I have said no so far, because I can't trust her to not mention the word God and if she gets rolling, she will turn it into a full blown liturgy. Does anyone have an idea of a speech she could make in lieu of a benediction.

Hi Alexandra,

I'm not certain I understand. If you write your mother a speech, do you think she'll be willing to read it as written? Particularly if it doesn't mention God? If she's as religious as you say, she might take it on herself to go off the script and say what she wants anyway. How likely do you think that is to happen?

So why exactly should the Bible mention these things? The Bible is not(and never was) intented to be a scientific textbook. And I doubt ancient Jews(or really ANYBODY up until quite recently) would have much interest in these subjects, or even to understand them.

I actually was raised in an athiest/agnostic household, we never said anything really before dinner, and even now as a Christian it feels weird, so I dont do it.

I do not believe in God and either does my soon to be husband, but we both have very religious families. My mother is a crazy born again (I swear she is using it to fill a void in her life for right now, this is her 4th attempted religion) and his family are Mennonite. I know, I am screwed. With my wedding in under two weeks, my mother has requested to do a Benediction. So far the ceremony has no mention of God but has some spiritual aspects (mostly for effect, I must admit, to make a romantic mood) and same goes for all the speeches. However, I want to respect my mother because whilst a space God seems ridiculous to me, it means something to her and it means something for her to make this "prayer" before our meal. I have said no so far, because I can't trust her to not mention the word God and if she gets rolling, she will turn it into a full blown liturgy. Does anyone have an idea of a speech she could make in lieu of a benediction. The one that inspired this blog is a little too granola for me. It just needs to sounds nice and simple and not talk too much of blessings and prayers. Thanks!

We acknowledge the existence of things with our five senses. We see, hear, feel, touch and smell them. Yet, all of you must claim that you have brains, yet none of you have ever seen, heard, felt, touched or smelled your brain or mine. Yet you believe that they all exists because you have faith in their existence.
Are you ahead of me?

EEGs and CAT scans can show you your brain activity and pictures of it while it's still in your head. We can operate on brains while still alive, and when dead, we can remove and examine them. So yes, we are ahead of you because brains can be verified and examined, and don't have to be taken on faith that they exist, unlike some things you happen to believe in.

The Bible, just as all knowledge is progressive

The bible is progressive? When was the last time someone updated the bible to confirm new discoveries like the world being round and going around the sun? When was that part about stoning for working on the sabbath or killing those who don't believe in god removed because they were unethical?

Tom Edison looked in the Kingdom of God for a way to light it up and after 8,000 tries he found it. He tried 8,000 times because he had faith that what he could not see was there if he continued to look for it.

No, he was experiementing with electricity, which had been discovered well before his time. He used science, not faith. There's a huge difference.

And it would behoove all atheists to stop defending our points of view by running back into biblical history for backwoodsy beliefs about their existence as though those beliefs were cut and dried, concrete, dyed in the wool, beliefs. They are beliefs that constantly get an overhaul down through the centuries as mankind learns more about what is going on in the Kingdom of God.

I assume by "backwoodsy" you mean "what the bible actually says". I think you forget the part where the bible doesn't make any predictions about the world as we understand it today, not about evolution, or curing diseases, or creating the lightbulb, or traveling to the moon, or cell phones, or computers, and that those achievements have come through science and testing, and retesting, and long drawn out process of trial and error and questioning and revision; not faith.

That does not make religion, or a belief in God bad because people are learning more and more how God really operates in His universe

No, it makes it incorrect; It's bad for a completely different set of reasons.

Take God away, and Atheism has nothing to debate. With nothing to debate, Atheism has no motive to continue to exist. It is only designed to bad mouth

You're right about the first part; with no belief in god we wouldn't debate it anymore. Now, by bad-mouth, I can assume you mean point out inconsistencies, fallacies, bad moral teachings, and poor reasoning. It's hardly my problem that your faith can't stand up to questioning or prove itself, and resorting to emotional tactics of "don't be so mean to my ideas just because they're wrong" isn't going to work.

Odds are that you are correct, but you cannot really prove it. I accept that you have a brain on faith. Without that faith, I could spend my life debating you with the assumption that you do not have one at all and you could not prove it otherwise.

Except, as mentioned above, you don't have to take it on faith; there is an uncontrovertable amount of evidence. So yes, we could prove otherwise; whether or not you accept the evidence is a totally different matter.

Since The existence or non existence of God cannot be proven, the only thing left in the debate is whether you wish to accept God on faith or not. I do, based on the existence of all there is in my world

At least you admit you have absolutely no reason to believe what you do. Might be hard to debate anyone on that logically basis though.

You tell me how this all came about. If you say, "Well, it just always has been." then I am reminded of Saturday Night Live and the Church lady who said: "How conveeenient!"

And how do you feel god came to exist? Assuming something even bigger, living, and intelligent pre-existed is to assume more than you try to explain. I think I know the answer to that one, so let me give you the same response back; "how conveeenient"

Second: Since The existence or non existence of God cannot be proven, the only thing left in the debate is whether you wish to accept God on faith or not. I do, based on
the existence of all there is in my world. Some way this all got created by a creator.
You tell me how this all came about. If you say, "Well, it just always has been." then I am reminded of Saturday Night Live and the Church lady who said: "How conveeenient!"

The Bible, just as all knowledge is progressive, in that we improve on what we observe in the place where we live. We improve because we seek what we cannot yet see, hear, feel, touch or smell. As we do, our perspective changes. This is the progressive revelation of the Creator. Jesus, when asked about asking God for whatever, said: "Seek ye first the Kingdom and all of these things will be revealed to you."
So we look and we find. Tom Edison looked in the Kingdom of God for a way to light it up and after 8,000 tries he found it. He tried 8,000 times because he had faith that what he could not see was there if he continued to look for it. All our answers to prayer are already here. We want them now, but that is not the way life is set up by the creator. It is a "seek and you will find" program, a progression in revelation. That is why "necessity is the mother of invention." That is why Jesus said to "Ask and you will receive."
And it would behoove all atheists to stop defending our points of view by running back into biblical history for backwoodsy beliefs about their existence as though those beliefs were cut and dried, concrete, dyed in the wool, beliefs. They are beliefs that constantly get an overhaul down through the centuries as mankind learns more about what is going on in the Kingdom of God.
Example: "If Cain is avenged 7 times, truly Lamech 77 times" changed to "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" changed to "forgive your fellowman 70 x 7." It is a progression.
People who pray to Jesus as though he were God because of the screwed up theology of the Trinity, have real problems when they see how many times Jesus prayed in the year and a half he was in his ministry, and everytime he prayed, he prayed to God, and he was not looking in a mirror! This drives the fundamentalist Jesus boys nuts and so they simply rationalize the trinity to fit it anyway. That does not make religion, or a belief in God bad because people are learning more and more how God really operates in His universe. Atheism exists because it only denies belief. If it did not have that opportunity, it would not continue with only a positive outlook on one's existence. Take God away, and Atheism has nothing to debate. With nothing to debate, Atheism has no motive to continue to exist. It is only designed to bad mouth
anyone else's religious point of view. It is like proving that there is a peanut in a peanut shell or that you have a brain because you have seen one in a dead corpse. Odds are that you are correct, but you cannot really prove it. I accept that you have a brain on faith. Without that faith, I could spend my life debating you with the assumption that you do not have one at all and you could not prove it otherwise.

You seem to have taken my generalisations personally. It was not my intention to accuse you of anything, you asked why I speak out and I told you.

I also set out the limits of what I could beleive based on what the evidence has shown to be impossible. Again you have taken my declaration as an accusation levelled against you. I don't know what you believe beyond what you have said.

"Sure we can agree to disagree so long as you don't make claims that are invalidated by the facts." this statement perhaps should have been elaborated on but I was merely setting a condition on how far my tolerance to agree to disagree would go. I was letting you know that I can't tolerate beliefs that defy reality. It is just not in my nature.

Indeed am I to assume from your "Good eventually overcomes evil" comment that you think me evil?

"It just happened? Then let's all quit. It's going to happen anyway."

NO, not at all. This kind of petulance really pisses me off. There is a lot we can do. You can plan ahead, you can set up emergency shelters, disaster relief etc. You can assess the dangers and work out how to minimise or even negate them. All of that can be done without your mythical sky man.

Who says Atheists pray? Surely you can tell the difference between a prayer and a benediction? And you seem to have got my statement wrong. I said "Atheism is as much a religion as not colelcting stamps is a hobby". So you ojection seems doubly absurd.

Atheism isn't about replacing one religion with another. It is about accepting what is evidently real and not believing in stuff that lacks evidence or worse, defies available evidence. It is not a moral code and never will be a moral code. My morality comes from my life and the lessons I've learned from my parents, family and friends etc.

"But, I assure you, that when your have completed this assignment, there had better not be any one in your religion who kills or maims, causes anyone in the world to suffer, all the complaints you have against present day religions."

Very funny, like religions don't already blame atheism for a whole host of problems real and imagined going back to the dark ages. Usually this is done by first misrepresenting atheism as being a moral code or a rejection of all morality.

You seem to assume that I blame religion for the failings of certain individuals which given your previous complaint (addressed above) about possible assumptions of your fundamentalism, seems a bit hypocritical. But since you brought it up I would say that religion is no magic charm against such atrocities. I agree bad people will be bad period, so what is the point of religion again?

"Dear God, before we peel the foil back from your bounty, let us give thanks."

-- Marge, serving TV dinners

"Good rice, good curry, good Gandhi, let's hurry."

--Apu

and of course:

"Dear God, we paid for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing."

--Bart