Hey, Brother! Thanks for taking the time to comment at such length!

I have to say, I am unsure what to do with the first three paragraphs here. I don't know any intelligent atheist who thinks it would be a good thing if belief disappeared overnight. And really, it's a rather bizarre hypothetical musing. It's like some inverted rapture! Lol… So, I am going to pass on further comment there.

Richard Dawkins has in fact called himself a "Cultural Christian", and I think it's an important distinction. Christianity will, for ages to come I'd think, be a part of Western Culture (and be an influence on the thoughts of people the world over). Those of us born in this time and place are molded in an environment heavily influenced by Christianity, while those born in this time and some other place are so influenced by Islam or Hinduism or whatever. This is inescapable, and is not necessarily a bad thing. One doesn't want to throw out the bathwater with the baby Jesus, as it were.

As to our susceptibility to belief in the supernatural and our penchant for weaving it into our culture, I would suggest that false positives and confirmation bias are known traits that have to be dealt with as best as we can. We have a lot to learn about how these relate to the development of the human psyche and its ability to function in the world. As I've read elsewhere (no reference, I'm sorry to say), it's better for us to mistake a shadow for a deadly tiger than mistake the tiger for a harmless shadow. On the other hand, the person who jumps at every shadow has a problem, no?

Nor would I suggest that we do away with rituals or our quest for so-called higher states of mind. The neocortex is still a mystery-laden puzzle to us, and a great deal of research shall have to be done on it before we've any absolutely clear consensus on its capabilities, limitations and role. The temporal lobes, when stimulated, produce in many a sense of "not being alone", of there being "someone there". Some people feel that this presence is "God", others that it's some sentient je ne sais quoi. What's interesting is how, in religious trance or deep meditation, the temporal lobes are activated while the parietal lobes "…appear to nearly shut down. The parietal lobes give us our sense of time and place. Without them, we may lose our sense of self" [Source]. Clearly the brain operates this way for a reason, but sussing out that reason is going to take a lot of work. As you once said to me, evolution doesn't work toward perfection, it works toward what's good enough.

[To be continued.]

As for atheist charities… I have to say that you have picked a fine cherry for your argument. Might I note that atheists do not tend to discriminate in their charities? Whatever gets the job done seems to be what works for atheists. You might want to check out the following, if you'd be so inclined: Atheist/Secular Charities (eighteen general charities are listed right at the top, followed by many issue-specific charities). Also, Ebon has his own response. I would suggest that you might find these two links point to something a great deal more substantial than 100 books. Finally, I would like to note that back when my own money problems really were starting to bind me to the living-paycheck-to-paycheck model of American life, I managed to donate to the relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina. I did not, however, have any identifier on my check noting that I am an atheist or secular humanist.

It seems to me that you, too, have done something. You helped those in need recently, even. Was it incognito? Would you not be willing to organize on behalf of those who are not religiously affiliated? Are you sure you were the only person there who doesn't believe in "God"? Don't you see that you have the answer to your questions: "Where is the atheists' sense of ethics and morals, and community, lived as clearly? Where is their belief that living a life committed to doing what is best for others is what gives meaning to their lives? And if you lack that, why would you expect that anyone would want to join you?" Where is your sense of ethics and morals, dear brother? Clearly you have them.

It has in fact been my personal experience that in a predominantly religious environment, being open about one's disbelief is a fast-track to being ostracized or proselytized at. And while there are certainly those religious groups that do not attempt to convert those whom they're assisting, there are plenty of stories (from history to the modern day) of missionary zeal astonishing in its coldness toward the human rights of others. It is difficult to swim against the tide or the dominant flow of the river. It is difficult to always be told to "sit down, you're rocking the boat". It is difficult to regularly be told that the best thing you can do is be quiet, keep your unpopular ideas to yourself, and don't upset people by pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. It is difficult to try to find a new way in a world obsessed with the old and its preservation at all costs. Nevertheless, the atheists I know are making the effort for the good of all people. If they are a bit testy, it's from being assailed by those who are predisposed to thinking that no good can come from atheism.

By the way, while I "let them figure it out for themselves" do I also let them (or their brethren) slip creationism/ID into the school curriculum? Do I let them discriminate against the LGBT community? Do I let them dictate public policy regarding sex education and a woman's right to choose when to get pregnant or terminate her pregnancy? Do I turn a blind eye when they decide to refuse someone treatment at a clinic or hospital?

What bothers me about the things atheists tend to write about is that it is as naive as the Bush administration was going in to the Iraq invasion. There's going to be bloodshed no matter what, but if you have nothing ready to take the place of what you want ripped out of the existing culture then your "success" will become a calamitous and very bloody failure. That, of course, assumes you could ever have any significant success to begin with. Unlike Iraq, there really is no "simple way" to take out the control structure of religious thought. It doesn't matter how good your bombs are if you have no place to drop them or, more to the point, no end to the places you would have to drop them.

(And at the risk or now sounding like a complete "Rene fan boy" … ) I think this is what Rene was getting at with the comment that we need to start building an "Atheist church."

I could put that another way. It's like you are standing on the outside of a fortress with a sledge hammer banging on the walls because you know that all the people inside are living under the illusion that what's inside the those walls is the real world and you are determined to show them that they're wrong. What you need to be doing instead comes in three parts.

First, you need to: 1) drop the hammer, 2) turn around and 3) walk away. They can build walls faster than you can break through them and, somewhat ironically, all that unquiet, destructive intent of yours just makes them thank God they have those walls to protect them.

Second, you need to live a life that isn't focused on proving someone else wrong. Instead, you need to be explorers and discoverers of new ways to fulfill those ancient needs. You need to find ways that exceed what is best in faith-based philosophies. You need to recognize that easily 99 times out of 100 when you find some notable humanitarian action it is not one that was started by atheists or secular humanists. When I read that the American Humanists Association's charity website is bragging about collecting 100 textbooks for Afghani medical students (http://tinyurl.com/ccj6gh) I don't quite know what to do. Laugh? Cry? I mean, really, wtf? A national charity organization that thinks 100 textbooks is worth writing about?

I love the story about the husband and wife doctors Reginald and Catherine Hamlin who came to Ethiopia in 1959 and confronted the terrible heartache of fistulas destroying the lives of thousands of young women (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beautiful/hamlin.htm... I really question whether or not this story would be possible without the religious faith of the Hamlins. It should be, to be sure, but where is the secular support system for such self-sacrifice and generosity? I've gone to Mexico to help build homes for poor families. I went two weekends ago with a group of about 40 people to help clean up two vacant buildings that are intended to be used as transitional housing for poor, mentally ill patients that can't be treated for a variety of reasons at the county hospital or homeless shelter. In both cases this was with a group from two different Christian churches that, once a month, don't have their regular service but instead go out somewhere to serve. They do it to "glorify their God." I do it to love and I do it with them because there is no one else.

And that doesn't even begin to address the countless small, personal acts of kindness that go on in religious communities. In a functioning religious community — one closely tied to practicing some form of the Golden Rule — no one goes uncomforted or hungry or lonely except by choice. It's a way of life for them, not some assumed behavior reserved for special occasions. Where is the atheists' sense of ethics and morals, and community, lived as clearly? Where is their belief that living a life committed to doing what is best for others is what gives meaning to their lives? And if you lack that, why would you expect that anyone would want to join you? You need to be able to replace their belief that God give meaning to their lives with a belief that "our actions give meaning to our lives."

Third, once you have something to replace what their faith brings to their lives, then simply live with them and among them and let them figure it out for themselves. When it comes up, let them know you don't believe in God (or in gods) but you do believe in loving others and in serving the communities you find yourself in and in the natural sense of morals and ethics that grows from caring for and about people and in living as a responsible citizen of a world with limited resources and …

And isn't this Rene's point? Let's imagine that the world wakes up tomorrow and every single person of faith suddenly realizes they have been deluding themselves and, more significantly, that they have been leading a life based (to some degree at least) on these delusions. These people wake up transformed. They know there is no god. They realize there is no one answering prayers. They understand questions like , "Why am I here?" and "What did I do to deserve this?" have no answer beyond what facts and science can reveal. There is no "everlasting;" no "hereafter;" no eternal reward or punishment.

You (any atheist, not you personally) would have to be stupid to start shouting "Hooray for our side!" or "Mission accomplished" — incredibly stupid because you would be just hours or days away from, if you'll excuse the term, hell on earth.

I don't believe in God but I most certainly believe in the "Idea of God." Donald E. Brown, in his 1991 book, "Human Universals," lists over 200 universal traits in people — characteristics or behaviors common across all cultures (http://tinyurl.com/7yeaz) — and among those are several relevant to this discussion including: religion and the belief in the supernatural; belief in magic; music related in part to religion; myths; proverbs and sayings; rituals; rights of passage; sexual regulation; … Again as Rene has suggested, we seem to have evolved in such a way that we are prone (or susceptible) to both a belief in the supernatural and the inclination to weave that belief into our culture at all levels. It doesn't really matter if god does or does not exist because the idea of god does and it's part of the fabric of our lives, like it or not.

[continued]

Having attended a Universalist Unitarian church off and on–it being a place where you cannot guess exactly what anybody's particular belief will be–I can say that a sense of community, a sense of shared purpose, with rituals designed to bring people together for that community and purpose, is just as effective with or without any given belief. I think that people are naturally inclined to want to work together, to find and define purpose together. "God" seems really superfluous in the end, and I'd go so far as to say that it makes sense that "God" was merely added onto something that humans were already doing well before written history began.

Our "future 'better way'" is in fact the oldest, natural way. If you teach the children well about the foundations of healthy cultures, about how societies best work, about how people have tirelessly worked to overcome conflicts and apparently intractable problems, then that is what children will grow up looking for in the world. Give a child a sense of wonder at the world; give that child too a desire to see people get along and improve their lives; give that child a full and secular education; give that child opportunities to practice the principles of kindness, compassion, caring and loving; give that child the tools and support s/he will need to overcome the adversity and trouble that naturally come along in a person's life; you will have in the end, most likely, a well-adjusted human being whose faith is in humanity (and secular humanism). Rituals will naturally evolve from this. Don't reverse,–redirect.

As to the history to which I alluded vaguely, I do not have any longer post on that. I was extrapolating from what I've read and what I've learned over 42 years. A little research via Google should help flesh out the salient points for you.

Thanks again for all your comments.

But I am also convinced that people will remove their addiction to religion only by finding something that replaces it. This new something needs to bring together people in common rituals, gives them some certainty in life, a sense of something greater than us that is a source of hope and morality. Does our future 'better way' provide these things?

I'm convinced that our very genes drive us to search for these things, and reversing a few hundred thousand years of evolution is not a realistic propect.

Btw do you have a more extended post on the history? That was an interesting rundown, albeit too brief!

We know that a well-rounded, quality education today can undermine superstitions and irrational beliefs. (This is, of course, why so many fundagelicals want to homeschool their kids.) But there is more to it than that. There is a shift toward polarization in this country (and in other places around the world). If you go back half a century or more you find that beliefs were more general in their manifestation, more homogeneous in societal terms. Education was fairly robust then, as well. But people were not anywhere near so polarized. There was a national upsurge in religious affiliation brought about by the experiences of two World Wars. The groundwork was laid then for both great and terrible things, the fruit of a paradigm shift that dropped from the tree in the mid to late 1960s.

I am not doing justice to the history here, and am running too far afield. My main point is that, in the end, the Information Age, the explosion of general access to vast amounts of knowledge via the Web, the breakthroughs in genetics, neurology, geology, ecology and other fields related to the theory of evolution and the modern synthesis, have all gone toward undermining the fundagelicals and mysticism generally. We have entered an age that in a de facto manner pits science against religion and superstition. Atheism is becoming a viable, sensible and solid alternative to the decaying position maintained by religion(s).

It seems to me that the possibly (but not necessarily) "positive influence" of the delusion in question is threatened not simply by atheism but by science itself (and so by education in light of science) because the delusion cannot well stand against them. The only recourse of the religious is either in radicalization or dilution, either of which is incapable of providing sustenance or nutrition to the possible "positive influence". That there is probably a better way to deal with the problem of religion I have little doubt. However, I am unsure about the timely arrival of that better way. Chemo must be employed until some better curative measure is practicable.

• It is to be remembered that some beliefs may arise not as a reaction against some other set of beliefs but instead as a reaction to those who maintain them. For instance, a young person may ostensibly become Wiccan in response to her or his parents Christianity, but psychological analysis may well discover than in fact the new belief has primarily arisen due to the young person's need to differentiate her or himself from the parents. This is not to say that there is never a genuine conversion, but only to suggest that children do on occasion rebel, consciously or unconsciously, in such a way. I would further suggest that where a belief has arisen as a reaction against the holders of some other belief, the conversion will be less likely to stick; e.g., a child may well abandon Wicca and return to Christianity once her/his relationship with her/his parents has stabilized in a healthy manner.

But could we be underestimating the positive influence of this delusion, and overestimating the capacity for rationality in humans?

We are surely right in the long term, but what about in the short term? Maybe us mannered atheists are right to not be so zealous in our arguments.