.

1) Strawman attack. Nothing in the letter suggests what you're accusing it of.

>>> The Bozo in question wrote, "I have nothing but contempt for you (the religious)." Therefore I would not expect REspect or empathy from such an individual. He's set himself up as an enemy, needlessly, I might add. Look at all the angry responses here. Probably what he was after.

2) Atheists are smarter than religious people within the domains mentioned.

>>> What "domains" are we considering? Science? Famous Scientists Who Believed in God There are plenty of dumb atheists as well as dumb religious people. There are also atheists who have not a whit of curiosity about the universe.

3)You have two points here that have nothing to do one with the other.

They're close cousins.

First: most religions (including the worst of the lot, i.e. the Abrahamic monotheisms) do exclude all other religions.

Bozo said "you realize all the OTHER religions are wrong" in blanket condemnation.

The farther one moves from this exclusivity, the closer one gets to a religion being a philosophy (e.g. Buddhism, Jainism), or woo (e.g. New Age).

You forget Hinduism, a dynamic, evolving faith older then Christianity, with billions of gods. It accepts other paths as legit. But even as Hinduism is weighted down with a caste system, Christianity has broken barriers around the world across all nations and races and even within itself.

Second: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” ~ Steven Weinberg

Weinberg needs to read up on communism, a much more potent enemy of human dignity and worth. Communist countries are run by a--holes who believe they are the only true gods. Religion can be abusive, insulting and dehumanizing in the wrong hands, just like politics and language. However, there is no atheist tradition declaring 'All life has value.' Einstein once said 'Either everything is a miracle or nothing is.' The lack of sanctity endemic to atheism places it on the side of nothing being miraculous. It doesn't mean atheists are bad people, it means they have no reference outside of their own feelings, which leads us to...

4) Care to explain how atheism is delusional?

I said the atheist is delusional, not atheism, and I'm not referring to what atheists think of deities at all.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? This means you and I can rationalize anything at any time. We lie to ourselves ALL THE TIME to preserve our own egos and pride, with a subconscious dominantly seeking pleasure or avoiding pain. A single human is not even a unified consciousness but a collection of competing desires and savage impulses. It's a miracle in itself that anyone ever stops to look outside of themselves.

The atheist has as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as anyone else, but I'm still siding with Ben Franklin: If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz = 2600%

Ben Franklin was right.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The most moral system for me is a representative democracy that derives its mandate from the consent of the governed. A government that does not overly restrict a strong private enterprise but uses a moderate tax rate to provide public services for the common good.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Is that what I said? Your attack of my world views aside, I point out the Franklin adage of "doing well by doing good", and you claim some moral superiority of this man as if to damn the 7 billion common folks across this rock to a lesser moral degree than him. To sweepingly claim this of the world is black and white, not the other way around. Your fixes for the world's ills are through majority rule and using the state as an apparatus of coercing people to the will of the perceived greater good (e.g., "we need libraries so you must pay for it", etc.).

People individually will do good for others when incentivized to do so either by voluntary engagements with profit (free market) or under threat of state sanctioned violence (statism). Both are capable of corruption and both are capable of failing, but which seems more "moral"?

In reply to this comment by dag:
What, so if I don't think we're all as exceptional as Ben Franklin - then I don't believe in Democracy? Sigh. It really is a black and white world for you.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
And this is the first chink in the egalitarian and democratic armor. On the face you appear to want all men to have a say in society (be equal), but then in meaning you really only believe certain people are capable. I think you may not understand what "shades of gray" truly are.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Ben Franklin was a very, very exceptional man. Applying his moral life to the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet shows a disregard for reality and an inability to see those "shades of gray" I mentioned. You're a utopianist and misguided.

Is that what I said? Your attack of my world views aside, I point out the Franklin adage of "doing well by doing good", and you claim some moral superiority of this man as if to damn the 7 billion common folks across this rock to a lesser moral degree than him. To sweepingly claim this of the world is black and white, not the other way around. Your fixes for the world's ills are through majority rule and using the state as an apparatus of coercing people to the will of the perceived greater good (e.g., "we need libraries so you must pay for it", etc.).

People individually will do good for others when incentivized to do so either by voluntary engagements with profit (free market) or under threat of state sanctioned violence (statism). Both are capable of corruption and both are capable of failing, but which seems more "moral"?

In reply to this comment by dag:
What, so if I don't think we're all as exceptional as Ben Franklin - then I don't believe in Democracy? Sigh. It really is a black and white world for you.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
And this is the first chink in the egalitarian and democratic armor. On the face you appear to want all men to have a say in society (be equal), but then in meaning you really only believe certain people are capable. I think you may not understand what "shades of gray" truly are.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Ben Franklin was a very, very exceptional man. Applying his moral life to the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet shows a disregard for reality and an inability to see those "shades of gray" I mentioned. You're a utopianist and misguided.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

What, so if I don't think we're all as exceptional as Ben Franklin - then I don't believe in Democracy? Sigh. It really is a black and white world for you.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
And this is the first chink in the egalitarian and democratic armor. On the face you appear to want all men to have a say in society (be equal), but then in meaning you really only believe certain people are capable. I think you may not understand what "shades of gray" truly are.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Ben Franklin was a very, very exceptional man. Applying his moral life to the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet shows a disregard for reality and an inability to see those "shades of gray" I mentioned. You're a utopianist and misguided.

And this is the first chink in the egalitarian and democratic armor. On the face you appear to want all men to have a say in society (be equal), but then in meaning you really only believe certain people are capable. I think you may not understand what "shades of gray" truly are.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Ben Franklin was a very, very exceptional man. Applying his moral life to the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet shows a disregard for reality and an inability to see those "shades of gray" I mentioned. You're a utopianist and misguided.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Ben Franklin was a very, very exceptional man. Applying his moral life to the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet shows a disregard for reality and an inability to see those "shades of gray" I mentioned. You're a utopianist and misguided.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Free markets are absolutely guided by self-interest. It's how we're to be incentivized to do good around us. In fact, Ben Franklin in the Poor Richard's Almanac termed the phrase, "doing well by doing good." Which is to mean profiting from doing good for others.

Allow me a Franklin tangent: he amassed great wealth from creating various services and goods (printing press, fire fighting services, etc.), and then in his 40s he spent his remaining years creating scientific accomplishments without asking for financial compensation. Some of the things he gave back for free were bifocals, lightening rods, and he even created the modern map of the gulf stream. Go figure.

Self-interest gave us those things. Now, certainly you cannot rely on individuals ALWAYS doing these sort of things, but through profit you guarantee people work very hard to offer a service others care about. That includes benefits to your neighbor, single mothers, libraries or the environment if there's a market for it. And there's always a market for clean water, fresh air, taking care of others, etc. Always. Political discourse today shows us there's a market for it.

In reply to this comment by dag:
It's just a useful metaphor for the combination of self-interest and the mechanism of supply and demand.

In a completely free market- self-interest is the only guiding rule. You can count on individuals to always do whatever provides them with the maximum benefit- too bad for the environment, your neighbors, single mothers and libraries.

Free markets are absolutely guided by self-interest. It's how we're to be incentivized to do good around us. In fact, Ben Franklin in the Poor Richard's Almanac termed the phrase, "doing well by doing good." Which is to mean profiting from doing good for others.

Allow me a Franklin tangent: he amassed great wealth from creating various services and goods (printing press, fire fighting services, etc.), and then in his 40s he spent his remaining years creating scientific accomplishments without asking for financial compensation. Some of the things he gave back for free were bifocals, lightening rods, and he even created the modern map of the gulf stream. Go figure.

Self-interest gave us those things. Now, certainly you cannot rely on individuals ALWAYS doing these sort of things, but through profit you guarantee people work very hard to offer a service others care about. That includes benefits to your neighbor, single mothers, libraries or the environment if there's a market for it. And there's always a market for clean water, fresh air, taking care of others, etc. Always. Political discourse today shows us there's a market for it.

In reply to this comment by dag:
It's just a useful metaphor for the combination of self-interest and the mechanism of supply and demand.

In a completely free market- self-interest is the only guiding rule. You can count on individuals to always do whatever provides them with the maximum benefit- too bad for the environment, your neighbors, single mothers and libraries.

Ben Franklin was a rebel indeed. He liked to get naked while he smoked on the weed. He was a genius BUT if he was here today the government would fuck him up his righteous A!

The British must be grateful the internet wasn't available to Ben Franklin, because he would have given one-star to every James Bond movie.

Across all religions, there are many types of prayer, of which intercessory prayer (prayer for the benefit of others), is just a small portion. For other varieties of Christian prayer, for instance, see: Prayer and the Common Life by Georgia Harkness.

While the benefits of intercessory prayer have been scientifically studied, the results are inconclusive. As I have said in other posts, it is unlikely science ever could show conclusive results for intercessory prayer. Does that mean that intercessory prayer is a waste of time? I don't think so.

I'm going to borrow Georgia Harkness's argument from her book above that when we pray for others at the very least we are taking a moment from our mostly self-centered lives in order to cultivate compassion for another human being. Personally, I think regardless of whether or not intercessory prayer works, it no more a waste of time than saying "I hope he gets better." It's an act of humanity and compassion to feel for a fellow human who is suffering.

In the Buddhist tradition, there is no god per se and therefore prayer is really more like meditation--a way to help ourselves grow. The point of this growth is not self-serving--it is to learn how to take action to make the world a better place. In Buddhism, when you pray for others you're not just hoping they'll get better, you're also trying to think of ways you can take action to make the situation better for them. Incidentally, Christianity contains the same exact concept. As phrased by Ben Franklin: "God helps those who help themselves."

While clearly most of Hitchens' fans do not subscribe to any religion, might I suggest that if you do consider yourself a fan you try to find a way to send him words of support and encouragement. It seems a bit difficult to contact him (I did a bit of Googling while writing the post; couldn't find any contact info), but if you can find out which agency represents him you could send letters or cards care-of his agent and I'm sure he'll get them.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Ok, you pray. And I will talk to my imaginary friend too.
Prayer: doing fuck all while convincing yourself you're helping.


>> ^rottenseed:

Praying is such a masturbatory, externally useless ritual. It won't do anything, but it makes the person doing it feel better about themselves. I hope nobody prays for me when I have cancer.

so what the fuck...Ben Franklin discovered that ground glass dangled on the end of ones' nose could assist in human eyesight...terminator futures look promising, fuck yer mother, once you sign on, you forget you were ever born....

Once you know, you can't go back.

Here is a list of things, in my opinion, that they do not teach in public schools:

Ben Franklin's Interpretation of why the Revolutionary War took place

The refusal of King George to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution.

To which some fools created the same monster bank, First Bank of the United States Thanks in part to one, Robert Morris a signer of The Declaration. Our nation's banking history is fraught with banking scams and controversy. Just take a gander at the Wikipedia pages above.

Even Woodrow Wilson would see the error of his ways in the end after singing the Glass Owen act into law. The FED is not a Government Agency if it were ththen our system of money would be Nationalized. We often here that word, "We can't nationalize the debt!" But we sure can socialize it!

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men... We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men."

The 1999 repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act. Thanks to a Democratic Presidency.

Throughout all of our history there is nothing but sleight of hand, cronyism, and corruption. I do my best to follow a strict code
of ethics why can't they? I know I'm not perfect and I often find myself but I always think "Am I doing the right thing?" If I can't answer yes to that question within moments then I know I'm not doing the right thing.

I leave you now with a few quotes:

Harry Truman once said there are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of other people, the hundred and fifty or sixty million, is the responsibility of the President of the United States. And I propose to fulfill it. - JFK

From a good man no matter how suspect:



In my opinion the best speech ever given:



Full Disclosure even if it damns you. Someone said, "The Truth will set you free," or something like that. Sure it will but who's truth is it?

He messed up the quote at the beginning, it's "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately", uttered by Ben Franklin.

He's got a good point. I think that's the reason people at MIT created http://youtomb.mit.edu/.