“No one has the right to inflict their beliefs on another without permission, and it is why prosyletizing is wrong to me. Dogma can occur on both extremes….”

And in the middle too IMO. But I disagree about “rights” people have a right to speak out against what they believe is wrong (or right) and it is entirely your choice to accept it or reject it. Surely you and others are not so feeble-minded that hearing someone else speak will somehow influence you unduly.

Our government is basically a result of Christian beliefs, like it or not. One of the thing I realized living in a non-christian country (Egypt) is how much we in America; non-believers; agnostics and atheists included, really hold Christian values by default.

All of our laws are based on the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our country has survived and prospered as a result of our Constitution which is based on religious abstractions from that tradition.

To get down to the nitty gritty. Notice one of the central laws (commandments) of Christianity is “Thou shalt not kill” We all believe this whether we are athiests or biblethumpers. Yet in Islam for example there is no such law. Laws in Islam actually exist as to who you can kill and what for, but there is no blanket statement saying it is wrong to kill.. The fact that there is some hypocrisy, or convenient exceptions our governmant makes in this Judeo-Christian ethic is irrelevant, since governments can’t be moral, only its citizens can strive for morality and help to create in a Democracy a more “moral” government.

Therefore people have a right to try to influence their government (and others) as they see fit. I personally don’t believe in global warming I am an agnostic on the subject leaning toward “atheistic” views now. But Al Gore has a right to preach and proselytize all he wants. I have no problem with the “religious right” trying to do this either. Just because they come from a dogmatic place…. doesn’t everyone?

No one has the right to inflict their beliefs on another without permission, and it is why prosyletizing is wrong to me. Dogma can occur on both extremes, those who believe there is only one path to God, (their path), or an atheistic view which believes unequivocably that there is no ultimate Source for the creation of the universe or in the hearts and mind of men/women.

But for us here in the USA the biggest problem is the breakdown of separation of church and state. While I like my freedom to find God in my own way in my own time, I dislike the the thrust of the religious right to foist their beliefs into the federal government. This is a dangerous path and should be rejected from both parties for the good of the country and our Constitution .

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God, the things that are God’s.”
- Jesus Christ

Works for me. As a Scoutleader, I’ve had times where I’ve had to counsel boys who do consider themselves atheists … which runs smack into the BSA oath and law. Not being a fan of headlines, but not wanting to allow narrow mindedness to push these boys out of a very useful program, I have encouraged them to think of the term “a Scout is Reverent” as meaning not necessarily obedience to some unseen diety, but rather a respect for nature, and an openness for the idea that they can’t necessarily know everything, and that the world exists for more than their own personal pleasure.

Well, I wouldn’t accuse you of that, and whomever does would be a narrow minded dolt in my opinion. Certainly religious fundamentalists and non-thinking believers of dogma are not people who I want to rely on public policy decisions. I am just making the point that the quote that employs the word “God” does not necessarily mean that the argument is between those who are scientists vs. believers of edicts from above.

“This is actually the basis for science, that we will constantly learn about what we don’t know, and that we must modify our assumptions and worldview in response.”

I agree but I would make one elaboration which might reiterate the overall point which is that we should also be careful to remember that we are operating from assumptions and have an inherent bias to look for that which validates our assumptions, which can take us down a very narrow path in the pursuit of knowledge or in our expectations. A good book that covers this subject from a secular POV is “The Black Swan” .

Intellectual analysis can become a default “god” and can become its’ own kind of dogma people can get pretty heady thinking they know stuff that they really don’t.

Actually, I’m not the one who conflates them. For example, I certainly am a deist … yet I am constantly accused of being an atheist for doubting that man should rely on direction from God as a means of deciding public policy.

I derive my views from observation of the natural world and one of the things I have observed is that my intelligence and knowledge is severely limited. I have the ability however to understand that the Universe may be more extraordinary than I have the ability to imagine.

I agree. This is actually the basis for science, that we will constantly learn about what we don’t know, and that we must modify our assumptions and worldview in response.

In this, it stands in opposition to the theologues, who use science to reinforce what they already know from scripture.

Because one believes in God, or a God, or some supernatural force that may be unknowable by the intellect, does not mean that they eschew reason, they just tend to be a lot less arrogant about their place in the world, which is actually much more realistic.

There is a difference in believing in “God” and believing one knows the Godbeings “intent” and I believe you are conveniently conflating the two. If you read the One Cosmos blog you would not find any dogma, just some pretty good philosophical thought.

“In reality, it is much easier for a secularist to question his or her own assumptions, because those assumptions aren’t presumably derived via edict from some supernatural being, but rather derive from an observation of the natural world.”

That assumes that all those who believe in God get their info via “edict” which is not the case in general, so let’s start with that “assumption”. I derive my views from observation of the natural world and one of the things I have observed is that my intelligence and knowledge is severely limited. I have the ability however to understand that the Universe may be more extraordinary than I have the ability to imagine.

It’s a possibility, and looking at the world as it is, quite a strong one. Just sayin’

Perhaps that’s because we on the left don’t exactly trust the scribes who impart God’s wisdom to us to have accurately captured his intent.

In reality, it is much easier for a secularist to question his or her own assumptions, because those assumptions aren’t presumably derived via edict from some supernatural being, but rather derive from an observation of the natural world.

William F. Buckley Jr.: “I’d rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard.”

Me too.