Letter: Column lacked solid facts
Wednesday, March 26, 2008; 12:00 AM
In response to the column "Defending morality in an atheist's culture is challenging" (CT, March 25), the article on the questionable morality of atheists was not only bereft of facts, it was downright offensive.

Rather than follow her example and speculate wildly, I'd like to present some facts. Japan has one of the highest percentages of atheism in the world at about 60 to 65 percent, depending on the source, and has an exceptionally low crime rate; among the best in the world. The U.S., by comparison, has a very low atheism rate, 3 to 9 percent, and some of the highest crime rates and the highest incarceration rate in the entire world. Furthermore, I would like to point out the distinct lack of "atheist extremists" currently killing people in the name of God in the world today, while we see the Irish Republican Army and English, Jews and Palestinians, Shiites and Sunnis, and Chinese and Tibetans all killing and being killed in conflicts based on one god or another. I would also like to remind the author that many of our founding fathers and great national figures were atheists, agnostics, or deists, including Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and Robert Frost. None of which, I think we can all agree, has gone on crime sprees after realizing there is no god to punish them.

The fundamental problem with most organized religion is that it assumes that people are innately wicked, something that she seems to agree with. They have sets of rules and rituals in place to keep this wickedness in check. Atheists, in contrast, believe that most people are basically good. It is with that belief that I advise the author to rethink her stance, and perhaps consider the following while thinking of all the war in history that has been committed in the name of one god or another: "Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions" — Blaise Pascal.

David Conrad
junior, human resource management

You might be interested in... Related Topics:
Posted by: John B Hodges at Apr 10 (JBH) If Alison is arguing that everyone's moral sense was instilled by God, that is contrary to the Bible, which says we gained our knowledge of good and evil when Adam and Eve ate that magical fruit in the Garden, contrary to the will of God. Jason T argues that "showing that religion is absurd in no way implies that God does not exist", and so forth... IMHO the Bible is the best available evidence against the existence of any God, because if any god existed, they would not tolerate THAT book being sold in their name. Have you ever actually looked at WHAT the Bible teaches about morality? Contemporary Christions don't actually FOLLOW the Law of Moses, and they don't actually FOLLOW the New Testament teachings of Jesus, and they don't even pretend to try. For good reason; the former is barbaric, and the latter is apocalyptic. See http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/JesusEthics.htm Flag Abuse
Posted by: donald colliss at Mar 28 People boast of science in modern world but they fail to take note of the beauty of our creation. Brothers and sisters, when you look into the mechanism of life, aren't you surprised that everything is so well planned and perfect! Look at your eyes, your skin, your organs, your cells, your brain..etc. Doesn't they look like some engineering marvels? Here I am not trying to convert anyone of you who don't believe in God, but I am just trying to share my thoughts with you guys! I am an engineer and dream of designing but for every step forward we engineers do look backwards for what has previously been designed! Look at the evolution of aeroplanes, how they were designed and how they are being evolved now? Yes, Engineers take cue from flying birds. Doesn't it make sense that the same birds are engineering marvels for us? Or forget about birds, just look at how various organs of our body work! or how beautiful flowers unfold to life as if someone has delibrately designed them like that! Look at what Stephens Hawkings has to say about the evolution of universe? I hope rational people will love this documentry on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5uX8aS9ejs&feature=related. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jacob at Mar 27 I've taken social science classes and have discussed and studied morality at length. Research shows that Atheists and Christians alike seem to get their morals through the same processes. They come from a mix of evolution, socialization, and personal preference. There's no one real sources. Religion just ascribes a source that is really part of socialization. There are numerous studies into these phenomenon. Look them up, Alison. They should answer your questions about morality. It doesn't say anything about whether or not God exists, but it addresses the substance of your article. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jerry H at Mar 26 Points well taken. Different world-views do keep things interesting! Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 26 Interesting points, Jerry. I think the bottom line here, though (now that we have seemed to have weeded out those posters from earlier who either insisted that religion is absolutely right, as well as those who seem to think that those who believe in a divine being as absolutely wrong), is that humans have always wanted (and will always want) answers to questions that we aren't necessarily prepared to answer. Science can certainly lend us a great deal of insight, but religion can offer a great deal of insight as well - many of the more mainstream religions actually advocate this stance (science as a means of understanding what God has created), and while that sort of 'chalk it up to God' attitude may seem scientifically inappropriate, it provides for many people a sort of psychological ease that there doesn't HAVE to be a scientific reason for everything. To that end, it is worth noting that religions have evolved in an analogous way to life - the coexistance of religion and science has provided the impetus for a tremendous amount of progress in both realms. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jerry H at Mar 26 Oops, that should have been "adaptive" not "adaptative." Sorry. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jerry H at Mar 26 Good discussion. I want to quickly comment on the suggestion that "morality" can't be an evolved biological phenomenon. There are plenty of examples of behavior in non-human animals that defy evolutionary reasoning when they are considered out of their appropriate ecological context. That is, one must consider under what circumstances they evolved as adaptations (note that not all current traits are necessarily adaptative). So, what was advantageous to individuals in small bands of early hominids? Later on as more complex tribes and societies formed? Clearly those situations were very different than what we experience now sitting in Blacksburg. Also, a god as an initiator or "guide" of the evolutionary process may be satisfying to some, but like other supernatural explanations it offers no room for falsification. Therefore, we fall back to individual variation in susceptibility to just have faith. I agree with Nick that creationists also back themselves into a "loop" with this argument: "A complex behavior is altruistic, going against evolutionary theory (which is a wrong assumption), so it must be designed." Given this argument, the complex designer must also have been designed. By whom or what? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Nick at Mar 26 Well I guess it depends on personal preference. I personally prefer the infinite loop science provides, as I can't reconcile the religious alternative without applying a scientific method of thinking to it which reaches the same result with a less satisfying method of getting there. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 26 Perhaps I wasn't clear enough - God Himself is believed to provide the closure in the loop. At least for Catholocism, the idea is that God transcends time (and, for lack of a better phrase, 'is time'). Nobody created God - He simply exists. It may seem like a scientific (or perhaps metaphysical) copout, but that's where the closure comes from - otherwise we DO wind up in the infinite loop you rightly point out. Flag Abuse
Posted by: nick at Mar 26 Kyle, I can see the point you are making, but I can't say that I agree with you. While the purely religious line of thinking may seem to "close" the loop, I believe it is not really a closure but an omission. Yes for example genesis attempts to explain why specific things are created and etc, but to me this begs the question of why the being that created them was created. And if god was created, for what purpose? Granted this may be placing a scientific line of thinking onto a religious line of thinking, I personally can not see a reason to differentiate between the two. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 26 That's a great point, Jason, and one that's been hanging in the back of my mind for a long time. While it is true that there do exist churches that teach the principle of creationism as an absolute fact, it's important to note that there are far more churches which insist that life was created by God, and that its evolution to its present state was set into motion by God as well. Common 'proof' of this is offered in the form of the 'natural beauty of the world,' the 'natural order of things,' and so forth. Only in the most extreme cases are creationism and evolution wholly incompatible. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Mar 26 Kyle, you're forgetting another major point: morality may be evolutionary or divinely inspired, that's true. But evolution may itself be divinely conceived as well. Nick: you make good points. The argument of who/what would have created god is certainly a valid one, and one which has been documented by many philosophers. I agree that an answer without reason is not particularly satisfying. That's why I like to think of God as a conjecture rather than a fact. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 26 Your point is well taken, Nick, but I think a little too general. Christians,, for instance, look to the book of Genesis for an explanation of the creation of the world: therein lies a detailed list of reasons as to why specific things were created, and why the order they were created matters, etc. Does this mean that it is ACTUALLY how the world was created? Not really - but it is an attempt to answer the question, which can be either directly refuted by scientific processes or affirmed by those same processes (or perhaps philosophical processes). The point isn't so much that the metaphysical questions we ask go on indefinitly, but rather that one line of thinking (the purely scientific) leads to such an infinite loop while another line of thinking (the purely religious) totally closes that loop. Neither, I think, is particularly desirable, and that is why religion still has a place even in our modern society. At the very least, it provides a point of conjecture on these 'big picture' questions which we can use to determine the true nature of things. Flag Abuse
Posted by: nick at Mar 26 while it is valid that tackling problems such as why the universe exists leads to a regress of "why's" and that science may not be able to handle these types of questions right now or even ever, I personally do not believe religion or faith to propose any solution to the problem. Well if god created the universe then why is there a god? Who created god? Has god existed forever? Some people may say that this is scientific thinking and different from faith which may claim that god has always existed, no one created god, and that is just how it is. Personally I see no difference between an answer with no reason for it and no answer. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 26 Both, David, are legitimate questions which have not (and I would argue perhaps cannot) been answered. To your other point before, David, it is worth noting that the fact that something cannot be conclusively inked one way or another does NOT in any way invalidate EITHER side of the argument. Morality may be evolutionary - it may also be divinely inspired. There is no scientific proof to either end - just like there exists no scientific proof for (or against) God's existence. That's why we have religion, metaphysics, and similar ideas - so that we can explore the inexplicable. Flag Abuse
Posted by: David C at Mar 26 I think we are coming to a misunderstanding about what you mean when you say "about its cause." Do you mean what caused the universe to come into existence? Or are you questioning why the universe came into existence? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Mar 26 To the anonymous poster, David C, and Jerry H: The point is not that a question about the origin of morality is directly related to questions about the origin of the universe, but rather that, in some sense, as we seek some sort of "absolute" answer to any question, we will often regress along infinite strings of "whys" trying to arrive at the root cause of it all. Science is currently based on an "given the existence of the universe, do your best to explain it" framework. As such, while we can delve into greater detail to understand the universe as we observe it, we are ill-equipped to tackle questions about its cause, if there is one at all. Note that there is nothing wrong with this framework of science; it is simply all we can manage at this stage in our evolution. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Mar 26 Kyle, a minor correction to your portrayal of Ms. Aldrich's argument: she is stating a belief that EVERYONE'S morality is divinely inspired. Her argument has been incorrectly represented as saying that atheists have no morals. Analogously, if I believe that people are God's creations, I am going to believe that all people, atheist or not, are created by God. Similarly, if I believe that a moral sense is instilled by God, that applies to everyone, not just believers. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Anonymous at Mar 26 Also, Ms. Aldrich's piece was bigoted because her views "God help us if atheists ever get the upper hand..." for example are dotted throughout her piece. It is not hard to see that her views on atheists (not the ones SHE knows, of course) are negatively portrayed. Her line of thinking also does not extend very far beneath the surface. Why would a gentleman give up his seat on the bus? There could be a variety of factors. Society deemed it so, it shows that the man will take care of the women, therefore increasing his status as a potential mate, etc etc etc. There could be a hundred or so answers, and I, for one, am not afraid of the new questions which arise, and the excitement of looking for those answers instead of attributing it to a supernatural source. Tell me, who is the more curious one then? Flag Abuse
Posted by: David C at Mar 26 Kyle, there is nothing that says morality can not be an evolutionary trait. There are many instances of altruism other species, with the sole purpose of furthering your own genetic line some how. Morality has nothing to do with the question of what purpose does this world have, or purpose of existence. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 26 It's important to note also that the fact that Ms. Aldrich's piece has stirred a large amount of controversy doesn't in any way make it bigoted. It seems like her question is more of "Well, I know where my morals come from - but where do the morals of atheists come from?" Given that, it wasn't a very eloquently written article - but it didn't advocate any sort of bigotry, and was certainly not bigoted in its own right. The fact that disagreement exists merely indicates that the metaphysical conflict between theism and atheism has not been laid to rest in any way - this is a healthy, informative, and utterly fascinating debate! Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 26 It's a metaphysical thing, Jerry. If morality exists as an absolute, objective fact, then the natural cause is to wonder why. It clearly can't be an evolutionary trait, since several facets of our moral structure (don't kill, don't steal, etc.) seem to deny the realities experienced by other animals in nature. So we are left wondering how morality came to be - why has it been obvious that we shouldn't kill other people, for instance? If it is the case that humans are a 'better' species than others, then the natural question to ask is why? I wish I had more than 250 words to explain this, but that's the nature of the question lineage. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jerry H at Mar 26 Oh, and I don't see how the question of why morality exists necessarily leads to how the universe originated. These are very different questions that need not be linked. I'd be curious to hear the chain of questions connecting them. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jerry H at Mar 26 Jason, I can respect your questions. Indeed, the seemingly increasing number of questions as you reduce your way down biological (and chemical) hierarchies of organization is amazing, but they are typically explainable with natural explanations (e.g., why genes?). The separate domains of science and religion have received lots of attention from both sides, and the debate continues with little hope of a resolution. Some would argue that supernatural suppositions should be held to the same scrutiny as physical claims, especially if the supernatural claim is proposed to replace a natural explanation. My point wasn't to argue these things (there are scads of resources for that), but to point out the bad logic of creating false dichotomies when there is more than one alternative (a common tactic by creationists). My main point was to denounce the bigoted nature of the piece. It just so happens that the prejudiced opinion was based on bad logic and a lack of information. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Mar 26 Jerry, I understand your point. However, even if Ms. Aldrich doesn't expressly discuss these scientific and philosophical works, one simple element remains: describing the biological impetus for morality will only get us so far. Let's say we find a morality gene. Among the next questions many of us would ask are things such as why such a gene exists, where did it come from, where do genes in general come from, etc. This often leads to an infinite regression of "whys" toward a question, that is to many, unanswerable: the question of how the universe originated. To me, the problem is that there are things that science and philosophy are simply not designed to discover. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jerry H at Mar 26 I want to throw in some thoughts since my letter wasn’t make printed. Even though the piece was an OPINION, it failed to consider lots of scientific and philosophical work that seeks to explain the origin of morality as a biological phenomenon. One simply can't enter a debate with only personal beliefs as the basis for an argument. Aldrich uses faulty logic in her jump to the supernatural. I interpreted her rationale as, "I don't believe in one specific biological hypothesis for the origin of morality, therefore it MUST be from a divine creator." This creates a false dichotomy of alternatives and makes it impossible to test other, equally plausible alternative hypotheses. This is one reason (among MANY others) that the whole concept of intelligent design has been completely shot down as anything approaching science. I was also offended by the column, not for the writer’s use of personal beliefs as an argument made to seem rational and evidential, but for the blatant intolerance and prejudice she espoused for a minority group of citizens who have the same rights that she has ("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, then, no atheists should hold public office, etc.? This type of language would not be tolerated if it were directed at any other group of people. Having a different world-view does not make one wrong or susceptible to discrimination. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Mar 26 Pierre, she is not saying that theists believe atheists can't be moral; she is saying that atheists don't have an explanation for where their notions of morality originate. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 26 Jason's first comment is right on - indeed, the founding fathers were agnostics - deists - who adhered to the principles of no particular organized religion, and yet believed that God did, in fact, exist. Religion itself is a belief system, not a 'club for idiots' like so many on this board seem to insist it is. . . Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Mar 26 To Cliff: The examples you give are not necessarily wrong opinions because you haven't shown us the logical fallacy used in forming them. In the case of Hitler, if you accept his premise of the benefits of an Arian race, then his opinion on extermination of Jews is very valid. Logical fallacy is not at all the same as disagreement with one's premises. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Pierre JC at Mar 26 Alison Aldrich wrote: "I have not heard a convincing response about where the average atheist gets their moral guidance." It's quite simple, Alison. We atheists decide what is moral using something called a MORAL CONSCIENCE. Perhaps you have heard of such a thing. It's the part of our conscious thoughts that says, do this, or, don't do this. There appear to be many religious believers who are unaware of the existence of moral conscience in others. Why is this? Perhaps it is because they lack moral conscience of their own, and must therefore rely on the rules established by magical, invisible friends to guide their actions. We Secular Humanists use something called the Golden Rule, a concept that pre-dates Christianity. Have you ever heard of it? Perhaps you should Google it some time. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Mar 26 Ms. Aldrich's column is not accusatory or belittling in my mind; it merely asks a difficult question of where morality originates. If you're a theist, you believe that everything ultimately was instilled in us by a creator. If you're atheist, you believe it is a naturally-occurring phenomenon of some sort, the likes of which we just don't fully comprehend at the moment (there is no "conscience gene" that I've heard of). The problem is that theists often press atheists to answer the inexplicable. "Where does your morality come from if it doesn't come from God? Huh, huh?" The atheists just need to realize that probably the most appropriate answer is, "I don't know, but I intend to find out." Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Mar 26 Two things: first I must say, time and again, that belief in a god does not equate to following a religion. Showing that religion is absurd is IN NO WAY equivalent to showing that no god exists, or even that a god's existence is any less likely. There are many who believe in some sort of higher being or purpose behind the existence of the universe but do not subscribe to any particular religious beliefs. It is the common folly of atheists to rant about the stupidity of organized religion. Whether or not a god exists may have absolutely nothing to do with the various interpretations of god that we have on earth. Also, killing in the name of a god does not mean that such killing is god's will, so let's put that argument to rest right now. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Mar 26 David, nobody is claiming that morality comes from a book. The question is whether morality is INSTILLED BY GOD. How many more people are going to fail to distinguish between the concept of GOD and the concept of RELIGION? Flag Abuse
Posted by: David at Mar 26 "...I have not heard a convincing response about where the average atheist gets their moral guidance." Better than getting moral guidance from a book in which a capricious god gives a son to Abraham, then asking for the life of that son as a sacrifice. I think that a good father would refuse to kill his own son, but we all know that Abraham was instead ready to kill him to please god. And what about the same god who kills Egyptian babies, that are evidently innocent? I could go over with many examples of "morality" form the "holy" book. Don't get morality from ridiculous holy books seems to me a great starting point. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Anonymous at Mar 26 Pascal may not be anti-religious, but that does not diminish the truth of his quote. And to Ms. Aldrich, not all of us can articulate particularly well where our morals come from. We don't have "god" as an automatic answer, therefore we must search within ourselves and research human behavior to derive where morals come from. I'm sure when you spout god as the center point from which morals radiate out to us mortals, atheists are most likely not impressed with your answer either. The problem is not that you brought up a discussion, but that you were accusatory, and blatantly ignorant against a group of peers. We dislike being discriminated against as all minorities do, only that atheists are among the few groups of minorities that it is still PC to be ignorant against. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Cliff at Mar 26 Mr. Conrad brings up some very good points. Although Allison was just expressing her opinion, it was inaccurate. Yes, opinions CAN be wrong when you use false information or faulty logic to come to that opinion. I'm a little tired of this misnomer that "opinions can't be wrong." There are CLEARLY wrong opinions in our society: blacks are inferior to whites (Bill O'Reilly), Jews should be exterminated (Hitler), etc. Maybe if more people said "No, you're wrong," instead of "Well, it's just her opinion," we'd have a better society. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Megan at Mar 26 For Allison's comment: Yes, it was an opinion piece. However, the offended commenters who were disappointed or angry with your column would like to say that it was poorly constructed as a mere discussion of opinion. With phrases like "if there is no God watching, why would an atheist care?", it seems to assume that God is required for caring about others, which is where the offended commenters drew the conclusion that you were out to convert atheists. I also advise you to look at your second-to-last paragraph and tell me that doesn't sound like you're attempting to persuade readers against atheists. Again, it is your opinion, and I understand that you are naturally influenced by your beliefs, but the offended commenters would have rather you constructed your argument in a less ardently biased way. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Marty at Mar 26 If there is no god, then the atheist loses nothing, but gains a full life here on Earth, which they may live ethically, morally and with every bit of optimism that the Christian claims is reserved only for his ilk. Also, if there is no god, the Christian thinks they lose nothing, but in reality they lose out on fully living the one life they have by following unnecessary, unnatural restrictions. On the other hand, if there IS a god, the Christian thinks he gains everything because of his life of sacrifice and piety, and thinks the atheist is cast into flames for not believing. However, given the sheer number of gods humanity has chewed through in the last 40 centuries (about 3,000 all counted), or even given the current number of "active" gods, the probability of choosing the right one is vanishingly small. And if religion has taught us anything, it's that each god is viciously jealous. Picking the wrong one is much more likely to incite God's wrath and ship you off into the lake of fire. If there is no god, atheists, who do not swear obedience to any particular brand of god, would likely fare much better in his judgment. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 26 Mr. Shutterly, you forget the society in which Pascal was raised. Christianity was the predominant (indeed, the only 'true' religion) of his time and place. That idea of the atheist's wager is interesting, and in our world of diversified religion it seems to make more sense - my comment, however, was more of a counter to the claim made in the letter that Pascal was somehow wholly anti-religious. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Chris at Mar 26 "...I have not heard a convincing response about where the average atheist gets their moral guidance." That is precisely the reason 'atheists' have a problem with your column. The strong conclusions being drawn combined with the lack of relevant information seem to point to a sentiment of superiority. Maybe you could put as much effort into researching the source of atheist morals as you put into writing about your 'confusion' on the topic, instead of using 'what your friends say' as the basis for atheist though . As an agnostic, I ask you where you draw your morals - from a man born of a virgin 2000 years ago who claimed to be the son of god and did magical things all his life? Anything can be belittled. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jonathan Daugherty at Mar 26 It's interesting you should mention Japan having a high rate of athiesm and then mention it's low crime rate. It also has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Now, much of that is certainly cultural, but while we're making wild connections with statistics we could probably throw this one in. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Andrew Shutterly at Mar 26 Pascal's Wager is the stupidest thing ever. It assumes that Christianity is the only true religion, completely ignoring the thousands of other religions that are just as likely to be true. The Atheist's Wager is much better, because most religion say that if you believe in other gods, you'll go to some sort of hell. By not believing in any, you have the best chance of not being screwed over, whereas with Pascal's Wager you go against every single other religion. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 26 Now that the CT seems to be enforcing its 250 word limit (why?!?!?) policy, I have to make a separate post. While I don't particularly find Ms. Aldrich's writing style to be particularly engaging (she strikes me as a wanna-be Ann Coulter - another conservative writer whom I don't much admire), I do tend to find that she tends to raise intellectual points which carry a lot of emotional weight. For that, I must applaud her - just look at the discussion forum for her column. I only wonder why there isn't such public outcry when other columnists, such as Brett Morris, week after week write screeds on the same topic (Iraq), the not-so-subtle implication being that people who support the Iraq war hate the Iraqi people and are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Is his opinion 'better' than Allison's? I don't believe so - but the purpose of opinion pages is to encourage debate and discussion about important topics - not to make the reader feel warm and fuzzy about his own beliefs. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Mar 26 Pascal is an interesting figure - you would be well-served also to investigate his famous "divine wager" for a mathematical explanation of the benefits of belief in God, however. It is worth noting also that correlation does not imply causality, so while your comparative statistics regarding crime and religion do have relevance, they do not prove a connection between religion and crime. A more appropriate statistic would be one demonstrating how many religious people are incarcerated in each of the countries you specify. That will lend a bit more credibility to your point (or discount it entirely, perhaps). Flag Abuse
Posted by: Allison Aldrich at Mar 26 After reading the comments on my article, and now this, I'm really curious what part of my article made you conclude I don't think atheists had morals. I was merely saying that in the conversations I've had with atheists (many of whom I consider friends, and all of whom I consider moral beings) I have not heard a convincing response about where the average atheist gets their moral guidance. This being an OPINION piece, I gave my opinion. Sure, I bet there are plenty of other arguments that I haven't heard, but I was speaking from my own experience, and from what I've heard straight out of the mouths of atheists I'm friends with. Unlike what some people have accused me of doing, I was in no way trying to convince or convert (I'm Catholic and anyone who knows me knows that isn't the case) I was just trying to shed light on one question about atheism that I haven't heard well-defended or explained. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jenna at Mar 26 I wrote a rather lengthly opinion to the CT about this girl's dogmatic, ill-informed and dangerous misconceptions about atheism-- hope it gets published! Flag Abuse
Add your opinion
Copyright © 2008 Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech Inc. All rights reserved.
about | advertising | archive | contact | print edition | headline emails | join us | subscribe
All stories, photos etc. produced by the Collegiate Times are property of the Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech. No information may be republished without the expressed written consent of the editor of the Collegiate Times.
» Virginia Tech
» VT webmail
 » VT People Search
» My VT / Hokie Spa
 » VT Blackboard
» gmail