ILC, I did confuse the two issues. I guess I subscribe to the “till death do us part” of monogamy. But if my partner should leave me, I may decide to date others, and who knows? But I plan on being just as responsible as I have been.

First, the key to God-existing-or-not is what you mean by the word “God”. Define a God that obviously exists, and He exists. Define a God that obviously doesn’t, shouldn’t and/or can’t exist, and He doesn’t exist.

Excellent point. Further, the God I believe in is either a different one that Ashpenaz believes in, or the same God but with different perceptions. Actually, if you ask me, there are probably about 6.7 billion different perceptions and/or manifestations of God that exist today.

Second, morality arises from facts of reality, or to say it another way, is needed because we are subject to death and to free will and we need principles to help navigate better through life’s choices.

That’s true. At least for a few thousand years, it’s been.

Oh, but he is. GPW isn’t trying to shut down the critics, that I know of. He is merely drawing attention to their silliness… which, in turn, fuels the fire or helps keep people talking about the Tea Parties.

I agree that Dan is not trying to shut down the critics. And perhaps he is doing it for the reason you suggest. I believe that most people who participate in a protest really do so out of a principle. It’s just that the other stuff that comes with it, such as the critics, the goons with their own agenda, the numbers game (e.g., we had 1,000,000 people, no you only had 1,000 people) is just politics and gamesmanship.

Interesting that you mentioned those two Woody Allen movies. I think they are the only two Allen movies I’ve seen. They were pretty good, and had similar plots. What struck me was, especially in C&M was the murderer felt a need to “confess” his murder, and then he was able to move on with a clearer conscience. What wasn’t clear to me is whether the two murderers believed in God. I suspect they both did. Regardless, they did feel guilt about their actions.

If we are bringing up movies and this issue, I’m reminded of Louis in Angels in America. He finds out that his partner has AIDS. There was no evidence that his partner cheated on him, and most likely he got it before they started dating. In other words, infidelity was not an issue. Louis wants to break up with him. But before he does so, he consults with a rabbi to see if the Bible or other dogma had anything to say about it. And I couldn’t help but think that he actually needed a religious authority to tell him he was a sh&t for doing so.

Why would I be concerned about anyone else since we are only randomly evolved meat machines whose sense of self is simply an epiphenomenon of a purely material process?

Whether God exists or not, that may be the case. It’s up to us to make our lives more meaningful than that.

And Miss Thang should know about that through his own experiences, no doubt.

Regards,
Peter H.

And I wasn’t asking you to, Ashpenaz. What I did ask is, for sake of argument, how your behavior and core values would change, if at all, if it was found that God did not exist? Is it only because of God that you have your values, especially regarding sex and relationships?

And again, people have a lot of different reasons why they are atheist. Perhaps, for some, it is an excuse to have promiscuous sex. But one does not need to be atheist to do that. In fact, most promisuous people do believe in God. Part of it is because of the forgiveness inherent in many religions, including C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i-t-y.

Anyway, I am curious to the question I posed above.

What I am saying is that people choose to be atheists because it allows them to believe they can have sex with whoever they want, without consequences.

And others are telling you: No, that isn’t so.

I know of a group of atheists who advocate a seriousness about sexual relationships that many consider puritanism. They still don’t advocate “lifelong sexual exclusivity”, but again, few among the religious advocate it either.

I am fairly certain that most people who don’t believe in lifelong sexual exclusivity believe in God.

Like, say, Christians. They generally believe in monogamy, but NOT lifelong sexual exclusivity, which is a different concept. (The traditional marriage ceremony was “Till death do us part”, meaning that if your spouse died, you could and probably should take a new spouse. Also, most mainline denominations give people ways to divorce, to one degree or another.)

Similarly, I don’t understand why you [GPW] are focusing on those who criticize the Tea Parties. You obviously believe in the cause, and believe these critics are out of touch. So why not let them continue showing how out of touch they are?

Oh, but he is. GPW isn’t trying to shut down the critics, that I know of. He is merely drawing attention to their silliness… which, in turn, fuels the fire or helps keep people talking about the Tea Parties.

Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that we find out for sure that God does not exist. I know you [Ashpenaz] believe that would never happen, but stay with me here. Does that mean you would change your core values?

You’ve asked Ash a rich question. I only have time to make a couple quick comments, which won’t do the subject justice. First, the key to God-existing-or-not is what you mean by the word “God”. Define a God that obviously exists, and He exists. Define a God that obviously doesn’t, shouldn’t and/or can’t exist, and He doesn’t exist. Second, morality arises from facts of reality, or to say it another way, is needed because we are subject to death and to free will and we need principles to help navigate better through life’s choices. While God may be the ultimate author of morality as He is the ultimate author of all, morality does not change or dissolve just because you ignore the God of somebody’s religion. Gotta go.

I don’t know too many open atheists. But the ones I’ve spoken to about their atheism focused on their lack of belief in God. They honestly don’t believe there is a God. Sure, I imagine some of them use that as an excuse to do bad things. But there are plenty of people who believe in God that do plenty of bad things.

Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that we find out for sure that God does not exist. I know you believe that would never happen, but stay with me here. Does that mean you would change your core values. That you won’t seek a monogamous relationship, and instead, choose to be promiscuous and have open relationships? That you no longer would be aware that it’s not all about you?

No one except people like Dan are ever going to challenge them on how out of touch they are.

Ashpenaz, that’s a new spin on atheism. I believe in God, but my decision to continue a lifelong sexually exclusive relationship has nothing to do with it. In other words, it’s not the existence of God that keeps me in line. In fact, there was a period of time when I was an atheist. And I didn’t have sex at all during that period.

On the other hand, I am fairly certain that most people who don’t believe in lifelong sexual exclusivity believe in God.

As for Bill Maher, I actually find him funny sometimes, but I have no illusions about him, including his biases. My partner, who is usually politically to the left of me doesn’t like him, because of his arrogance about atheism and other things.

As I said before, Dan. I don’t understand the criticism that Maher and others have against the Tea Parties. If they really think that the Tea Parties are silly, then why not sit back quietly and enjoy them, while (as they believe) it helps their cause. Similarly, I don’t understand why you are focusing on those who criticize the Tea Parties. You obviously believe in the cause, and believe these critics are out of touch. So why not let them continue showing how out of touch they are?

It is not too far a stretch to understand that anything that Bill Maher, the self crowned king of reason and sanity, does not agree with is just more sheeple being stupid.

Leftist elitism is rife with Bill Mahers. They are purveyors of snobbish, in your face rectitude which is grounded in their definition of correctness.

Bill Maher is the Pied Piper of the pimple and botox sets. He lights his own flatulence for a living and he believes he is the second coming of Plato. In truth, he is a weak imitation of a gin soaked bantam rooster who can’t get a wave from the hen house.