Q. Why are atheism rates so high in Europe compared to the U.S? Just wondering what the general belief on why such huge differences in the belief systems of European people vs. US...

There was interesting piece in the Atlantic last month discussing how religion is on the upswing in Europe (Muslim immigration is a factor) and on the downswing in the US. The author argued that in both cases, this is a bad thing for stability, as nations that are either highly religious or highly unreligious tend to have more internal accord than nations that are more closely divided between the two camps. I'm not sure how to evaluate that aspect of the argument, but the factual issues discussed were of interest.

I'll run on a Libertarian/Atheist ticket. Anyone with me?

Gomez/Nieporent 2036

Oh god, why am I talking religion?

Classic.

Gomez/Nieporent 2036

Kind of a Cheneyesque ticket, no? Perhaps by then folks will have forgotten.

2036? Won't Nieporent be refusing to collect his Social Security by then?

Primey for Bevins.

Oh god, why am I talking religion?

Didn't even realize it, LOL. Because of my catholic upbringing, I still use the G word quite a bit......
I once had a teammate that tried to convince me that I believe in God because I use it so much in my daily language. Just like my crappy arm action, I also can't get rid of God references when I talk or type for that matter.

In other words, respect the other person's feelings and viewpoints

How does this work WRT David Samson?

Oh, wait. You said person. Never mind.

Pete Stark is the only atheist in Congress, I think. From that article:

Last month, a USA Today/Gallup poll noted that fewer than half of Americans said they would vote for an atheist candidate for president even if he were "well qualified." In the same poll, 95 percent said they would vote for a similarly qualified Catholic candidate, 92 percent for a Jewish candidate and 72 percent for a Mormon candidate.

A friend and I were approached once by some religious types handing out literature. My friend refused to take it saying, "no thanks, I'm an atheist; swear to to God...".

He didn't even realize what he had said until I stopped laughing and pointed it out to him. And the looks on the proselytizers' faces was just priceless.

Last month, a USA Today/Gallup poll noted that fewer than half of Americans said they would vote for an atheist candidate for president even if he were "well qualified." In the same poll, 95 percent said they would vote for a similarly qualified Catholic candidate, 92 percent for a Jewish candidate and 72 percent for a Mormon candidate.

That just kills me. Who are these people? I need to get out to the suburbs and see what life is life for average America every once in a while.

I would have thought the opposite. There just seems to be lots of evangelical Christians in MLB.

Especially on the Rockies....

That just kills me. Who are these people?

I agree totally. A person's publicly espoused religion or lack thereof being more important than his qualifications, experiences, and policy positions is, frankly, pretty silly. The implication, to my mind, is that people think that a a/non-theist would have no ethical/moral center from which to make important decisions. Given the achievements of Bush, Delay, and other self-identifying religious practicioners in Washington (not to mention underlings like Monica Goodling), you'd think that folks would get the message that religion is just as put on by politicians as anything else, and that actually looking at policy would reveal more about a person's 'character' than the church they claim to go to.

Actually, there's a Sabrmetric link here in a way. James' MLEs bore out the notion that you CAN predict what people will do when they reach the majors. Ignore their MiL numbers at your peril. Same in politics: look at someone's record in their previous political experiences, it will more often predict how they would govern than what they say in stump speeches. Take them at their word at your peril. For instance, a guy who executes more prisoners on his state's death row than any governor that came before him and who denied clemency for a retarded man and for a woman who claimed to have been born again in prison (appealing to his own type of faith) is a guy whose value for human life might be questionable...even if he talks tough about a "culture of life."

Sorry to anyone who supports the President, I'm not trying to provoke you, he just makes for a convenient example since he's very black/white about things.

That just kills me. Who are these people? I need to get out to the suburbs and see what life is life for average America every once in a while.

IIRC, the poll also had people as more likely to vote for a gay person than an atheist.

Edit: Yup, 53% of respondents said they wouldn't vote for an atheist, while only 43% said they wouldn't vote for a homosexual. One problem with the poll, though, is that people are hesitant to admit to taboo prejudices. I don't think atheist hating is taboo, so perhaps the gap between support for atheists and blacks/gays/Mormons is smaller than it appears.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611

The implication, to my mind, is that people think that a a/non-theist would have no ethical/moral center from which to make important decisions.

I would hope that is not the case. I suspect it is for many, though.

robinred,

I think it has to be the primary implication. The relationship between ethics (or morality) and religion is pretty fixed. I think most people if asked would claim that morals are ultimately enforced by their god of choice, and that their moral code has been handed down directly from God (either through Mosaic law or via Christ's do-unto-others statement). So if you don't believe in a god, how can you have or know morals/ethics?

And this is a fully rational/logical point of view IF you believe that the Bible is the word of God. Or even something close to the word of God. IF you believe this theory, then it must follow that God's code is in the Bible and so someone who doesn't believe in the Bible does not have a moral/ethical code. Or one that isn't supported by any ultimate authority. You can take it one further and say that a person whose ethics aren't support by ultimate authority could therefore be susceptible to ethical manipulation or ethical equivocation.

I think the logic flows if you approach it from a believer's point of view. But is it good logic? I personally don't think so. Again, if people better informed themselves about the records and real policy positions of candidates they would have more insight into the person's ethics and politics than going by professions of faith.

Again, if people better informed themselves about the records and real policy positions of candidates they would have more insight into the person's ethics and politics than going by professions of faith.

No shlt. There is zero correlation between church attendance and morality. You are what you do, not what you say. Charlie Lau was a great batting theoretician, but Yogi Berra was a much better hitter.

You are what you do, not what you say.

Does this mean I can talk #### to you on Primer and not have it reflect on me morally?

I'm not real good with reality Joe, you know that.

Best Regards

John

Feh -- reality is nothing but a crutch for people who can't handle fantasy. Totally overrated.

116. robinred Posted: July 12, 2007 at 08:44 PM (#2439192)
The implication, to my mind, is that people think that a a/non-theist would have no ethical/moral center from which to make important decisions.

I would hope that is not the case. I suspect it is for many, though.

I would wager that the same proportion of believers fit that bill.

Of course not, John. You're a theist. ;-)

RDF....Touche :-P

Best Regards

John

How does this work WRT David Samson?

Heh. I hope he finds God but not public money. I'll do whatever I can to help that along ;-)

Feh -- reality is nothing but a crutch for people who can't handle fantasy. Totally overrated.

Exactly, it takes real grit and determination to believe that the Maple Leafs and Blue Jays will win it all every year.

Try it sometime.

Best Regards

John

Unless I missed it, no post in this thread wondering about Piazza's policy on "turning the other cheek"? For shame.

Exactly, it takes real grit and determination to believe that the Maple Leafs and Blue Jays will win it all every year.

Before 2004 I used to draw parallels between faith in God and rooting for the Red Sox to win the World Series. Steadfast belief in something despite a lack of a recent evidentiary trail opens oneself to mockery by others who do not share the same belief. People who believe would tend to associate with other people with the same beliefs (Shun the non-believer! Shuuuuuuuuun! Shuuuuuuuuun!), and those who mock would similarly congregate.

That kind of stuff makes for all kinds of ignorance about, and mistrust of, the other camp. You find that kind of thing in the steroid threads here, the stats vs. scouts debates, and in polls that find atheists are less trusted to run our government than are cows, criminals, and the undead. There is a middle ground, a place for true discourse, but it requires a great deal of respect and restraint.

Since 2004, though, I have proof that the Red Sox can win, and I no longer need that discourse crap. Screw you guys, I'm going home. ;-)

I worked with a woman who told me that Yoda is an agent of the devil because he came from outer space...

For a guy in his late 30's, I'm not a huge Star Wars devotee. However, it seemed to me that the movies had some religious overtones. Yet I think she has it backwards. It's basically a battle between good and evil and Yoda was on the side of the good. What the heck are her views on Darth Vader?

However, it seemed to me that the movies had some religious overtones. Yet I think she has it backwards. It's basically a battle between good and evil and Yoda was on the side of the good. What the heck are her views on Darth Vader?


Because Star Wars espouses a very distinct religion that differs from most Judeo-Christian constructs. Its naturalistic in that everything emenates from the physical universe; it also has non-rational elements where POV and intent are more decisive than action. Its godhead is a "force". Its good and evil are more at a detente, with cyclical changes in power, and all eminating from the same godhead.

Yoda is a chief priest in this belief system. That would make it heretical in most dogmatic POV. The fact that Lucas has stated the desire was to appeal to the spirtuality of children, and Yoda is a figure designed to resonate better with children, probably increases the heresy.

In that point of view, Vader is not going to be worse than Yoda for heresy. In fact, he could be "better" from a heresy point of view because he doesn't evangelicize like Kenobi, and doesn't evangelicize or have psychological appeals to children like Yoda. Vader may be morally worse, but that is a different question.

I just enjoyed watching stuff blow up.

Best Regards

John

I think Crosby was talking about perceptions, John, not reality. Although I could be wrong about that.

I was. I should note that John's sentiment in 98 regarding respect for your fellow citizens is in line with the overwhelming percentage of Christians I have encountered in my lifetime. If my personal experience is any indication, it is a rare few that unfortunately get a lot of air time and give the religious a black eye.

BTW I put "Jedi" down on the last census.

Does this make me a satanist?

Do I now have something in common with Chris Truby?

Does this mean I can talk #### to you on Primer and not have it reflect on me morally?

My fingers are crossed.

So if you don't believe in a god, how can you have or know morals/ethics?

I have one friend who doesn't believe that a given atheist cannot have morals, but that those morals only exist because of the foundation of a religious society. He claims that over time, if society rejects religion, there will be no moral base.

I disagree with him, but it's an interesting position that doesn't demonize individual non-believers as immoral. I think people aren't going to considering murder and theft reasonable behavior because they don't have a religious base to remind them. It's not like there's a biblical prohibition regarding slavery, and almost all of us agree that's an immoral practice.

FWIW, there's a column by Michael "axis of evil" Gerson in the Wash. Post today in which he argues that atheists have no basis for distinguishing good from evil:

None of this amounts to proof of God's existence. But it clarifies a point of agreement -- which reveals an even deeper division. Atheists and theists seem to agree that human beings have an innate desire for morality and purpose. For the theist, this is perfectly understandable: We long for love, harmony and sympathy because we are intended by a Creator to find them. In a world without God, however, this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature -- imprinted by evolution, but destined for disappointment, just as we are destined for oblivion, on a planet that will be consumed by fire before the sun grows dim and cold.

While I think the argument is outrageous, maybe it's not a bad thing to have this argument out in the open rather than whispered behind the scenes.

I have one friend who doesn't believe that a given atheist cannot have morals, but that those morals only exist because of the foundation of a religious society. He claims that over time, if society rejects religion, there will be no moral base.

On the flip side, if you don't believe in the divinity or truth of any religions and believe that religions came about to some psychological or evolutionary need, then the morals that go along with those religions were there all along and will not disappear if society rejects religion.

On the flip side, if you don't believe in the divinity or truth of any religions and believe that religions came about to some psychological or evolutionary need, then the morals that go along with those religions were there all along and will not disappear if society rejects religion.

Nietzsche theorised that the Judeo-christian moral/ethical code was the outcropping of a power struggle between the priesthood and monarchs of early civilizations. In other words, morality (no matter whether purporting to be from "God" or not, is an artifact of power structures, not revealed truth.

My personal pet theory is that reigious morals evolved out of the nascient culture of paleolithic tribes. It's generally not productive in a tribal group to have various members stealing and murdering eachother, tends to hasten the destruction of the tribe.

Stealing from other tribes is fine and most religions have been A-OK with that through out history.

What the heck are her views on Darth Vader?

I didn't ask her, but I would be 99.999999% sure they would be the same as they were about Yoda: he comes from outer space, he's of the devil.

Never you mind that he's more machine than man, he's more of the devil than anything else.

And this flows: Yoda >>> outerspace >>> devil. Darth >>> outerspace >>> devil.

I did not follow up with questions about whether the moon was placed by the devil, it was one of those conversations where my mind really was blown for a few minutes. I had no ready reply.

While I think the argument is outrageous, maybe it's not a bad thing to have this argument out in the open rather than whispered behind the scenes.

Right on.

I don't know who Gershon is, but the argument, pasted in by Yearrrrghhhhh and reapeated below, is interesting to me.

For the theist, this is perfectly understandable: We long for love, harmony and sympathy because we are intended by a Creator to find them. In a world without God, however, this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature -- imprinted by evolution, but destined for disappointment, just as we are destined for oblivion, on a planet that will be consumed by fire before the sun grows dim and cold.

Connecting the athetists and the global-warmers is a pretty nifty rhetorical turn if he's trying to rope-a-dope the folks way out on the Right. And trivializing both of them through hyperbole/sarcasm only sweetens the deal. But frying bigger fish he implies or says that...
1) Only a theist can feel purpose because he is imbued with it by his creator
2) That atheists all think love/purposefulness is a chimera

So here's my question. If Gershon replaces theists with Buddhists, does his argument work? I'm not a Buddhist expert, and I'm only trading in my own very limited understanding of it, but... Buddhism appears to me to have many fewer specific ideas about God than it does about ethical living and about transcending basic human needs and desires. And the Buddhists seem to essentially reframe Gershon's atheist dilemma of "we are destined for oblivion" to say that pain is inevitable and suffering optional. So is Gershon really saying Judaism/Christian(/Islam?) when he uses 'theists'? More important, does substituting Buddhist for theist cause his bigger argument to flop because an atheist is yet capable of Buddhist-like ethical, meditational, and introspective practices which can lead to extraordinarily disciplined ethical behavior and purposefulness? (And that's leaving aside for the moment that an atheist could still hold loose beliefs that are religious-like but not neither animated by a god figure nor actually religious in practice.)

It seems like a lot of arguments along those lines also assume there was no morality in pre-Christian civilizations.

More like pre-religious civilizations, and since religion probably pre-dates civilization, it's hard to separate the two.

It's not like there's a biblical prohibition regarding slavery, and almost all of us agree that's an immoral practice.

Its not like the bible is the only source of moral education in most faiths.

But I think this misses a lot in the discussion. Atheism by definition has no tie to any moral system; it is definitionally amoral. Individual practioners of atheism are not necessarily amoral, nor act immorally, but the question will always arise as to where the moral system of the actor originates.

In modern times, that moral system has typically been humanistic. In most any time, replacable systems are still humanistic. Most followers of any dogma will not accept humanism as a replacable moral system. It is too close to operating under a premise of utilitarianism and prone to moral error (or immoral conduct) based on the paucity of information in a real time environment.

Most religions morality and humanism are going to reach much different decisions on areas on the consequence of life. For instance, see the debates on abortion, capital punishment, cloning and stem cell research. But most important, there is not only going to be a lack of access, there is going to be the mocking that typically goes along with most of the ilk.. Moral questions cannot be posited outside the rational because the morality does not exist beyond the rational. And just look at most any statement on the issue, any consideration of the morality beyond existing rationality is met with scorn. Heck, the attitude of atheists is condescending towards those of faith; this board is but one minor example.

You are going to find that most people don't want questions of morality to be reduced to inputs on a spreadsheet. Conduct is immoral, not people. What people distrust is potential immoral conduct. Its not a judgment of the person, that is usually just a projection by those who are judging the person and their intelligence based on their faith.

Nietzsche theorised that the Judeo-christian moral/ethical code was the outcropping of a power struggle between the priesthood and monarchs of early civilizations. In other words, morality (no matter whether purporting to be from "God" or not, is an artifact of power structures, not revealed truth.

And look what happened to him, he ended up dead. Seriously, while there could be merit to that hypothesis, I'm not sure that its practical on the decision itself. We may understand the benefit in not being governed by the dogma of any one religion; however, the majority still does still seek to be governed by moral principals. How we are willing to live with the tradeoffs, the exact divergence of morality in each dogma, and the differences between religious law and morality--- I'll leave that to JC and MCoA if they are willing to join the discussion. I'm not qualified to carry their frankensense or Brattain's myrryh.

I don't know who Gershon is,

He was Bush's main speechwriter until recently and apparently came up with the "axis of evil" line.

So here's my question. If Gershon replaces theists with Buddhists, does his argument work?

This a fundamental problem with Gerson's argument and all arguments that compare faith or theism with atheism on a very general level. He's saying that belief in god is the foundation for morality, but which god? Or is he saying that god is purely a construct that enables us to be moral, and doesn't exist? I doubt it. IIRC, Gerson is an evangelical Christian. If he truly believes in his faith, then he must believe that belief in his god is the foundation of morality.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I actually don't mind so much if people talk about their particular religion, even if they're proselytizing. But I can't stand when people talk in general terms about about the religious vs. non-religious, or people of faith vs. people with no faith. It's a meaningless distinction.

We may understand the benefit in not being governed by the dogma of any one religion; however, the majority still does still seek to be governed by moral principals.

Sure, and Nietzsche definitely understood that. A lot of postmodern philosophers, from Hegel down to Foucault, spent a lot of time exploring the intricate relationship between power and morality.

When you establish a moral code, it's an expression of power over another - you're telling someone what they can and cannot do. It may be to everyone's benefit to have such a code, but that's beside the point - it's still all about power.

Bringing a theistic power into the equation de-personalises it - "do this, not because it benefits me, but because God says so." - and makes it easier to swallow. After all, God is the ultimate authority figure, right? You can't argue with that.

This paper discusses briefly a somewhat different concept for the basis of morality. It's only tangentially related to the topic being discussed here, but it's an interesting read anyway.

If Gershon replaces theists with Buddhists, does his argument work?

Yes.


So is Gershon really saying Judaism/Christian(/Islam?) when he uses 'theists'?

No.

More important, does substituting Buddhist for theist cause his bigger argument to flop because an atheist is yet capable of Buddhist-like ethical, meditational, and introspective practices which can lead to extraordinarily disciplined ethical behavior and purposefulness?

Inherently contradictory. If a person is an adherent of Buddhism, they are not an atheist. Don't impute Universalism into atheism.

But frying bigger fish he implies or says that...
1) Only a theist can feel purpose because he is imbued with it by his creator
2) That atheists all think love/purposefulness is a chimera

No, and that is a problem. You are projecting what you want him to say. First off, most any theist I can think of is going to say that the atheist has the same creator, and that creator is not going to discriminate between creations. Purpose, or more aptly grace, is going to be constrained by free will.

As for the chimera stuff, that is patent nonsense.

It's generally not productive in a tribal group to have various members stealing and murdering eachother, tends to hasten the destruction of the tribe.

See what I mean, classic humanism; morality is based on the utility of the act. That is the center of the code that can be frightening, particularly when you don't possess enough information to judge the utility.

Then there is the desire to impart such humanistic selection mechansims to all actors, which is fundamentally different than most dogma. Of course, this is less rationalism, than rationalization. It just has premise to conclusion with a naturalistic explanation so it fits the worldview. Nevertheless, it and many other things are just as much mythos. Just as much taking what is known and trying to fit it to explain what is supernatural, or force fit conscious and metaphysical into the natural.

When you establish a moral code, it's an expression of power over another - you're telling someone what they can and cannot do. It may be to everyone's benefit to have such a code, but that's beside the point - it's still all about power.

No, that is law, and you would eat up Critical Legal Studies. Morality is not posited --- it exists. A moral code can be posited, and in theistic or animitic senses, it will exist as an imperfect understanding of the order of things.

Bringing a theistic power into the equation de-personalises it - "do this, not because it benefits me, but because God says so." - and makes it easier to swallow. After all, God is the ultimate authority figure, right? You can't argue with that.

Yes, and in theistic instances, the order of things is God(s)' will. But you are arguing with me on the phenomonology of the moral code, for which I grant Nietsche's hypothesis may have merit. (Even if it does, the moral code differs from the morality as an imperfect physical, interpretative instantiation of the morality of the godhead.) I am discussing the phenomonology of the decision on leadership and social order.

Morality is not posited --- it exists. A moral code can be posited, and in theistic or animitic senses, it will exist as an imperfect understanding of the order of things.

Sure, if you buy into a Platonic understanding of how the universe works. But Nietzsche (and other postmodernists) start by throwing that out the window, positing a chaotic universe where order and morality are imposed upon our surroundings by observers (humanity).

Then, understanding that a code of behaviour is a necessary condition of human interaction, the question isn't "what is right?" but "who benefits by this understanding of what's right and what's not?"

Atheism by definition has no tie to any moral system; it is definitionally amoral.

Certainly. Atheism as a philosophy can is neither moral nor immoral; it is silent on the entire issue. Specific religions have distinct moral codes; the binary opposition of atheism (belief in some higher power) does not have any particular moral system until that power is specified.

Each religious system has its own code of moral rules that are at times in conflict with other religious systems. Even within Christianity, what one sect considers to be morally correct is anathema to another. (See Jack Chick re: Catholicism as an example.)

You are going to find that most people don't want questions of morality to be reduced to inputs on a spreadsheet.

I would be shocked to find many people, regardless of faith or lack thereof, that want questions of morality to be reduced to inputs on a spreadsheet. Being pro-free speech (even when hateful, pornographic, or blasphemous) is a moral position as being anti- such speech is a moral position depending on the particular moral code one professes to follow.

Religion can provide a moral framework, but so can other philosophical beliefs. Even utilitarianism is grounded in a foundational belief (it is a moral system itself -- that which has the most utility is the most moral). A philosophy espousing "that which causes the least harm to the aggregate" as proper still starts off with the idea that causing the least harm to the aggregate is the moral choice. And among individual practitioners of all religions I have had the pleasure to encounter, there are widely diverse moral codes, even within the same sect.

You are going to find that most people don't want questions of morality to be reduced to inputs on a spreadsheet.

Is this from Backlasher? That's the problem with the ignore function -- I can't completely avoid the trolling if other people quote him.

Sure, if you buy into a Platonic understanding of how the universe works. But Nietzsche (and other postmodernists) start by throwing that out the window, positing a chaotic universe where order and morality are imposed upon our surroundings by observers (humanity).

No, not a Platonic understanding; any form of dualism would meet this requirement. The reason that I include animism is because that doesn't even require dualism. It can be part of a singular existence and still exist but not be subject to understanding.

But again, as previously stated, I'm not arguing with Nietsche. I mean that would be fun and much more satisfactory than dealing with the likes of Yearrgghhh, but its not practical even with you're doing a good job of being his voice. I say I can grant the hypothesis, but the hypothesis is not probative to the phenomonology of the political decision.

Atheism as a philosophy

Atheism is a theology; as relevant to this discussion. Whether or not it can be a philosophy, I'll leave to the philosophers. What is important is that it is bereft of a moral code, and the moral code that is used is going to be replaced with something else. The hip thing these days is some type of humanism. What is worse, at least a generation ago, is its going to be steeped in some solipistic moral relativism.

the binary opposition of atheism (belief in some higher power) does not have any particular moral system until that power is specified.

I have no idea what you think you are saying here.

Each religious system has its own code of moral rules that are at times in conflict with other religious systems. Even within Christianity, what one sect considers to be morally correct is anathema to another. (See Jack Chick re: Catholicism as an example.)

Irrelevant, pretty well known, and not in conflict. What is this supporting? Notice "Whether I'd vote Catholic" is also pretty high on the "no" list too because its a majority protestant country. That is no surprise. Its also no surprise that its lower than atheism because (1) There is more certainty in the moral code; and (2) There is more similarity in the moral code as compared to most forms of protestantism; with many divergences falling more into religious law than moral code.

Religion can provide a moral framework, but so can other philosophical beliefs.

yeah, I think this is what I said.

Even utilitarianism is grounded in a foundational belief (it is a moral system itself -- that which has the most utility is the most moral). philosophy espousing "that which causes the least harm to the aggregate" as proper still starts off with the idea that causing the least harm to the aggregate is the moral choice.

No it starts from the premise that happiness is the driving goal for action, but that is not very probative.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You have taken a lot of things and made them what you want to be as opposed to what they are. Virtue for virtues sake is about as opposite from individualized reward for action as one can get. And if you want to take it beyond hedonism, modern utilitarism would teach the collective impact of the virtue and its weighing principal is what society has taught us through generations.

But again, none of that refutes anything I've stated, nor is it directed to anything I've stated.

Very few theists are going to be comfortable in relying on humanism alone as the calculus for decision. Very few what the happiness of the majority to outweigh the virtues in morality.

Very few theists are going to be comfortable in relying on humanism alone as the calculus for decision. Very few what the happiness of the majority to outweigh the virtues in morality.

You are implying that humanism is primarily concerned with the "happiness of the majority" as opposed to the "virtues of morality".

The "happiness of the majority" is not a fundamental tenet of most humanism while morality (and thereby its virtues) certainly is.

What is important is that it is bereft of a moral code, and the moral code that is used is going to be replaced with something else.

The mere belief that a higher power exists is also bereft of a moral code.

It is only the joining of that belief to a specific theology that has a given moral system that makes it different from the atheist in a moral perspective. The belief itself (whether some higher power exists) is amoral. The belief that this specific incarnation of that higher power exists and sets out these rules is where the moral framework enters the equation.

Hopefully, that is more clear than this quote:

the binary opposition of atheism (belief in some higher power) does not have any particular moral system until that power is specified.

Very few theists are going to be comfortable in relying on humanism alone as the calculus for decision.

Then the issue is with the philosophy of humanism, not with atheism.

(1) There is more certainty in the moral code; and (2) There is more similarity in the moral code as compared to most forms of protestantism; with many divergences falling more into religious law than moral code.

I agree that this is what those people are thinking; I disagree that they are coming to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. Knowing nothing about two people, one of whom is, say, a Methodist, and the other who is an atheist tells you nothing on its face about which is more likely to share your moral values (except for the divergences of religious law or lack thereof).

Gershon:

For the theist, this is perfectly understandable: We long for love, harmony and sympathy because we are intended by a Creator to find them. In a world without God, however, this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature -- imprinted by evolution, but destined for disappointment, just as we are destined for oblivion, on a planet that will be consumed by fire before the sun grows dim and cold.

If Gershon replaces theists with Buddhists, does his argument work?

Not very well for the buddhists that are also atheists.

He was Bush's main speechwriter until recently and apparently came up with the "axis of evil" line.

That was David Frum, no?

Anyway, interesting discussion - Mike Piazzaa, Star Wars, the relationship between religious faith and moral knowledge - wish I had more time to post. Not least b/c I'm in the midst of Peter Gay's book on the Enlightenment.

Mike Piazzaa, Star Wars, the relationship between religious faith and moral knowledge

And don't forget RC Cola.