Collegiate Times

I'm so sick of this idiotic argument that Atheists can't possibly really be good people because we don't have a God who is watching us to be afraid of at all times. Some of us are capable of being good people without fear of reprisal from an all-powerful, Galactus-like being in the sky. I'm sorry that you and many other Christians can't understand that compassion and kindness are themselves their own rewards, not the price you have to pay here to enjoy heaven. It must be a dark, cynical existence, but that doesn't mean you can project that on the rest of us. I'm an Atheist and I'm a good person. Just because you can't come up with a pragmatic reason for me to be a good person doesn't mean I'm faking it.

It is actually the worst form of bigotry to assume one's own moral superiority - and to do so for no reason whatsoever other than that one has 'faith' in one's own moral superiority. I am an atheist. I decided in high school that I wanted to leave the world a better place than it would have otherwise been. Consequently, I spent 12 years in college studying moral philosophy. Your article here shows that you have such a hatred of atheists that you look for excuses to denigrate and demean them, caring nothing about the reasonableness of your assertions. Atheists have very good reason to promote a moral society. If you do not want to be killed, then you promote a society in which people are adverse to senseless killing. If you do not want to be robbed or to have your children kidnapped and raped, then you promote society's aversion to theft and the rape of children. If you want to help to ensure that somebody will help you in times of crisis, then you encourage people in your community to value helping others in times of crisis. It's as simple as that.

Altruism (real examples not social mores like bus seat etiquette) does have a place in survival and Dawkins has much to say on the subject. Ah yes, this of course is typical of theists, they'll point to various communist regimes and insist that it was their atheism that caused the Killing Fields and other acts of brutality ignoring the reality; the communists did these things for communism not atheism. It would be like saying Jesus died for chocolate and a really long weekend. But if we want to talk mass murder let's talk about the 500 years or so of Christian civil war across Europe. Those were all places where religion was not only taught but was the law of the land. Not just any religion but the dominant Christian one. Did Spain, France, England and the rest turn cheeks? Love their enemies? Or did the invade, murder, torture and pillage the holy hell out of each other with crosses flying on the flags of each side? Hmm it's almost like gods or the lack of doesn't seem to make a difference in the evil that men do. But theists are like marketing departments, they have a product (god) they want people to buy it so they need to come up with needs. You need our god otherwise people are bad! There is no more evidence for that than there is evidence of your god being real.

This is a good effort Allison, but it’s not your job to convince the atheist of God’s existence. It’s Gods job to convince them. No matter how logical or illogical your argument is, no matter how compelling, no matter how honest and sincere, you cannot possibly change the heart of an atheist. So while you and I may be thoroughly convinced of the truth because God has shown us truth, the nature of man apart from God’s grace is to reject and run from God, even to the point of denying His existence. A better thing for you to do would be to live your life as a good example and save the arguments for philosophy class.

Many individuals (theists and atheists alike) such as salvage tend to trumpet the vengeful and evil things that have been done in the name of Christianity over the course of history. It is important here to recognize that what is done in the NAME of any particular movement or belief does not necessary correspond to what is ADVOCATED or SUPPORTED by by that same movement of belief. We experience this every day in our dealings with Islam - the fact that many terrorists act in the name of Islam doesn't necessarily imply that Islam itself is a terrorist-supporting religion. Similarly, the 'problem of atheism' Allison seems to approach with this column isn't with the 'live and let live' atheists - people who don't happen to believe in God, but don't particularly care that others do (and as a result, don't advance opinions about such theists as incompetent, intellectually inferior putzs) - but rather against those atheists whose seemingly avowed goal is the total rejection of all religion by all people everywhere. The most fascinating part of that latter group, to me, is that it in itself is a religion - rather than God, it seems to hold man and his capacity to reason as the 'higherst echelon' of power, and represents a wholly conceited view of man's power and rights. It is this latter group of atheists with whom most theists have a problem.

Mr. Fyfe summed it up very well: the atheist (and most people, for that matter) act in a "good" way because it is in their own self-interest. What goes around comes around. If I don't want people stealing from me, then I make it a point not to steal from others. The analog is true for any other crime where there is an unwilling human victim. Of course, simply because I do not harm others is no guarantee that I won't be harmed, but that's the chance you take by being alive. I don't need a Big Cop in the Sky to tell me that it's in my own personal interest to foster a peaceful environment that respects other people.

Mr. McGlumphy has a valid point - there are certain things which 'just make sense' to do as a means of self-preservation and correspond with what we might objectively consider 'good things.' The problem here comes from the opinion of God as a 'Big Cop in the Sky.' I don't claim to be an expert in world religions, but I know that for most religions, while the moral code is certainly a 'central feature,' the point of God isn't t 'police the world' and make sure people play by the right rules - the whole principal of the moral code exists on account of the nature of free will, which many theists believe is a gift from God. Clearly, different religions offer different opinions of the nature of God's interaction with the world on a day-to-day basis, but I don't know of any religions wherein God's active role is to routinely and deliberately dole out punishment for transgressions against His law - that whole 'final judgement' thing happens, at the earliest, after death, and in many cases it is something which will happen 'at the end of time.' There's a lot more (most religions teach) that God does than act as a policeman dictating what would be best for everyone, and to simplify religion as such represents a gross misunderstanding of the nature of religion in the first place.

I am not sure what is conceited about believing in man's power and rights. There is no dispute that we as humans are the most successful and competitive animal there is on this planet. We have the power to change landscapes, ecosystems, and travel beyond this planet. So why then, is it conceited to think that our capacity is not the 'highest echelon of power'? There is no other being, proven to exist, that has our reasoning and mental capacity. If you deny the existence of god(s), then there is no higher being than we are. And to the author, please learn something at this fine institution and shed your ignorance. I'm sure "God" gave you that brain for a reason. Thinking? Researching? Those are all constructive and useful ways that brains can be utilized besides paraphrasing talking points of others.

This point is completely off base. God does not have to be the deciding factor in a moral decision. An Atheist defends his morals with the care for his fellow man. A Christian acts for fear of being punished by God. He feels that if he does something "wrong" God will punish him by sending him to Hell. Therefore, they do the "right" thing in the eyes of God so that they will be rewarded with eternal life in Heaven. An Atheist does something because it will help his fellow man. He is someone who cares about people above all else. It seems as though the Christian is the selfish one who is acting simply in his own interest. Take the house on fire example, a Christian would go into the house because God would be upset with him if he didn't. God would punish him if he ignored the cries for help. The Christian needs the added threat of God before he will act to help his fellow man. An Atheist would run into the fire knowing that a person needs help. He would not need to be pressured by God to do the right thing, he feels a compassion for man and does not want to see an innocent life lost. An Atheist morality is easily defended, it is defended by mans compassion for his fellow man, it does not need to be justified by God and rewarded with eternal life in Heaven.

That depends on how you classify success. I'd challenge that we may well not even be the most competitive animal on the planet - although we are perhaps the most resourceful and intellectually advanced. That having been said, it is worth recognizing that there are things even Man cannot do, including controlling the weather and preventing death, among others. So we come to your point about 'proof,' and like most atheists, the conjecture denying God's existence is rooted squarely on the truth that such an existence has not been objectively proven. But it is worth noting that, while we have made many technological advances over the centuries and we are certainly more knowledgeable about our world now than we ever have been before, there still exist things we do not know. That's why we have fields of study such as, for instance, chaos theory, and string theory, and other such theoretical fields which seek to understand the nature of 'how stuff works.' The fact that we don't 'have the technology' to prove or disprove God's existence doesn't invalidate His existence any more than the fact that we didn't have the technology to show that the Earth rotated around the sun until many years into the time of the humans indicated concretely that the Earth is in fact the center of the solar system.

Mr. King, you offer a rather provincial "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" view of Christianity as a whole. Certainly, there are sects which take this 'fear of the Lord' concept to an extremely high degree. There are many other sects (and religions - I'm not sure why the assaults on this board have all been against Christianity specifically), however, which believe that God, for instance, sent Jesus as a means of DEMONSTRATING how to live and love one's fellow man. It has little to do with a threat of punishment and more to do with an understanding of God's love and how to show it to one's fellow man. It's a bit simplistic to assert that Christians act always with an air of self-preservation while atheists are morally superior because they have no compelling interest in self-preservation - I'd argue that the point is not so patently obvious as that (look at, for instance, Mother Teresa).

Billy King, I'll bet you I could find a bunch of people, religious and atheist alike, that would not be willing to run into a burning building at the prospect of saving someone. I resent your implication that compassion for fellow man is an atheist condition, rather than a human condition. The fact that religious folks believe that good works are a way to enter heaven does not necessarily make all such works contrived.

I agree with Jason T. What a horrible judgment to pass on ALL Christians. Furthermore, why can't it just be believe what you want to believe and leave it at that? I don't have a problem with people being atheists, it's their choice as it is my choice to be Christian. What I have a problem with is what Kyle mentioned earlier: when atheists criticize my belief in God and try to convince me otherwise. I certainly know this goes both ways as this article seems to be trying to convince atheists. But as I am sure atheists resent Christians and other religious people passing judgment on them, I don't appreciate atheists judging me.

david, I've got to side with Kyle on this one. You must qualify your statement that humans are the most successful and competitive animal on the planet. Most successful how? Why do you get to determine how success is measured? We believe that we are the best at reasoning, and we believe that our system of communication is tops, but aren't we also the best at synthesizing toxic chemicals, developing sophisticated torture methods, mass killing, etc.?

I'm guessing you're religious Allison so I'll try to be as unbias as possible. I myself am an atheist. I equate belief in God with belief in Santa Clause. They're the same thing, just different names and I would say Santa Clause is much more a role model than the Judeo-Christian God. You say that atheists act purely because it's the law or because of evolutionary means and that's not enough to account for the origin of where such guidance comes from. Well you left out one other mechanism: socialization. This concept has been observed and studied by social scientists for decades. It is an accepted scientific fact. People develop their sense of right and wrong from a mix of things, including the topics you mentioned in the article. But to say that God established this concept of a conscious is what scientists call an argument from ignorance. You don't know all the facts so you ascribe it to God. That's a common tactic of every religion, not just Christianity. The truth is socialization along with evolution and group dynamics are what establishes our morality. In between all of that is context and God is never part of that equation.

It is also worth noting that God is not very kind or loving if you're talking about the God of the Bible. That God condones slavery, rape, war, and genocide. That God wiped out every living thing on the face of the planet in Genesis, save for Noah and his family. Even Hitler and Stalin never came close to that. God also murdered all the first born children in Egypt. How is that moral? And Jesus Christ was no saint either. He advocated people giving up all their wealth and living a chaste life in order to inhabit the kingdom of heaven. It's all in the Bible. You'd be better off taking your morals from comic books or Santa Clause. I have no problem with people believing in God. I have no problem with people believing in Santa Clause, Thor, or aliens. But I find it insulting that you think mankind is not fit to establish their own morality and we need a god to watch over us. God is an unknowable, unprovable being. You can't make those assumptions in intelligent arguments and expect people to take them seriously. It's fine to argue morality, but keep God out of it. God is best kept to yourself.

Saying that we can not invalidate god's existence because we can not prove that god does not exist is not a good argument. There have been many things that are thought to have existed that we can not prove did not exist, yet the majority of the human population would scoff at anyone who believes those things. The problem with God and scientific proof is that God requires faith, which is the antithesis for science. When scientists change their paradigms, such as from solar system revolves around the earth to heliocentric, they can do so because there is enough evidence, and that as scientists, they take what they know, through scientific method, through testing and retesting, conclude that as far as the evidence shows, this is how the world works. On the other hand, if God was found to be non-existent, would a believer disbelieve? I can't speak for any believers, but I doubt that in light of evidence against God, many deeply faithful would just stop believing in god. Therein lies the problem. Where atheists would change their views to include god, believers will not change their views to exclude god. And as far as your second comment in regards to Mother Teresa, I would say that she may not be the saint everyone thinks she is.

Kyle, Jason, I see where your concerns over the term "successful" have merit. Thinking about it, I can not see where there is an instance, perhaps besides intelligence, where we excel beyond other animals. Yet we compensate, like no other animals can, in the areas we lack. We can reach heights beyond what nature has evolved to so far. No other animal is so versatile, and none so adept at adapting to cope with their disadvantages. I also believe no other animal has had such a drastic effect on the planet in which they inhibit in such a short time, and are in a position where they can potentially oversee the well being of this planet.

What a wonderful column this was! As a Christian theologian and experienced writer myself, I found this writing to be not only insightful, but uplifting. It ended on such a meaninful and thought-provoking principle. The very mid-point and center of the entire Bible is Psalm 118:8. From that point, there are 594 Biblical chapters preceeding it and 594 Biblical chapters to its end. Now, what is not so ironic is what that verse, Psalm 118:8 says. It reads, "Better to take refuge in the Lord, than to put one's trust in man." My second, final, and conclusive point is that athiesm is ultimately "a lack of belief" in anything divine, higher, or greater so then, how are we to respect or draw any sort of intellectual prowess from athiests because of what they say are their beliefs. They claim to believe in not believing. That in itself is a contradiction. I will conclude with this thought, from St. Thomas Aquinas: "For the man of faith, no explanation is necessary; for the man without faith, no explanation is possible." Thank you for writing this article. It has impacted my life significantly in a positive light. ~ Anthony Maranise CBHS Athletics: Director of Faith Development Program Major of Religion / Theology: Christian Brothers University

Haha... yeah right Anthony; the part about how atheists would 'walk by a bleeding homeless man' or 'smile or laugh at a starving child' was really insightful and uplifting. What a joke.

There is a difference between "believing in not believing" and not believing, Anthony.

So we have some Christians who can't understand why an atheist or non-believer would ever do anything good. Well, I would like an explanation for every time a Christian has done something bad.

I am agnostic, rather than atheist for one simple reason: reason. I know enough to know that there are things I don't know. Many atheists condemn religious people because their religions don't make sense. I contend that it makes just as little sense to lack the curiosity necessary to wonder if there is a reason or purpose behind the universe. An example to illustrate my point: Russell's teapot analogy equates belief in God to belief in the existence of a teapot orbiting our earth. The problem with this analogy is that we would have no reason to suspect the existence of such a teapot, and its existence would be largely inconsequential. On the other hand, it is the very limitations of human and scientific understanding that cause us to speculate over the existence of a higher power.

Therefore, the various interpretations and attributes assigned to this higher power are in some sense the products of a brainstorm of ideas of what could possibly be behind it all. Of course, these ideas remain untestable, taking them out of the realm of science and into the realm of faith.

Well if ol' Tommy Acquinas said it, it must be true. Also, atheism is defined as "the doctrine or believe that there is no god", not a global "lack of belief". The belief in a Supreme Being is not a requirement for a solid moral foundation. Both theists and atheists are susceptible to the pitfalls of evil and wrongdoing as evidenced by.. uhhh... all of history. People will ultimately use their beliefs as justification for their actions. This includes religious justification to commit immoral acts, as this column fails to address. What a terribly ignorant column.

In regards to the "What good is it, evolutionary-wise, for men to give up their seats for older women on the bus?" issue, it is often overlooked that while evolution serves as a fine explanation of why we are psychologically hardwired to behave in a "moral" fashion (ie. the self-serving morality concept), psychology itself provides an even better explanation for altrusitic behavior. Children can be raised & programmed to do any variety of actions that would be useless or even negative from an evolutionary standpoint. We hold doors and give up our bus seats because we were programmed to feel good when doing so from an early age. Our concepts of decorum, politeness and charity come from centuries of cultural development, which undoubtly evolved from more primative forms of social interaction that were actually beneficial to one's survival.

Anthony and Allison, like I said before, it's not your job to convince. You're speaking to fools, you're better off praying for the atheist than yelling at them. You cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God without adding faith into the equation. I do not understand why you are beating your head against the wall here trying to convince the dead that they must somehow come to life on their own. And no, Billy, most Christians are concerned with following the example of Jesus rather than saving their own souls when they act in kindness towards others. The man who runs into a burning building fearing that God will throw him into Hell if he fails to rescue someone is not a Christian. God is not impressed with our “good-will,” He is not impressed with our works, He is not even impressed by our “faith.” He saves those who He chooses, and is only impressed with His own grace. To believe that we can somehow save ourselves with charitable actions is about as laughable as believing I can use logic to convince an atheist of God’s existence.

It's funny that you should call atheists 'fools,' because it says in Matthew 5:22 "but whosoever shall say 'Thou fool' shall be in danger of hell fire."

There is nothing new about Aldrich's argument, but it's refreshing to see a Christian come right out and say that the only reason that she is "good" is because of being threatened with punishment. It's not surprising that she just can't fathom being good because it's the right thing to do, her other columns make her disdain for basic human rights and her latent sociopathy pretty obvious. Some of us just get by with something called a "conscience" rather than threats of eternal damnation.

Please read my dialogue "Euthyphro" to understand the dilemma presented by divine command. Put simply, is something good because God says so, or does God say so because it is good? Follow the logical implication of each choice. Obedience is not morality.

Exodus 32:26-28 – Moses kills 3,000 Levites because they failed to say they supported God…those who failed to say they supported Him and their brothers, companions and neighbors. Numbers 25:6-9 – Yahweh kills 24,000 of his “chosen” with plague because of a mixed marriage. He only relents when some desperate soul murders the couple. Judges 1:5-7 – 70 captured kings are maimed in Yahweh’s name (no Geneva Conventions back in those holy days) 1 Samuel 6:19 – Yahweh kills 50,070 of his “chosen” people because one decides to sneak a peek at the Ark of the Covenant. 2 Chronicles 1:10-14 – Yahweh burns 150 soldiers to death for confronting Elijah. 2 Chronicles 13:15-18 – Yahweh “delivers” 500,000 Israelites to the people of Judah to slaughter. 2 Chronicles 14:8-12 – Yahweh kills 1,000,000 Ethiopians. 2 Chronicles 28:6-8 – Yahweh “delivers” 120,000 “valiant” men killed and 200,000 women and children from among his own people as slaves. Jeremiah 25:33 – “the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth” Your God is a murdering psychopath.

i believe the usual comment squad has summed it up more eloquently and with immensely more volume than i could possibly begin to write. that being said, it's a shame the CT does not allow profanity and voluntarily prints this garbage for a whole campus to read.

Wasn't the question about Atheists ability to be moral? that's the problem with all religion, but Christianity in particular, they always have to "save you". they are always looking for new recruits. If you leave me alone,i'll leave you alone....America remember?

I'm going to have to put my foot down at this point. A lot of commenters on this board seem to view 'Christianity' as one catch-all phrase for Western religion. But is it really right to lump in, say, Catholics (who on the whole tend to be less evangelical) with, say, Southern Baptists (and their superstar Pastors with mega-churches)? The outcome of the Luther reformation was that the Christian church became quite fragmented, and the fragmentation continues to grow to this day. There are literally hundreds of different sects, each with its own belief system, code of morality, order of worship, and the like. So please don't try and categorize all Christians as bible-thumping, 'are you saved'-type Jesus-freaks. I guarantee you, most Christians aren't like that at all. Do a little research before you try and slander an entire religion.

This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)

Is there a Christian sect that doesn't actively recruit? If so they are the exception. That was all the lumping i did, and i made sure to include all religion so no one felt left out.

Yes, there are Christian sects that don't actively recruit?! I went to a family friends church on Christmas and not one person tried to "recruit" me into the Church or sect. That was a Baptist church. Furthermore, Presbyterian and Methodist churches I have attended and been members of have never tried to recruit anyone I know. It's funny Christians are accused of judging, but dang the atheists on this board are judging up and down, all around.

For the record, simply because one doesn't believe in any particular religion's interpretation of God doesn't make one an atheist; anti-religion doesn't equal atheist. That would be akin to saying that if one isn't staunchly Republican or Democrat that one has no political views. Yet I too often hear people who proclaim atheism merely because the choice of available religions seems ridiculous to them. Let me be clear: the only valid defense that I will recognize for someone to justify their atheism is that they don't believe in any sort of purpose or cause for the existence of the universe beyond the big bang. They don't question why the big bang occurred, what caused it or where the matter in it originated; rather, they are content to believe that the universe simply exists "because it does." To me, this is at odds with general human curiosity. Religious interpretations of God are simply human manifestations of the notion of the vehicle behind the universe's creation. If this doesn't describe you, you are more likely an agnostic; that is, one who believes that the nature of the purpose behind the universe is inherently unknowable.

The only words I can find to comment on this article are disgust, and ignorance. It is very sad to me that a member of the Virgina Tech Community could write such a demeaning article which would obviously bash many members of our campus. HOKIE RESPECT remember? Being atheist or agnostic has nothing to do with making moral decisions. I would never want to be part of a religion that threatens people and puts ones "soul on the line." Next time, please think of those who may be affected by your article, because this article completely offended me as I'm sure it did a lot of other people.

Many people here need to take their beliefs or lack thereof off of a pedestal. Just because these beliefs relate to religion does not exempt them from scrutiny or judgement. If you tell me you believe that a goblin lives in your ear and eats your ear wax, I will question and judge you based on that belief. But somehow when the belief is related to religion this doesn't apply? Don't act like your rights have been violated when someone examines and judges you based on your beliefs or lack of beliefs. That being said this article was terrible . Implying that atheists have no morals and will destroy us all if they get the "upper hand" is offensive and has no place in the CT.

Jason T, your categorization of atheists as incurious simply because we have no higher being to aspire to, attribute no cause or purpose to the creation of this universe is simply wrong. Your inability to find purpose in life without a higher being or without believing there is a purpose to this universe can be attributed to your own shortfalls in thinking. Do no make the mistake that atheists are incurious as to the origins of this universe, or are in general curious as to how this world works. I would say it makes atheists MORE curious, seeing as the religious already know the answer to creation, whereas atheists are actively searching, actively coming up with new ways and testing new theories. Your lumping of atheists into one group is as bad as the atheists who Kyle earlier commented against for lumping all sects of christians together. Furthermore, who are you to demand justification from an atheists about their beliefs when no atheist has said “the only valid defense that I will recognize for someone to justify their Religiousness is that they are irrational and can not cope without a higher being to support them†or something along those lines?

And replying to really?, yes this article was disgusting and hateful. The CT should not publish trolls who are out for attention. You can bet that if this was an article against gays it most likely would not have been published. But as it is, it is still ok to discriminate and be prejudiced against atheists.

I thought this article was really profound and thought provoking.I think Aldrich did an excellent job, and I do not think she is a troll....shes a babe...look at the pic.

David, you've just done exactly what I was railing against. The opposite of "atheist" is not "religious." The opposite of an atheist is ANYONE who believes ANYTHING about ANY SORT of "purpose" or "cause" to the existence of the universe beyond what we can scientifically demonstrate. It is common to forget that agnostics are included in the category of "non-atheists." A religion is simply a system of beliefs that many non-atheists choose to build around a central belief in a higher being or universal purpose. However, belief in a universal cause or purpose, or even just acceptance of the possibility of one, can certainly exist independently of acceptance of religion. My point is that atheists spend an inordinate amount of their time pointing out inconsistencies and absurdities in various religions, and they often equate discrediting religion with disproving God's existence (e.g. if God loves us, why is there starvation). In truth, doing so does nothing to discredit the existence of a higher power or universal purpose; it merely discredits religion itself. I personally do not need for there to be a purpose behind the universe or my life; but I believe there may be one, although it is unlikely that I will ever know what it is.

Also, Nick, don't misunderstand. Ms. Aldrich never asserts that atheists don't have morals. Doing so would contradict her entire article. If anything, she is asserting that atheists do have morals, just like everyone else; she is simply arguing that these morals are instilled by God rather than some sort of natural social evolution.

Jason T, it still does not deny the fact that you can not comprehend how atheists can question “why the big bang occurred or what caused it or where the matter in it originated.” It also does not address the fact that you believe atheists are “content to believe that the universe simply exists ‘because it does.’” I may have misunderstood your definition of atheist, but those claims you made still show your prejudice against atheists, that they are somehow less human because they, as you claim, do not have “general human curiosity.”

David, let me try to elaborate a bit. I don't believe that atheists completely lack this human curiosity, but rather that science is only capable of advancing our understanding in finite steps. If you're trying to understand concepts such as the origins of the universe, you should be prepared to face ideas that are infinite in scope (what happened before the big bang, for instance). I believe that a true empiricalist will be completely unprepared to even speculate about any such possibilities on an infinite scale. I am not prejudiced against atheists; I am merely stating the fact that their world-view leaves them ill-prepared for dealing with any sort of notion of what happened in the possibly infinite time before the big bang.

Few of us do the right thing for purely selfless reasons. There may be an occasion when our behavior is the product of pure altruistism, but if we are honest with ourselves, our motivations with respect to moral behavior typically stem from "worry about consequences" and because it makes us "feel good," as Aldrich states. I would add "social benefit" to her list. This applies to all of us, whether we be religious, atheist, or somewhere in between. I would ask Ms. Aldrich this question: How many would remain devoted to their religion if they knew it brought them no benefit beyond death, gave them no sense of belonging, conveyed no sense of hope, and did not make them feel better about themselves? Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, etc. are not separate species. We are all the same human animal. The more we acknowledge this and the less we cling so deperately to our supposed "specialness," the greater chance we have of overcoming the problems the "us versus them" mentality the Aldrich article represents.

Science, by definition, aims to provide natural explanations for observable phenomena. It is a heuristic tool. Jason T. is right that Science cannot progress using non-empirical leaps. However, it is the primary strength of scientific methodology that is explicit detached from spiritual and metaphysical explanations and bounded by very strict assumptions of logic and observable facts. By the way, Big Bang is not an observable fact, but simply the best model available to us that explains Hubble's Law, the Universal Background Radiation, and other astronomical observations. To butcher a Popperian school of thought: scientific theories are simply iterative efforts to improve our understanding of empirical observations (see Feyerband's "Against Method" for a distinctly opposite point of view). Likewise ultimate causes (spiritual or not) are beyond reach of science (read Bohr for a good treatment on this topic). As a side note, according to the Big Bang model, time and space were both created in the event (there was no time before then) so the statement "what happened in the possibly infinite time before the big bang" makes little sense in the context of that theory (although it may be valid as a spiritual statement, or if we add an extra assumption that Big Bangs occurred multiple times). Great discussion though (I think)! It proves once again that a mediocre and naïve opinion piece can generate an illuminating and entertaining discussion.

I can't believe the Collegiate Times would publish this crap. The campus is swarming with prospective freshmen right now, and this is what they read when they pick up a copy of our student paper. If I read this as a 17-year-old, I would seriously reconsider my interest in what would appear to be an environment unwelcoming of different ideas and beliefs.

Amen to that, MJK! I completely agree, and thank you for correcting my imprecise language regarding the big bang theory. Yes, the possibility of an oscillating universe that continually implodes and explodes has boggled my mind for some time now.

Some really fascinating stuff over the last few hours on here! We seem to have reached some sort of meager consensus regarding the scientific ends of religion, so perhaps now is a good time to bring up a more philosophical point: there is a significant problem, in my mind, with referring to atheism as wholly non-religious. If you look at the foundations of what, exactly, constitutes a religion, you find a couple common facets: one is some sort of standard code of ethics (often as simple as the golden rule), another is a shared belief in a particular concept. Religion, it is important to note, need not necessarily have a centralized organizational structure. It strikes me that atheism, as a practice, is itself a religion, although one founded on principles which differ almost universally with those of theistic religions. Is it proper then to call atheists religious?

Excellent point, Al. I'm not a VA Tech student or alum but a dad who toured UVA on Monday and your school today (Many thanks to Zach Ellis, our informative, humorous, and refreshingly honest tour guide). With me were my wife, 17 year old son, and three of his friends, all juniors in an IB program in Richmond. Loved your campus, the setting, the academic offerings, the obvious school spirit, and as advertised, the cafeteria fare was good too. No contest for me. Hands down it's Virginia Tech over UVA. Left a great impression on the kids too. But the paper! Geez! In terms of content, it doesn't compare favorably with publications from many of the other schools we've visited, especially in light of the Aldrich article. Political correctness aside, the point was poorly argued and the article is befitting of a high school newspaper.

Kyle, there are compelling arguments that it is not. This may be a fun place to start: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm From my personal atheistic perspective (although on my better days I feel agnostic), there is one fundamental difference. For me, my lack of faith is not the most important priority guiding my life. My family or my friends are more important to me than my lack of faith. It is my understanding that, for a truly religious person, their belief system is the most important thing (by definition).

Interesting point, MJK - but if what you say is true, than most people considered to be 'religious' probably don't fit the bill either. Most people, from what I can tell, utilize religion when it is in their best interests and tend to downplay its importance when it becomes a constraining force in their lives. This of course doesn't invalidate the idea of religion - but I suppose what we ought to do is come up with a characterization of what, exactly, a religion is. My idea in bringing this topic up was to introduce that very idea - that atheists whose atheism is itself a moral crusade are, in my opinion, no less 'religious' than their ultra-evangelist counterparts - two sides to the same coin. I guess what I'm getting at is that religion doesn't necessarily imply a belief in a higher power - a common misconception in today's society.

Kyle, you are right about people claiming to be religious but not really "keeping the faith" at all times. However I would tend to agree with MJK's assertion that atheism is not a religion. What I have learned from having almost this exact debate with several atheists is that they don't feel that the term "atheism" should even need to exist. They believe that, in some sense, they shouldn't be cast as disbelievers when disbelief seems like it should be the default choice. It's not as though they actively disavow a god; instead they simply don't find it necessary to consider the existence of one in the first place.

That raises the question, though, of why atheism ought to be the 'default' choice? I mean, certainly the principles of theism can be explained, in the most simple terms, by a continual search for answers to the unanswerable questions - most specifically, regarding the purpose for our existence in the first place. But why, exactly, does atheism exist? Is it that atheists aren't particularly curious about why we exist? I sincerely doubt that - but it seems to me like the principle of atheism has developed so much as a reactionary force to the principles of theism. The most vocal proponents of atheism seem to take the side that theists are by default ignorant simpletons who don't have any respect for scientific truth. Now, I don't believe that ALL atheists believe that to be the case - but the point is that that set of vocal atheists make atheism seem like a purely reactionary movement, designed specifically to counter the beliefs of theists.

Kyle: you have very interesting points; I've enjoyed reading your comments thus far. I am an atheist, and as to why, I'm still trying to figure out the exact specifics of that. The basic explanation at the moment is that when you speak of the concept of God, nothing fills my inner soul, if you will, as it would a theist's. Most atheists I've observed have beliefs relating to the original roots of the word: "not theism." It's like viewing numbers on a line. If the religious were positive integers (on the basis that they have "something," not that they are better), atheists are not negative numbers (like the common perception) but zeros. WE simply do not believe. However, there are as many different kinds of atheists as there are Christians, I'm sure. What are referred to as "strong" atheists are those who ardently argue against the existence of God. (Just as there is a small number of various theists that ardently argue against atheists, not all theists are as reactionary to atheists.)

But if you think about a human brain like a contain which fills gradually with knowledge, the default state of that container is empty. As is the default state of theism. You are not a theist unless you either come to the conclusion based on your knowledge and experience, or it has been imparted to you by a third party. So why shouldn't atheism be the default choice? Kyle, I personally believe that the need for a REASON to why we exist seems infantile. Why does there need to be a reason? Is your life somehow empty without an all encompassing reason to why we, or anything else, exist? It is not that atheists are not curious as to IF there is a reason, and (if yes) what that reason is, but needing a reason for existence seems more like a human need, and we are not all so conceited to believe that the universe caters to our needs. I do agree, however, that some atheism is derived from a basic reaction to theism. But there is nothing wrong with that.

*container. The last post was mine.

It's a metaphysical question, David. The extent of our 'purpose' for living isn't really meaningful outside of the principle of the natural human curiosity. But the reason for existence raises some interesting moral conundrums - if we simply exist, with no rhyme or reason as to why - why are there moral laws? Why do we feel so strongly about the concepts of murder and theft? What is the nature of 'natural rights' like life, liberty, and property (a la Locke)? If humans just pass in and out of existence on an arbitrary timeline, then why are we concerned with the plight of our fellow man? Of our planet? These are questions that both theists AND atheists try to answer - to varying degrees of success.

[Adding to my comment on response letter] First, there are volumes of scientific and philosophical literature that propose how "morality" can evolve as a biological phenomenon and offer alternatives to these specific beliefs. However, I want to focus on what I interpreted as an offensive, narrow-minded column. What specifically offended me was not the writer's use of personal beliefs as a "rational" argument, but the blatant intolerance and prejudice she espoused for a group of citizens who have the same right to free thought that she exercises. Paradoxically, with a single sentence separating her words, she says, "Our tolerance for differences of opinion is established by God, not man" followed by, "God help us if atheists ever get the upper hand because then our rights would be only as firm as one man's opinion…" So, it follows, then, that no atheist should ever be allowed to hold public office or be a high-level federal or state employee because they believe something different from her? Morality from God indeed. Would her words be tolerated if she said them about any other group in society? I don't think so. For example, inserting a random religious group into her sentence, "God help us if {Hindus} ever get the upper hand because then our rights would be only as firm as {the Hindus'} opinion…" Different gods, incompatible morals? The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment include giving atheists equal rights in respect of their different world-view.

"would her words be tolerated?" They ought to be - as a means of free expression and open discourse. The fact that you don't agree doesn't discredit her opinion, and the fact that her opinion offends you doesn't mean that she oughtn't be allowed to hold it. The truth is, our society values a high degree of censorship in the interest of keeping everyone happy - and in this effort, we have all sold our souls to the devil.

I agree with and encourage your free speech and free thought sentiments. We do censor to some degree for PC's sake (i.e., the Danish cartoon fiasco), but I took the piece as promoting discrimination. We as a society tend to discourage that sort of thing. She, and you, can have any opinion you want, and it wasn't my intent to try to discredit hers. I simply offered my interpretation of her [poorly chosen, perhaps?] words. But, who wants to come off sounding like the KKK encouraging prejudice? [Yes, I realize they have their rights too.]

The right to freedom of speech is a right to freedom from violence in response to what one says and does. It is NOT a right to freedom from criticism. In fact, criticism is also speech. To claim that freedom of speech implies a prohibition on critism is as absurd as saying that a square is not a square. There is absolutely no violation of freedom of speech going on here. There has been, instead, an exercise of both the freedom to speak, and the freedom of others to condemn speech that was, in fact, little more than an attempt to promote an unreasoned and unfounded fear of atheists. It is far too common for people who have said something deserving of criticism to try to hide behind this bizarre interpretation of 'freedom of speech' that says, 'it is wrong for anybody to criticize what I said.' It protects the most obnoxious of claims. It is the opposite of what freedom of speech was meant to be.

Well, if we're going to split hairs, people don't innately have the right to free speech. The freedom you talk about is a freedom from governmental intrusion - from a perspective of legal technicality, so long as I am not an agent of the state, I am entitled to restrict your speech in any way I see fit (if I don't abridge your other rights along the way). That having been said, my whole issue was with the point of 'tolerance' and the reason I brought it up is because we tend to have a far more PC-centred ears and eyes than we used to. Every opinion, in my opinion, deserves its voice - and the more ridiculous, the more it deserves that voice. Keep in mind, as many people as the KKK recruited, it drove away even more with the sheer lunacy of its claims - for each person who bought into its rhetoric, many others were totally repulsed by it. Never underestimate the power of a vocal group of idiots to illustrate their own idiocy.

We are allowing one narrowed individual that is not even indicative of the majority of these posts get to us by condemning her. What people should do instead is offer her information instead of insults- I wrote in to do just that and am hoping for it to be published.

Kyle: If you hold that every opinion deserves it voice, then you must hold that the view that my opinion also deserves its voice. In other words, you cannot use this standard against anybody - even me. To make such a claim, and to offer it as a statement against an opinion you disagree with, is entirely inconsistent.

maybe if people didn't believe in a "god" that "speaks to them" they wouldn't spend the 60-80 years they have as conscious parts of the universe trying to invade, kill and steal from other people. Maybe that "godless" realization would provoke people to find purpose in improving the world for all those they will leave behind, rather than trying to impress some magical man in the sky by converting, killing or condemning those who don't think as they do. You also have to consider that if you, for the sake of argument, assumed there was no god, and maybe people since ancient times have created stories to try to explain their world...why do they create stories about good and evil? if god is truly a human construct, aren't we there in lie creating our own morality without any divine voice whispering it in our ear?

humans created god to answer the questions we had no answers for. We've created answers that mostly tell us to take care and live for each other. The biggest question of whether there is a god or not will never be answered on this earth. That's kind of the whole beauty and mystery of it all. People who try to define god our mostly imparting their own judgments (hate gays, hate other religions) on a being thats only voice is through humans. (ever play that game where you pass a message through a line of people and see how distorted it gets by the end?)

Alonzo, I'm not trying to silence anyone, and I believe that I made that point patently clear in my previous post. From a legal standpoint, the freedom you enjoy is a freedom from governmental intrusion, not an inherent human right to opine at will. From a personal standpoint, it harms intellectual discourse to stifle any opinion, regardless of how inane it might be. SO to that end, I agree whole-heartedly with you. As I tried to point out, though, my issue was with a comment concerning whether a statement would be 'tolerated,' and by that standard I would charge that all statements of necessity must be tolerated.

I am not accusing you of trying to silence anyone. I am saying that your statement is inconsistent. If A makes a statement, and B criticizes A, you can't senisibly criticize B by saying that 'all opinions should be heard' - because it implies that B's criticism should also be heard. The claim is empty.

Freedom of speech is one thing. Freedom to have your speech published however is completely different. I don't believe it harms intellectual discourse to stifle any opinion. You shouldn't be stifled from speaking your opinions but there is no reason or obligation for your opinions to be published, especially in a student run university wide newspaper.

So, performing a good deed only for one's own divine salvation in the afterlife is somehow more noble than doing a good deed for a reason apart from God? It's a very strong assumption that an Atheist would refuse to help someone in need because they have no direct incentive. It's also offensive to the humanity of active Christians to assume all good deeds they perform are simply for their own well-being in the afterlife. If anything, your conception of God and Christianity is limiting to human altruism.

I don't see how my statement is inconsistent. My point is about the nature of tolerance, not about the nature of free speech (which does not exist). Criticism is an intellectual tool, not an intellectual constraint - offering a criticism of a point does not equate to an opinion of "that point doesn't deserve to be heard." All points deserve to be heard - and all points deserve also to be thoroughly scrutinized and criticized.

I don't agree that all points deserve to be thoroughly scrutinized. It is possible to make a point that has no value. If I claim that there is a man with a string that pulls the sun across the sky every day, does that deserve to be scrutinized? Of course not. Now if I made that claim and then provided video of a man with a string attached to the sun actually pulling it across the sky, it then becomes something that deserves scrutiny.

I can't believe the paper would publish something as bigoted and intolerant as this...I'm ashamed to say that this is our campus paper.

Wow. I, too, can't believe such a article so bigoted, hateful, and ignorant article got published. What is it, the 14th century? I am atheist. So are many of my friends and family. Millions of Americans are atheists. In countries like Japan and Sweden, atheists makes up a large portion of the population. "If there is no God, then why bother to save lives at all?" Many atheists are firefighters, doctors, nurses, and scientists. Many atheists do volunteer work. Allison Aldrich, if you can't figure why they do it, I truly feel sorry for you.

I'd just like to give my condolences to anyone who read this article. Allison in no way, shape, or form represents Virginia Tech. I also took personal offense since I am an atheist. I agree that she does have freedom of speech and may voice her opinion but I just want to make it clear that this is her PERSONAL opinion and not that of the majority of the students or staff at Virginia Tech. With that being said, I hope that Allison does not get too much backlash with hate mail or phone calls. Since she is not in a position of power to where her thoughts can effect public law people should not worry. I hope she reads these comments and reflects on what she wrote and maybe writes another article to explain any misconceptions that may have arose.

I forgot to add; If you really want to know how non-religious people "know" right from wrong I recommend you take the class "Morality and Justice" (Phil 1304). You should find this class extremely interesting if you want to learn reasoning and morals from human thinking.

I've already taken "Morality and Justice" and enjoyed it very much. The only thing I'm sorry for, Bob, is that I failed to take into account an ignorant group of people who would rather twist my words, call my a bigot, and assume things instead of rationally argue a different point of view. (Those of you who did, disregard this).

Aldrich, your words don't really need much twisting. Remove all the straw men and all that's left is "WAHHHHH WAHHHH ATHEISTS"

"Who decides what the "right" thing is? Is it from societal norms and the government? Is it from an innate feeling in each individual? Surely it can't be societal norms or government regulation that determines whether behavior is acceptable. Those who believe in that line of reasoning would have to argue in favor of slavery during America's founding and women's limited rights up until recently." Who decides? WE DO! And we change what is right and wrong as we change as a society. Slavery was acceptable for thousands of years (read the bible). WE decided slavery was wrong and we changed our ways. Just as when we revolted from England and decided that people have the freedom to choose their religion. "Our tolerance for differences of opinion is established by God, not man." /sigh - Who speaks for God? MEN! They use their own views then tack on to the end the fact that God tells them so, or god wants them to do this. Gay marriage will be legalized in time. An example of how we as a society change our definitions of what is good or bad. And it won't be because of god.

(JBH) How Morality Evolved Some animals are social animals, who survive by cooperating in groups. Humans are the most social of any, cooperating in groups that include millions. Morality is the way that peaceful and cooperative relations are maintained among group members. If you want to maintain peaceful relations, don't kill, steal, lie, or break agreements. If you want peace, work for justice- people will fight if their share is too small. As Shakespeare wrote, "It needs no ghost, Milord, come from the grave, to tell us this." Health can be defined as the ability to survive. Natural selection selects for "inclusive fitness", which in plain talk is the health of your family. We are all descended from uncounted generations of ancestors, every one of whom acted successfully to promote the health of their family. Because we are social animals evolved by natural selection, we have bred into us a "natural" standard for judging our neighbors. A "good" person is a desirable neighbor, from the point of view of people who wish to live in peace and raise families. I have a longer essay at http://civic.bev.net/atheistsnrv/articles/definition.html

Purpose and Meaning: .. Purpose is ours to choose. There is a natural "default" purpose, which we may choose if we like. We all have parents, as did they, back to the beginning of life. Every one of our ancestors had children. Health is the ability to survive; the goal favored by natural selection is "promote the health of your family." We are all members of Darwin's family, all kin from the beginning of life. The Good is that which leads to health, The Right is that which leads to peace. If you want to maintain peaceful and cooperative relations with your neighbors, don't kill, steal, lie, or break agreements. As Shakespeare wrote, "It needs no ghost, Milord, come from the grave, to tell us this." If you value anything, value other humans, for they are the only help you will have in times of trouble. Meaning is the story we choose to join. Instead of seeking a ticket to Heaven by being obedient on Earth, we can gain meaning by seeking to make this Earth a better place, for ourselves and our posterity. This wondrous Universe is more than enough. We have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night.

You forgot that the people in favor of slavery and opposed women's rights were (are) Christians. Slavery and dominance of women is supported in various locations in the Bible as is genocide on a whim.

God is quantumly impossible anyway so suck it.

I certainly hope that the Virginia Tech that I attended 20 years ago has not turned into such a hotbed of hatred and intolerance for the choice of religious expression (or not, as in my case) as represented by this author. I am a lifelong atheist and did not feel such feeling when I was down there at Va Tech. Thank you for making me feel ashamed to ever having been associated with such a formerly fine institution of knowledge. A very, very, VERY disappointed past student of Virginia Tech.