In the very first lines of “Exegesis” Dick writes, “We see the Logos addressing the many living entities.” Logos is an important concept that litters the pages of “Exegesis.” It is a word with a wide variety of meaning in ancient Greek, one of which is indeed “word.” It can also mean speech, reason (in Latin, ratio) or giving an account of something. For Heraclitus, to whom Dick frequently refers, logos is the universal law that governs the cosmos of which most human beings are somnolently ignorant. Dick certainly has this latter meaning in mind, but — most important — logos refers to the opening of John’s Gospel, “In the beginning was the word” (logos), where the word becomes flesh in the person of Christ.

'Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman." So says the Coalition for Marriage, whose petition against same-sex unions in the UK has so far attracted 500,000 signatures. It's a familiar claim, and it is wrong. Dozens of societies, across many centuries, have recognised same-sex marriage. In a few cases, before the 14th century, it was even celebrated in church.

This is an example of a widespread phenomenon: myth-making by cultural conservatives about past relationships. Scarcely challenged, family values campaigners have been able to construct a history that is almost entirely false.

The unbiblical and ahistorical nature of the modern Christian cult of the nuclear family is a marvel rare to behold. Those who promote it are followers of a man born out of wedlock and allegedly sired by someone other than his mother's partner. Jesus insisted that "if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters … he cannot be my disciple". He issued no such injunction against homosexuality: the threat he perceived was heterosexual and familial love, which competed with the love of God.

......The conservatives' supposedly moral concerns turn out to be nothing but an example of the age-old custom of first idealising and then sanctifying one's own culture. The past they invoke is fabricated from their own anxieties and obsessions. It has nothing to offer us.

"So assuming you actually have a viable choice, the situations where it makes sense to reject religion in favor of far truth are extreme – either there are big personally-useful far contrarian claims to learn, or you have a good shot at being a rare far expert, respected by a community with truth-correlated standards. So if such extremes seem unlikely to you, far truth probably isn’t worth its costs to you."

Me: “You’re saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That’s circular logic. That’s no different than saying ‘Hank’s right because he says he’s right.’”

Nice little story illustrating why atheists find the claims of Christianity and the Bible a little odd, to say the least.

Should I default to majority opinion?

A University of British Columbia study suggests analytical thinking can be harmful to religious faith.

BM: I think that’s how belief is, there’s a great metaphor in the play Doubt where one of the characters says “You see the stars one night when you’re in your boat out at sea, and you chart your way by those stars, and then you’re sailing for days and it’s overcast for days and days, and you don’t know if that one night you saw the stars was even real.” And he likens faith to that, that faith is believing that the one night you saw the stars was true.  I think there’s a lot of that in Sound of My Voice, there’s this idea that maybe you only get one glimpse of what the truth is, and is that enough to sustain a life of belief? Maybe you never get a glimpse at all, do you still believe?

Annotated link http://www.diigo.com/bookmark/http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/04/18/evangelical-tribalism-and-the-protestant-ethic-or-max-weber-doesnt-live-here-anymore

Joshua Engel starts with an oldie but a goodie:

Why don't Christians believe in Athena or accept the claims in the Iliad? Why don't they believe in Krishna and accept the claims in the Bhagavad Gita?

This quote has become a truism, but I really think that if Christians (and every other religious believer baffled by atheism) were to read it and ponder it, a lot of questions would be answered:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” — Stephen Henry Roberts

Rakesh Agrawal criticises the hypocrisy of branches of the Church:

Crimes and other horrifying acts committed by people supposedly doing the work of God. I'm looking at you, Catholic Church. No God that is as magnanimous as the teachings would have you believe would let that much pedophilia happen, much less condone the habitual covering up of such activities at the highest levels of the church. Not to mention the killings by missionaries, Salem Witch trials, etc.

Adam Morecai doesn’t think like God sounds like a nice person:

Neither of these omnipotent beings seem like people I'd want to hang out with on a regular basis, let alone worship. As an atheist, I ground my moral values in the day to day reality around me. I don't kill. I treat others as I'd like to be treated. I try to help those around me strive to be better people. And I use data, not my emotions to determine the outcome of decisions.

Barry Hampe explains why using the Bible as evidence is nonsensical, because atheists don’t take it as fact:

We have no belief in any god, therefore the “claims” in the book of the Christian god are meaningless to us. For an atheist, the question is “Why do theists believe in an invisible being for which there is absolutely no credible evidence and in a book so filled with errors and contradictions that, if it were not the holy book of a religious sect, it could not find a publisher today?”

Also see his later comments about evangelical Christians who characterise atheists as naughty children — that would explain a lot of the anti-atheist sentiments that often fly around.

Jeanie Straub is a Christian who also seems to understand the perspective of an atheist:

Atheists don't see themselves as lacking belief. They see Christians as lacking — something but not quite intelligence because I believe my brother thinks I am smart.

That rings especially true with me — Hannah is a classic example. She’s clearly very intelligent and sharp, but I can’t agree with her on religion.

All of these answers are excellent, and are worth reading for people of any religious persuasion.

Also, many religious people believe that all of society should be organized according to their religious beliefs. They support political measures that cater to their religion and force all people, including atheists and members of other religions, to live according to the dictates of that specific religion. Atheists try to use logical arguments to battle these religious-based measures, but the religious have one argument that atheists cannot use logic to defeat: "My religion says that people should live that way." The only way to defeat "My god tells me so" is to disprove the notion of gods.

I disagree with the final line: you can believe in a god, and not force other people to live the same way as you, but it's an effective strategy. And indeed, there's no reason for us to stop people doing what they believe their god tells them to do, as long as it doesn't harm them or the people around them.