patrick.net

I think this is an interesting question.

Is fear the only thing behind the human attraction to religious or spiritual belief ?

Are there possibly any positive causes behind the root human primitive desire and need that religion or spirituality satisfies ?

To say that we would be better off without religion, is to say that whatever is the cause of religion is bad.

This takes us back to the big question. And my answer is, I don't know.

I love truth. Therfore I assert, I don't know.

No cognitive dissonance here.

leo707 says

Christians helped end slavery, because they were good people, not because of the morals their religion taught

But what comes first, "good humans," or is it whatever the root primitive impulse that causes a super majority of humans to have some kind of religion or spirituality in their lives ?

I'm honest. So I say, "I don't know."

You seem to know that these things are mutually exclusive, and that historically as well as now, one can (could have) exist(ed) without the other. My point is only that
I don't know this.

(even if I do know that individuals within their current, historical, cultural, and evolutionary context are obviously capable of "being good" without religion).

A big congratulations to Dan, curious2, thunderlips, humanity, and other contributors. At (30-45) years of age, you've got it all figured out, nailed down, and the universe is your oyster! What are you going to do for an encore?
I don't understand people who absolutely MUST stamp out every trace of mystery in the universe and insist that they (or some scientist somewhere) knows all the answers already. Humanity has come a long way, but we've still only scratched the surface of scientific knowledge. We're still not completely sure what gravity is, for goodness sake! Lots of theories abound, but that's all they are until someone invents an antigravity car I can fly around in.
So far physicists have gone down several layers of knowledge. But there always appears to be a level of understanding beyond.
The point is: nobody knows much yet. Not the priests pushing centuries old dogma, not the science worshippers who believe everything is known, not the historians who know only what unreliable narrators left behind to read or dig up, not the screamers on Internet chat boards most especially.
We don't know.
And neither do you.
So bashing someone else for their beliefs is like two mentally deficient schoolboys yelling "Retard!" back and forth. Pointless and totally stupid.
Peace

marcus says

leo707 says

Christians helped end slavery, because they were good people, not because of the morals their religion taught

But what comes first, "good humans," or is it whatever the root primitive impulse that causes a super majority of humans to have some kind of religion or spirituality in their lives ?

First off what came first is immaterial to my statement about Christians taking part in ending slavery.

Yes, the majority of humans do seem to have some sort of biological impulse to believe in the supernatural. That drive is not exclusive to Christianity, and is very much tied to whatever religion is popular, "within their current, historical, cultural, and evolutionary context."

If the religion du jour had actually been anti-slavery, or at least not pro-slavery (like Christianity), then good people would have had an easier time at ending slavery, and would not have to made any religious compromises with themselves to do so.

marcus says

You seem to know that these things are mutually exclusive, and that historically as well as now, one can (could have) exist(ed) without the other.

What makes you think that I "know" the biological spiritual drive, and being "good" are mutually exclusive? When did I ever make a comment like that?

Sure they can exist without each other. Being a good human and being religious can exist either together or apart. I am not sure what your point is, because...

marcus says

(even if I do know that individuals within their current, historical, cultural, and evolutionary context are obviously capable of "being good" without religion).

It seems that you know the drive towards spirituality is not necessary for someone to be "good."

marcus says

You seem to know that these things are mutually exclusive, and that historically as well as now, one can (could have) exist(ed) without the other. My point is only that

I don't know this.

I can accept that either I didn't make the point clearly enough, or that you don't understand it.

leo707 says

What makes you think that I "know" the biological spiritual drive, and being "good" are mutually exclusive? When did I ever make a comment like that?

If they are not mutually exclusive and if there is anything positive or even "good" behind the existence of religion, that is if human "good" is in part a reason why religion even exists, then I don't know how one can say we would be better off without religion. In other words if by chance good causes religion to exist. Then no religion implies no good.

I don't know that human "good" is one of the causes of religion (before it is corrupted by human "bad"). But I do not know that this is not the case either.

Again, that's the point. I don't know.

(now please try your hardest to not understand what I just said)

marcus says

That's cool. Dan always points out my lack of argument with most everything he says. I don't need to argue it. I only need to clearly state his position.

Which you then either misinterpret due to dishonesty or stupidity.

I can't believe I actually have to dumb down things even more for you to understand, but ok... What everyone else understood but you didn't is that those pictures of MLK and Edith Windsor say that the mere fact that African Americans and homosexuals have stood up for their rights is what the bigots call "bashing their beliefs".

I mean, Christ, Marcus, how dumb are you? The entire marriage equality debate is going on fiercely right now. Have you not been paying attention?

The evil Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was named to imply that allowing gays to marry each other is an attack on heterosexual marriage. So for gays to not be bashing traditional marriage values, they can never ask for the same marriage rights. That's the entire fucking idiotic argument of those against legalized gay marriages. If we let two men marry each other, than marriage becomes meaningless and all our traditional beliefs go out the windows.

You are making the same damn argument to silence atheists. And it's also the same damn arguments that bigots made against interracial marriage and desegregation back in the 1960s.

Quigley says

not the science worshippers who believe everything is known

Which 'science worshippers' would those be?

Quigley says

A big congratulations to Dan, curious2, thunderlips, humanity, and other contributors. At (30-45) years of age, you've got it all figured out, nailed down, and the universe is your oyster!

What a Straw Man argument!

By this point in life, I've figured out quite a few things such as:
- There is no Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Big Foot, Loch Ness Monster, or god.
- Anyone who tells you different is a child, a moron, or trying to scam you.
- Every sighting of the above has either been stage theater, a hoax, or a lie.
- People who believe in those things are either powerless or dangerous. Either way, it's better if they didn't and you certainly don't want those people running your country.

If you haven't also figured out the above things by this time in your life, well that says more about your intelligence level than mine.

The basic fallacy of what Marcus claims to be his point can be observed easily by comparing his thread history with Dan's. Having gone back several pages in each thread history, I estimate that a Marcus thread is around twice as likely as a Dan thread to be about religion or atheism. Moreover, even looking within the threads that mention religion or atheism, a Marcus thread appears significantly more likely to single out atheism and atheists for special scorn (usually unfounded, as in this thread), whereas Dan's are more likely to cite scientists who happen to be atheists, presenting evidence based explanations for the universe that happen to disprove religious creation stories, but without even necessarily mentioning religion directly. So, comparing the threads of Marcus and Dan shows that Marcus is the one attempting most of the bashing. The fact that Marcus ends up losing every time, but persists anyway, is the reason why I linked to to the "STUPIDITY" poster in the other currently active thread that he started on essentially the same topic. Even though Marcus can't sort out his own beliefs, anyone who claims to be a math teacher ought at least to be able to count his own threads.

Bigsby says

Quigley says

not the science worshippers who believe everything is known

Which 'science worshippers' would those be?

I think those are the ones stuffed with straw.

Dan8267 says

What everyone else understood but you didn't is that those pictures of MLK and Edith Windsor say that the mere fact that African Americans and homosexuals have stood up for their rights is what the bigots call "bashing their beliefs"

I believe that MLK advocated for equality, in a way that didn't even give any recognition to ignorant white supremacists and what they believe. No bashing of those ignorant idiots and what they believed was necessary.

Fighting for a groups equality, and civil rights is best done without even acknowledging the existence of a group of fools who think it is undeserved. That would imply that there is even the slightest plausability to their ignorant beliefs.

Bigsby says

Quigley says

not the science worshippers who believe everything is known

Which 'science worshippers' would those be?

The mere phrase "science worshippers" says a lot more about the speaker than the spoken about. Quigley obviously doesn't get that having a rational confidence in a methodology based on empirical evidence and hard math is different from faith.

Quigley says

A big congratulations to Dan, curious2, thunderlips, humanity, and other contributors. At (30-45) years of age, you've got it all figured out, nailed down, and the universe is your oyster! What are you going to do for an encore?

Quigley says

I don't understand people who absolutely MUST stamp out every trace of mystery in the universe and insist that they (or some scientist somewhere) knows all the answers already. Humanity has come a long way, but we've still only scratched the surface of scientific knowledge. We're still not completely sure what gravity is, for goodness sake! Lots of theories abound, but that's all they are until someone invents an antigravity car I can fly around in.

Atheists are much more humble. They tend to say "I don't know why, but I'd like to find out." and "That can't be it, because insufficient evidence." Religious people say "I know why - God did it!" and "Don't think, feel!" Scientists love mystery. Especially puzzling out a mystery. Religious people look at a puzzle and say "That's too complicated to be solved."

Science tries, Religion lies.

If you notice, once God died and science replaced religion as the primary means of learning about the world, an incredible explosion of material, demonstrable benefits ensued. What a coincidence! Under God, people dying at 40 from tooth infections that spread to the brain. Under Science, heart transplants and a doubling of the lifespan.

We went from having a small class of clerics who pondered "How many angels can sit on the head of a pin?" and "Are Icons of Mary Holy Adoration or diabolical Paganism?" to "Let's smash some atoms and see what happens" and "How can we build a heavier than air object that flies?"

The proof is in the pudding, judge ye by the fruits.

marcus says

No bashing of those ignorant idiots and what they believed was necessary.

He bashed the idea that the white man is superior to the black man. He bashed the idea that the black vote can be legally suppressed by any means. He bashed the idea that interracial marriage was an abomination and that interracial children were subhuman.

You have stated that we atheists are bashing the idea of religion, saying that all religions are bad, that worship is wrong, that believe without proof is not a good idea. Same diff.

The atheist vocal objections to the bad ideas of religion and superstition are no different to Luther's vocal objections to the bad ideas of racism and inequality.

marcus says

MLK...didn't even give any recognition to ignorant white supremacists and what they believe.

OMG it's Charice from MadTV. I hesitate to correct Marcus about MLK, but since Marcus chooses ignorance anyway he will ignore this too. MLK called the white supremacists who threatened him "sick," as in "our sick white brothers." Ironically, if Marcus knew more about MLK, he could have cited MLK as an example where religion did some good in the world.

OTOH, Malcolm X, whose update of "J'accuse" ("I accuse the white man....") was much harsher, was murdered by a team of black Muslim zealots. It's a sad irony that of the two tragedies, the guy who was harshly critical of "the white man" was killed by a team of black guys, organized by religion, while the compassionate Christian organizer got killed by a lone white guy.

As this thread demonstrates, the religious fear and hate science, for it does contradict every religion that ever existed including their own. And that is a threat to their power base and why they really hate "smart people", "intellectuals", "scientists", "book readers", and "liberal college elitists". Basically, thinking is bad because it undermines faith.

curious2 says

Ironically, if Marcus knew more about MLK, he could have cited MLK as an example where religion did some good in the world.

And if we were like Marcus, we'd rewrite history to make MLK out to be an atheist instead of a Baptist minister.

But luckily, we are rational and honest enough not to do that. MLK was very religious, but that didn't make him right or wrong about civil rights. What made him right about civil rights was his position on that matter, not his religion. MLK also had an extra-marital affair. That, too, is completely irrelevant to the civil rights movement. MLK's affair didn't make him wrong on civil rights.

Hell, Gandhi was a racist, but he was still right on Indian civil rights.

Quigley says

A big congratulations...curious2....

Umm, thanks I guess, but I wish that when critics misattribute statements to me that I never said they would at least try to quote where I supposedly said what they claim? A different User tried that once and ended up quoting Rin, then accused me and Rin and MMR of being all one person conspiring against him, but that's because of his paranoia and Rx narcotic-addled memory. Quigley is much smarter, but the subject of religion seems to activate more 'right-brain' responses (e.g. fear and loathing) crowding out the 'left-brain' analytical process of quoting what people actually said.

marcus says

(now please try your hardest to not understand what I just said)

Please try your hardest to communicate in a civil -- and perhaps even friendly -- tone, and I will do the same.

marcus says

If they are not mutually exclusive and if there is anything positive or even "good" behind the existence of religion, that is if human "good" is in part a reason why religion even exists, then I don't know how one can say we would be better off without religion.

OK, let's assume that they are not mutually exclusive...

OK, let's assume that there is positive ("good") behind the existence of religion...

Let's even say that innate human "good" is tied in some way to the drive most humans feel towards the spiritual...

How can we say we would be better off without religion?

We don't live in a binary world, "good" "bad" is a continuum with very few absolutes -- if any. As with every aspect of evolution, mental and physical, ones that last provide more "good" towards their species than "bad". As time marches on the "bad" may begin to outweigh the "good" and a trait becomes a net negative for a species, and as a result can be eliminated/reduced (humans are riddled with vestigial characteristics).

We may be better off without religion because humanity has reached the point where the "bad" had begun to outweigh the "good." While good may have given rise to religion, the religion is not necessary for humans to act good. Is the social structure provided by religion still needed? Here I will say I don't know. Right along side the drive towards spirituality evolving in Humans, for millennia the ability to exploit and abuse this innate spirituality has been refined as well. Is the good of religion enough to outweigh the abuse, manipulation and evil committed through religion? Probably not, especially because we don't need religion in order to perform the same good that religion provides.

Let us pretend that 60% of humans still grew a vestigial prehensile tail. Maybe some people who grow the tails have a special bond with each other. They can get into groups, weave their tails together, and it brings some of them to a profoundly ecstatic state that bonds them to other humans. But what if the tails occasionally have an involuntary primitive reflex of grabbing for a branch, and as a result children, babies and small animals are occasionally strangled to death. We would be better off without the tails, even though they played a large part in our evolution and even today provided some good and comfort to their owners?

The non-tail humans (NTH) would have a difficult time convincing the tailed humans (TH) to all cut off their tails, and cut the tails off all their children. The NTH would have to accept the fact that they are going to share a planet with TH, and as such they need to find a way to get along with them. Should the NTH ignore the dangers that the tails present? No, they should feel a responsibility to keep everyone informed of the dangers of tails. The TH should not only feel the same responsibility to raise awareness of tail dangers but take measures that their tails and the tails of other TH are kept under control. All humans NTH and TH should expose and prevent any tail joining ceremonies that in anyway advocate the freedom of tails to do what they want.

marcus says

In other words if by chance good causes religion to exist. Then no religion implies no good.

No religion could imply no good only if it was religion that caused good to come into existence.

Good causes many human characteristics to exist. Even if it caused religion to exist, then good can still exist in the absence of religion. If no religion were to imply no good, then the humans that were built without a biological drive towards the spiritual would have no good in them, and I don't think this is what you are implying.

thunderlips11 says

Atheists are much more humble. They tend to say "I don't know why, but I'd like to find out." and "That can't be it, because insufficient evidence." Religious people say "I know why - God did it!" and "Don't think, feel!" Scientists love mystery. Especially puzzling out a mystery. Religious people look at a puzzle and say "That's too complicated to be solved."

Yes, I'd be more open if religious people treated it like a RESEARCH area. Yes let's LEARN more about if there's anything behind all this. Or even to discover how to be better people and what that means. Or if there really is an afterlife or a soul? Or even hey your book doesn't answer this, how about we add in something from this other book..... NOPE!.

Any questions about their choice of ancient Holy Book are blasphemy and abomination.

It's a false equivalence to proclaim atheists are on the same level with religious zealots. I would be open to good ideas from religious people, but by and large they don't want to EXPLORE anything with me, it's one directional they want to program me.

marcus says

Dan8267 says

What everyone else understood but you didn't is that those pictures of MLK and Edith Windsor say that the mere fact that African Americans and homosexuals have stood up for their rights is what the bigots call "bashing their beliefs"

I believe that MLK advocated for equality, in a way that didn't even give any recognition to ignorant white supremacists and what they believe. No bashing of those ignorant idiots and what they believed was necessary.

Fighting for a groups equality, and civil rights is best done without even acknowledging the existence of a group of fools who think it is undeserved. That would imply that there is even the slightest plausability to their ignorant beliefs.

Forget the white supremacists, MLK was going up against the long held beliefs of an entire nation. Yes, he did occasionally answer critics directly and almost every word that came out of his mouth was a "bash" against the beliefs held by a large majority of Americans. Just because he was more eloquent and diplomatic about it than dan, it does not change the intent and substance of MLKs message.

You may want to read the following from MLK:
His dream speech (because everyone should be familiar with what it says)
http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf

His Birmingham Jail letter (because it is a direct response to critics)
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf

leo707 says

almost every word that came out of his mouth was a "bash"

Actually I am repeatedly amazed at how thoroughly compassionate MLK was, time after time. I can't recall him "bashing" anyone. He opposed the Viet Nam war at a time when most Americans supported it, and at that time even most African Americans disapproved of him. An interviewer asked him if he thought the war was racist, and he spoke very calmly and slowly, patiently, working his way steadily towards the fact that conscription was falling disproportionately on black Americans. He refrained from any bombast whatsoever, did not even mention that the war was killing hundreds of thousands of yellow people, etc. The calm dignity and scrupulous adherence to observable facts contrasted totally with certain PatNet posters, for example.

From a Birmingham Jail:

"I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen... If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.”
Although the cord of Dr. King's life did not lengthen enough to see the present day, his widow Coretta Scott King carried his legacy forward to embrace contemporary issues including marriage equality. Sadly, none of the largest religious denominations have found it in their hearts to support the equal protection of the laws. Pope Nazinger in particular directed his mafia "Knights of Columbus" (expressly not a charity, they crusade for the pope, i.e. they do his dirty work for him so he can preserve his tax exemption) to join forces with Romnesia's cult and pour millions of dollars into a futile effort to stop gay couples from getting married; perhaps he was trying in vain to distract from his own history of concealing child sexual abuse by priests.

leo707 says

Just because he was more eloquent and diplomatic about it than dan

I'm more of a Malcolm X.

leo707 says

His Birmingham Jail letter (because it is a direct response to critics)

The fact that MLK was jailed is a great shame on the U.S. and a powerful indication of just how bad bigotry is. I suspect that Marcus would jail atheists if he could.

By the way, the original post was completely uncreative. It was neither funny nor accurate. Worst of all, it's an insult to Matrix parodies, and as a smart ass, I find that offensive.

Now, if you want to see a clever Matrix parody...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/BlpyGhABXRA

This is what it feels like to try to teach Marcus anything.

Dan8267 says

Now, if you want to see a clever Matrix parody...

Dan8267 says

leo707 says

His Birmingham Jail letter (because it is a direct response to critics)

The fact that MLK was jailed is a great shame on the U.S. and a powerful indication of just how bad bigotry is. I suspect that Marcus would jail atheists if he could.

Only the uppity ones.

curious2 says

Actually I am repeatedly amazed at how thoroughly compassionate MLK was, time after time. I can't recall him "bashing" anyone.

Yeah, this is about as close as he comes to an outright insult:
"I have a dream that one day in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification..."

However, I was referring to "bashing" as it has been used in this thread for when an atheist states an argument against religion.

curious2 says

The careful dignity and calm adherence to observable facts contrasted totally with certain PatNet posters, for example.

Ha ha, true.

leo707 says

You may want to read the following from MLK:

His dream speech (because everyone should be familiar with what it says)

I'm very familiar with it. Although I would recommend listening to it, rather than reading it, for reasons that are obvious if you do.

I'll stand 100% strongly behind my agreement with the meme that says "you can be a black american and not bash white supremacy constantly." This is a truism. Not only do I agree with it, I would recommend to minority children that they not even acknowledge the existence of idiots that don't believe they are equal. Some of us understand that to obsess about how oppressed one is or one feels (by others) can not help ones chances of being treated as an equal.

marcus says

What's a good indication of who is actually right in a discussion or debate like this ?

I think it's, which person is most willing to accurately understand and portray the other person's position ?

Dan8267 says

I suspect that Marcus would jail atheists if he could.

leo707 says

marcus says

In other words if by chance good causes religion to exist. Then no religion implies no good.

No religion could imply no good only if it was religion that caused good to come into existence.

I don't think so. This is logic, but it's hard for me to word it correctly, and you may want to shoot down my antecedent, which I am only suggesting is possibly true.

But listening to your attempt to understand anything I say on this issue is very refreshing (especially relative to what I hear coming from Dan).

leo707 says

Good causes many human characteristics to exist. Even if it caused religion to exist, then good can still exist in the absence of religion. If no religion were to imply no good, then the humans that were built without a biological drive towards the spiritual would have no good in them, and I don't think this is what you are implying.

Let's say there are many universes with something we call "human good" but not all universes of humanoids have "human good." Some don't. And then let's say that in the universes that do have human good, religion developed.

Given all of this is true (a big given), you could say, if a universe does not have religion, it does not have good. This is what I meant by,

leo707 says

marcus says

In other words if by chance good causes religion to exist. Then no religion implies no good.

marcus says

I'll stand 100% strongly behind my agreement with the meme that says "you can be a black american and not bash white supremacy constantly." This is a truism.

Christ, a "math teacher" who doesn't even know what a truism is. Here's some examples of real truisms...

We should not perform unnecessary tests.
He is too tall to fit into pants that are too short for him.
The green car is green.
Republicans are stupid.

OK, I was joking, sort of, about the last one.

I think all exhibitionist atheists, will at some point in their life have a breakdown then an Epiphany, then become devout priest.
How else could you possible explain Gay priest from California?

I like that Dan says in the poster above that I might learn something, when his point of view now is fairly close to my point of view exactly 41 years ago.

I know this sounds like now I'm being the arrogant one. No, but I know that it sounds that way.

The entire dynamic is interesting. Yeah. I'm learning here, or could be.

leo707 says

Only the uppity ones.

Okay, that was kind of clever.

leo707 says

We may be better off without religion because humanity has reached the point where the "bad" had begun to outweigh the "good."

The bad in religion comes from it being corrupted, or I guess in some cases, some religions might have less going for them from the start.

But I get your point about, and I paraphrase, "maybe we have outgrown religion."

Okay, that could be. But Dan argues that he somehow knows we would have been better off it had never existed.

I would only point out, that if we are going to outgrow it, I think we would need the growth of more liberal progressive religions, such as the unitarians, or several protestant faiths, or many sects of buddism, or hinduism, or the bahai faith as a random examples, to enable the period we are weaning ourself towards more enlightened spiriitual beliefs (and or rituals for those who are in to that), and also accommodating those who are in to it for the community factor.

Outgrowing religion, if that's what is going to happen, isn't going to be facilitated by atheist haters bashing religion in ways that will only cause believers to more strongly cling to their views. Especially when most of the people who do this are people who have emotional challenges around their own process of freeing themselves from their past beliefs. In many cases these people are children, either literally or at least in some ways.

thunderlips11 says

Atheists are much more humble.

hahahahaha . ooooweee, you crack me up man !

marcus says

thunderlips11 says

Atheists are much more humble.

hahahahaha . ooooweee, you crack me up man !

When do atheists ever say they are the chosen people etc., etc?

Mythology is a lie. Religion is a power structure based on mythology (lies). Power structures based on lies are inherently bad even if they do a little good. I'm sure the Holocaust lowered unemployment, but that doesn't make up for the inherent evil of it. Same thing goes for religion. There are better ways of doing good, ways that don't involve the inherent evilness of religion.

If one were to strip away all the mythology and superstition of any religion, remove all the gods, the saints, the false "miracles", the lies about historical facts, and the misrepresentation of how the universe behaves, what would be left? There are two possibilities. Either there would be nothing left, in which case the religion served no good purpose, or there would be something left. In the later case, that something is called philosophy.

I have no problem with people discussing philosophy. Heck, I encourage it. Even a bad philosophy teaches us something as we dissect it and discredit it. But everything that distorts philosophy into what we call religion, is intrinsically bad: the unquestioning faith, the inability to admit mistakes, the clinging to ancient and immoral traditions, the assignment of power not from merit but from "divine grace", the institution of hierarchical power structures, the dumbing down of the masses, the burning of heretical ideas and people, all inherently bad.

Religion and science are fundamentally incompatible. Already we have seen church attendance decline as scientific knowledge and understanding has increased. Ultimately, no society can forever straddle the two mutually exclusive worldviews.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this country cannot endure, permanently half religious and half scientific. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of religion, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike ingrained in all the minds, old as well as new -- red as well as blue.

Do we really wish for the later? As Thomas Jefferson said, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.". Is it not far better that we choose liberty and free thought over irrational, superstitious doctrine that contradicts everything in science?

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of nature's children, human, chimp, dolphin, alien, AI, will be able to join minds and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank no god, we are free at last!"