Atheists cannot find solace in the idea that dead children are now angels in heaven....

[Waldo Tunnel]

“That only shows the limits of atheism,” my colleague replied. “It’s
all about nonbelief and has nothing to offer when people are
suffering.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/the-blessings-of-atheism.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Dakota]

On 2/3/2013 7:02 AM, Waldo Tunnel wrote:
> �That only shows the limits of atheism,� my colleague replied. �It�s

> all about nonbelief and has nothing to offer when people are

> suffering.�
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/the-blessings-of-atheism.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>
Finding comfort in lies and fairy tales is absurd but common.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:19:33 -0600, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/3/2013 7:02 AM, Waldo Tunnel wrote:

>> “That only shows the limits of atheism,” my colleague replied. “It’s

>> all about nonbelief and has nothing to offer when people are

>> suffering.”

>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/the-blessings-of-atheism.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>>
>Finding comfort in lies and fairy tales is absurd but common.

Theists project the worries their religion programmed to have, on
those outside their belief system.

But atheism isn't"all about" anything - we're just that demographic
that isn't theist.

When people are suffering we give them actual support. Like when my
Bestest And Closest Friend's father died of liver cancer. She and I
had been with him round the clock for his final months.

Other atheists here have done the same sort of thing. And that is far
more valuable than the comforting lie.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

Atheism has no limitations. Your colleague has made a mis-step in
logic because religion doesn't offer anything, rather it's the
individuals who decide to offer support, condolences, sympathy,
compassion, etc., to those who are suffering.

Compassion: http://www.atheistfrontier.com/values/compassion.pl

Religion has no monopoly on values, particularly compassion, and any
claim that it's "always religion that inspires charity" is trivially
refuted with this list of secular organizations that focus solely on
helping others without any wasteful religious agenda diversions:

http://www.atheistfrontier.com/resources/goodwill/

The phrase "blessings of atheism" brings with it so many peculiar
implications. It seems that theists want very much for atheism to have
some sort of doctrine, perhaps that they can use as an avenue of attack.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Power doesn't corrupt people, people corrupt power."
-- William Gaddis

[Smiler]

Religion has nothing but lies to offer when people are suffering.

--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[ernobe]

What your colleague is trying to say is that if there is no ulterior reality,
the whole basis of the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do
to you) looses credibility. Without it, you may try to help others, but since
there is no ideal reality to which your efforts are measured up to, there is
no sense in measuring them. By forcing yourself to be content with "feedback"
from whomever it is you're trying to help, you end up not really understanding
their condition or needs.


--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdu'l-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe

[raven1]

Whenever I hear this line of argument from a theist, I reply that I'm
more interested in whether something is true than whether it is
comforting.

[Witziges Rätsel]

On 2/3/2013 8:02 AM, Waldo Tunnel wrote:
>
> �That only shows the limits of atheism,� my colleague replied. �It�s

> all about nonbelief and has nothing to offer when people are

> suffering.�
>
Whether they believe in gods or not, some people offer aid and comfort
to sufferers, and some don't.

[Christopher A. Lee]

The theist was just being stupid.

Far too many of them make that kind of remark out of ignorance and
can't cope with the response.

Like the first time one of them say that without his god there was
nothing stopping me from doing all sorts of horrible things.

I said I hoped he never got within a thousand miles of my loved ones
if such an easily lost belief was all that kept him in check.

And he was mortally offended.

Yet he had just imputed the same thing about me.

[Dakota]

According to some Bible believers, children who die before being
baptized are not angels in Heaven but souls burning in Hell for
eternity. It's the 'original sin' concept coupled with the born-again
requirement.

[Smiler]

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 01:00:35 +0000, ernobe wrote:

>> "That only shows the limits of atheism," my colleague replied.
>> "It's all about nonbelief and has nothing to offer when people are
>> suffering"
>>

>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/the-blessings-of-atheism.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>
> What your colleague is trying to say is that if there is no ulterior
> reality, the whole basis of the golden rule (do unto others as you would
> have them do to you) looses credibility.

How does that happen?

> Without it, you may try to help others, but since there is no ideal
> reality to which your efforts are measured up to, there is no sense in
> measuring them.

What 'ideal reality' is that? AFAICT, there's only one reality and it's
far from ideal. Calling your supposed god(s) 'ideal reality' or 'ulterior
reality' doesn't make them any more real. Only evidence will do that.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

> By forcing yourself to be content with "feedback" from whomever it is
> you're trying to help, you end up not really understanding their
> condition or needs.

Neither do theists. They only *believe* they're really understanding their
condition or needs.

--

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:28:25 +0000
Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 01:00:35 +0000, ernobe wrote:
>
> >> "That only shows the limits of atheism," my colleague replied.
> >> "It's all about nonbelief and has nothing to offer when people are
> >> suffering"
> >>
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/the-blessings-of-atheism.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> >
> > What your colleague is trying to say is that if there is no ulterior
> > reality, the whole basis of the golden rule (do unto others as you
> > would have them do to you) looses credibility.
>
> How does that happen?

Do you want criminal psychopath Charles Manson to be treated as you? Do
you want others who like to be treated a certain way by a dominatrix to
treat you in that manner also? Those are the credibility issues that I
suspect ernobe was referring to.

If I had created the famous Golden Rule, I would have worded it
slightly differently:

* "Intend to treat others as they wish to be treated."

First of all, the word "intend" provides a built-in exit strategy, for
there may be a reason why one's intentions cannot be satisfied (legal,
moral, ethical, physical, etc., restraints).

Secondly, treating people how they wish to be treated is, by nature,
accomodating and potentially more consistent with providing compassion.

> > Without it, you may try to help others, but since there is no ideal
> > reality to which your efforts are measured up to, there is no sense
> > in measuring them.
>
> What 'ideal reality' is that? AFAICT, there's only one reality and
> it's far from ideal. Calling your supposed god(s) 'ideal reality' or
> 'ulterior reality' doesn't make them any more real. Only evidence
> will do that. Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

If you change "will" to "can" then I'll agree.

> > By forcing yourself to be content with "feedback" from whomever it
> > is you're trying to help, you end up not really understanding their
> > condition or needs.
>
> Neither do theists. They only *believe* they're really understanding
> their condition or needs.

I agree.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"If anything, an atheist has to be more morally responsible precisely
because we don't blame a god for our own actions."
-- Ivan Ratoyevsky

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

...and it's a horrific idea. Tell this to a young compassionate child
and that child will be distraught, which is a major distraction that
works against their experiencing an otherwise more joyful childhood.

It seems reasonable that holy scriptures should be held against the same
light of scrutiny that movies and publications so as to be rated
accordingly. Sure, people claim the ratings don't work, but that's not
entirely true because there are many people who do trust the "R" and
"X" and "XXX" ratings to mean "not suitable for children" when buying
birthday gifts for their young relatives or friends' children.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"When I think of all the harm the Bible has done, I despair of ever
writing anything to equal it."
-- Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:28:25 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 01:00:35 +0000, ernobe wrote:

When did earlobe resurface?

>>> "That only shows the limits of atheism," my colleague replied.
>>> "It's all about nonbelief and has nothing to offer when people are
>>> suffering"
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/the-blessings-of-atheism.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>>
>> What your colleague is trying to say is that if there is no ulterior
>> reality, the whole basis of the golden rule (do unto others as you would
>> have them do to you) looses credibility.

Any theist who imagines that is a fucking moron and an amoral
sociopath.

>How does that happen?

Because he's without empathy, compassion and conscience so he needs a
simplistic one-size-fits-all rule that doesn't even work all the time
but is better for him than having none at all.

Because it puts him in the other guy's shoes as himself not the other
guy.

As George Bernard Shaw wrote, don't do unto others as you would have
them do unto you, their tastes might be different.

And if that's too hard for these morons to understand, the Golden Rule
would justify the Marquis de Sade hurting them because he wants them
to hurt him.

>> Without it, you may try to help others, but since there is no ideal
>> reality to which your efforts are measured up to, there is no sense in
>> measuring them.
>
>What 'ideal reality' is that? AFAICT, there's only one reality and it's
>far from ideal. Calling your supposed god(s) 'ideal reality' or 'ulterior
>reality' doesn't make them any more real. Only evidence will do that.
>Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

Decent people do the right thing anyway, without needing the
scriptures of somebody else's religion to tell them to. Or somebody
else's imaginary alpha male.

>> By forcing yourself to be content with "feedback" from whomever it is
>> you're trying to help, you end up not really understanding their
>> condition or needs.

Most people have empathy and understanding for others.

If they're not theists brainwashed to think the reason to behave is
some imaginary magical superbeing.

[Dakota]

On 2/4/2013 9:30 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:28:25 +0000, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 01:00:35 +0000, ernobe wrote:
>
> When did earlobe resurface?
>
>>>> "That only shows the limits of atheism," my colleague replied.
>>>> "It's all about nonbelief and has nothing to offer when people are
>>>> suffering"
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/the-blessings-of-atheism.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>>>
>>> What your colleague is trying to say is that if there is no ulterior
>>> reality, the whole basis of the golden rule (do unto others as you would
>>> have them do to you) looses credibility.
>
> Any theist who imagines that is a fucking moron and an amoral
> sociopath.
>
>> How does that happen?
>
> Because he's without empathy, compassion and conscience so he needs a
> simplistic one-size-fits-all rule that doesn't even work all the time
> but is better for him than having none at all.
>
> Because it puts him in the other guy's shoes as himself not the other
> guy.
>
> As George Bernard Shaw wrote, don't do unto others as you would have
> them do unto you, their tastes might be different.
>

I favor the one that says you shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't
want them to to do you.

>
> And if that's too hard for these morons to understand, the Golden Rule
> would justify the Marquis de Sade hurting them because he wants them
> to hurt him.
>
>>> Without it, you may try to help others, but since there is no ideal
>>> reality to which your efforts are measured up to, there is no sense in
>>> measuring them.
>>
>> What 'ideal reality' is that? AFAICT, there's only one reality and it's
>> far from ideal. Calling your supposed god(s) 'ideal reality' or 'ulterior
>> reality' doesn't make them any more real. Only evidence will do that.
>> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
>
> Decent people do the right thing anyway, without needing the
> scriptures of somebody else's religion to tell them to. Or somebody
> else's imaginary alpha male.
>
>>> By forcing yourself to be content with "feedback" from whomever it is
>>> you're trying to help, you end up not really understanding their
>>> condition or needs.
>
> Most people have empathy and understanding for others.
>
> If they're not theists brainwashed to think the reason to behave is
> some imaginary magical superbeing.
>
>> Neither do theists. They only *believe* they're really understanding their
>> condition or needs.

Those who claim the golden rule is a Christian concept are mistaken.
------
Kidder notes that this concept's framework appears prominently in many
religions, including "Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and
the rest of the world's major religions".[7] According to Greg M.
Epstein, " 'do unto others' ... is a concept that essentially no
religion misses entirely."[8] Simon Blackburn also states that the
Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical
tradition".[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

[Don Martin]

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

<god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:28:25 +0000
> Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 01:00:35 +0000, ernobe wrote:
>>
>>>> "That only shows the limits of atheism," my colleague replied.
>>>> "It's all about nonbelief and has nothing to offer when people are
>>>> suffering"
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/the-blessings-of-atheism.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>>>
>>> What your colleague is trying to say is that if there is no ulterior
>>> reality, the whole basis of the golden rule (do unto others as you
>>> would have them do to you) looses credibility.
>>
>> How does that happen?
>
> Do you want criminal psychopath Charles Manson to be treated as you? Do
> you want others who like to be treated a certain way by a dominatrix to
> treat you in that manner also? Those are the credibility issues that I
> suspect ernobe was referring to.
>
> If I had created the famous Golden Rule, I would have worded it
> slightly differently:
>
> * "Intend to treat others as they wish to be treated."
>
> First of all, the word "intend" provides a built-in exit strategy, for
> there may be a reason why one's intentions cannot be satisfied (legal,
> moral, ethical, physical, etc., restraints).
>
> Secondly, treating people how they wish to be treated is, by nature,
> accomodating and potentially more consistent with providing compassion.
>

i like it, but I still prefer the Silver Rule (in a Yiddish accent), "Vat
you don't like, don't do to nobody else."

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Smiler]

Not that I disagree with you, but I took Earlobe's comment to mean that
without a god figure, an 'ulterior reality' as he put it, the Golden Rule
loses credibility. I'd still like to know how not having a god causes that
loss of credibility.

>> > Without it, you may try to help others, but since there is no ideal
>> > reality to which your efforts are measured up to, there is no sense
>> > in measuring them.
>>
>> What 'ideal reality' is that? AFAICT, there's only one reality and it's
>> far from ideal. Calling your supposed god(s) 'ideal reality' or
>> 'ulterior reality' doesn't make them any more real. Only evidence will
>> do that. Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
>
> If you change "will" to "can" then I'll agree.

I see little difference, so I've no objection to that change.

[casey]

On Feb 5, 2:30 pm, "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> [...]

> Most people have empathy and understanding for others.

How much is cultural and how much is biological (evolved behaviors)?

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

Conscious free will is integral to deviating from one's biological
influences, and it has the potential to accelerate the evolutionary
process (which can be beneficial and/or dangerous to a species).

To me it is an interesting estimate I've heard in psychology circles
that 80% of what many children know is learned from others, because
that can qualify as a type of cultural influence also.

Based on the knowledge I have about human behaviour, albeit limited as
this is not presently a specialized field of study for me, I find
myself leaning toward the majority of behaviour being the result of
cultural influences (a criteria of which I include family and friends).

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"The unexamined life is not worth living."
-- Socrates of Athens

[Dakota]

On 2/14/2013 5:38 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:22:29 -0800 (PST)
> casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 2:30 pm, "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Most people have empathy and understanding for others.
>>
>> How much is cultural and how much is biological (evolved behaviors)?
>
> Conscious free will is integral to deviating from one's biological
> influences, and it has the potential to accelerate the evolutionary
> process (which can be beneficial and/or dangerous to a species).
>
> To me it is an interesting estimate I've heard in psychology circles
> that 80% of what many children know is learned from others, because
> that can qualify as a type of cultural influence also.
>
> Based on the knowledge I have about human behaviour, albeit limited as
> this is not presently a specialized field of study for me, I find
> myself leaning toward the majority of behaviour being the result of
> cultural influences (a criteria of which I include family and friends).
>

Nicely put. I think it's reasonable to consider our acceptance of
cultural influences an evolved behavior.

For me, the disturbing issue is that theists really can find solace in
the idea that dead children are now being tortured in Hell and that
the torture will continue forever. That evil comfort can only be the
result of religious brainwashing - the dark side of our evolved
acceptance of cultural influences.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

Thanks, and that's a great addition that I agree with too. Religion is
a type of resistence to this "social evolution" because it strongly
favours aging traditions in face of the need to adapt to change, hence
its survival is highly dependent on the absence of progress since those
who adapt progressively are not nearly as easy to control.

> For me, the disturbing issue is that theists really can find solace
> in the idea that dead children are now being tortured in Hell and
> that the torture will continue forever. That evil comfort can only be
> the result of religious brainwashing - the dark side of our evolved
> acceptance of cultural influences.

Those dead children's [alleged] souls serve as martyr-like reminders of
the looming threat that the entire religion's authority is based upon.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against
knowledge."
-- Adolf Hitler

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

Ha ha! That's so much more eloquently put, although it still suffers
the same problem that The Golden Rule does -- imagine a Yiddish surgeon
who's not a masochist but has to use a knife to save a patient in a
emergency situation where anesthetic isn't available.

I'd like to see "... unless they ask nicely" added to that variation to
make it more reasonable. How would such compassion sound in a Yiddish
accent?

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself,
till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call
kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political
power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."
-- Plato of Athens

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:59:03 +0000

It's the usual fallacy wherein people regard their deity as the creator
of morality, and their bifurcational thinking leads them to conclude
that morality can't be created without their deity's influence.

The Golden Rule's credibility is independent from religion as it stands
on its own merits, so the alleged influence from a deity can be cleanly
sliced away with Occam's Razor.

> >> > Without it, you may try to help others, but since there is no
> >> > ideal reality to which your efforts are measured up to, there is
> >> > no sense in measuring them.
> >>
> >> What 'ideal reality' is that? AFAICT, there's only one reality and
> >> it's far from ideal. Calling your supposed god(s) 'ideal reality'
> >> or 'ulterior reality' doesn't make them any more real. Only
> >> evidence will do that. Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT
> >> evidence.
> >
> > If you change "will" to "can" then I'll agree.
>
> I see little difference, so I've no objection to that change.

Excellent!

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"About the time we think we can make ends meet, somebody moves the
ends."
-- Herbert Hoover

[Smiler]

And to allow for sado-masochistic relationships ;-)

> How would such compassion sound in a Yiddish accent?

"Ooooh! Stop it, I like it..."

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 21:14:50 +0000

Yes. That's a very good example, in fact, because The Golden Rule must
be violated by the sadistic person who is not masochistic if they are to
satisfy their masochistic partner in that context.

> > How would such compassion sound in a Yiddish accent?
>
> "Ooooh! Stop it, I like it..."

Ha ha! With consent, we can call classify that as "exercising freedom."

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Good for some may not be the same for others."
-- Charles Milles Manson

[Don Martin]

When the focus is on "saving," the painful act is not something the surgeon
would not like.

> I'd like to see "... unless they ask nicely" added to that variation to
> make it more reasonable. How would such compassion sound in a Yiddish
> accent?

With a shrug, hands palms up.

[Burkhard]

On 4 Mar, 15:05, Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 13:28:39 GMT
> > Don Martin <drdonmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

> >> <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:28:25 +0000
> >>> Smiler <Youmus...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 01:00:35 +0000, ernobe wrote:
>
> >>>>>>  "That only shows the limits of atheism," my colleague replied.
> >>>>>>  "It's all about nonbelief and has nothing to offer when people
> >>>>>> are suffering"
>

> >>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/the-blessings-of-ath...

Or as Cicero put it:
"There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants
to have it, simply because it is pain" (De finibus bonorum et malorum)

Masochists are really not a problem for the golden rule - they do not,
as per Cicero, seek pain for pain's sake, but because it gives them
pleasure, and this can then easily be generalised.

A bit of trivia on the side - the quote from Cicero is quite..famous..
though you probably recognise it better this way:

"Neque porro quisquam est qui do-LOREM IPSUM QUIA DOLOR SIT AMET,
consectetur, adipisci velit..." - the filler" text you get these days
when you get an empty webpage template, but a much older tool of
printers to test typesetting.

[Smiler]

You've seen "The Infidel"?

[Don Martin]

No, but I speak fluent shrug.

[Alex W.]

When I become Prime Minister, "The Infidel" will be made required
viewing for all RE classes and at general assembly at all faith
schools in a double-header with TLOB.

[Smiler]

There's nothing like starting the day off with a good laugh.

[Smiler]

As do I. But, if you get a chance, see "The Infidel". There's someone
being _taught_ how to speak shrug in it, and it's a good laugh at
the expense of religions.

[Dakota]

I hadn't heard of the movie before reading this thread. I found it on
Amazon and have watch the first half hour or so. So far I'm impressed.
I look forward to watching the rest.

[Alex W.]

The star, Omid Djalili, is British of Persian extraction (Baha'i
rather than Muslim, and his accent is put on for the show) and
he's hysterically funny. Just seeing him (bald fat guy with a
gorilla's worth of body hair) doing a belly dance is a treasure!
His main shtick, though, is religion and relations between East
and West.

[Smiler]

And David Badiel is a secular Jew (atheist?) from a _very_ orthodox family.

[Smiler]

On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 02:31:31 -0600, Dakota wrote:

Enjoy!

[Don Martin]

I'll put it on my list.

[The Magpie]

But its hard to beat Rowan Atkinson playing Anglican archbishops -
though perhaps his early sketch as Satan welcoming sinners to hell was
possibly even better.

[hypatiab7]

On Feb 3, 9:02 am, Waldo Tunnel <waldotun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  “That only shows the limits of atheism,” my colleague replied. “It’s
> all about nonbelief and has nothing to offer when people are

> suffering.”
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/the-blessings-of-ath...

That's what my Secular Humanist philosophy is for. Aside
from keeping me on the straight and narrow, it also gives
me comfort and contains no threats like religion does. And,
it's a philosophy that I choose to follow. It was never forced
on me.