...if only you knew how much I love to read.

I made no assumptions whatsoever about your physical appearance. I'd never even thought of it.

What makes it difficult to have a two way exchange of ideas is that you're missing my point every time.

I've said my peace on this one. Understand that I don't begrudge you your beliefs. I'm out. Good night Mr. Layne.

No insinuation, I honestly believe it would be a cold place without the heart, soul, or some belief in something greater. It's a shame you take any expression of my belief as an insult, it makes it very hard to have a two way exchange of ideas.
I don't actually diet either, as I said, "IF i said I was following a diet" I was trying to communicate a concept. It's interesting that you went right by the "loophole" analogy and assumed I was overweight and inactive. I know several people with conditions such as diabetes who follow diets to optimize their health, though intelligent and active, brain power alone seems ineffective.

Perhaps that is why someone invented books, two heads being better than one. If you dislike books so much, what do you "feed" your brain?

I was responding to the letter, the evils he speaks of are religious evils, and they exist in many religions.
There are many people of faith who represent their faith well through expressions of genuine goodness from their hearts. I definitely recognize that.
My intention is not to attack but to defend. Any defensiveness you are sensing is a result of the all too frequent presumptions of moral superiority from those who do not represent their faith well, and there are many of those as well.
You claim that, "I have never said not having a religion makes you a good or moral person or not", but I thought that's exactly what you were saying when you said, "I would hate to see the cold place this would become without the concept of the soul, or the heart, or belief in something greater than ourselves." and with the "percentage of good to bad" comment.
That wasn't an insinuation that one who believes in organized religion is superior to an athiest or an agnostic?
The diet analogy was great. It really demonstrates the key difference between us. I've never been on a "diet" in my life. I do possess self discipline and the common knowledge that one's body benefits from activity. If ever my pants feel tight, I don't need to consult a book. I consult my brain, and it says "Eat less".
For everyone who benefits from a book, great. Just don't stereotype those who see the book or "document" as uselss (or even harmful) as being immoral people. Books are written by men, and sometimes they generate those hateful ideas which this letter to the editor references.

Celeste, by the nature of your comment you would lose the bet.

If I said I was following a diet , but looking for loopholes so I could eat the twinkies anyway I would not be following the diet. On the other hand, if I had a dietary guide that helped to improve my blood glucose and lower my cholesterol I should be following it for best results. If I eat whatever 'feels right' my diet probably will not help me.

Sometimes my 'instinct' tells me I should eat the twinkie anyway, and I refer to the dietary guidelines to remind myself that the twinkie is not part of my diet.

In a cryptic way you seem to assume the worst possible out of anyone who follows a religion. Most churches I have been to recognize people to be human, recognize their own short comings, and try to be better people. It sounds like you believe everyone who has faith is like Jimmy Swaggert or Jim Baker. To accuse 85%(if that is the number) of people in the world to be shiftless cover up artists of the worst character because of their faith would be a massive prejudice. There are corrupt people in all walks. Some improve, some do not. Everyone has faults.

I have never said not having a religion makes you a good or moral person or not. I respect your right to believe what you believe.

The main point in the Constitution of saying 'freedom OF religion', is self determination. If you change the word 'Of" you take away someone's freedom and impose your own will.

Mr. Layne said, "I also would wager that the percentage of good to bad is much greater among those that follow a belief system based on moral guidlines, example: the ten commandments, torah or other document."

I would take that bet and raise you. Probably the nonbelievers are just more likely to get caught, while the believers are more likely to be afraid of their reputation or image and try to cover it up. I think inside us we all instinctively feel what is "right" and what is "wrong", whether we have a document giving us the rules or not. I believe those with the document/rule book look for loopholes where those without a document/rule book, simply follow their instinct. I would bet on those who follow their own instinct (free will and all that) any day.

Being a nonbeliever does NOT make one a bad or immoral person. At all.

What was your point in saying that 85% of all good accomplishments and bad accomplishments were accomplished by those of faith simply because those of faith make up the majority of the population? And..?

Just Saying - " Unfortunately, history tells us that our accomplishments were mostly bad: nearly all wars were fought in the name of God, the subjugation of countries and its people were done in the name of God,"

Let's look at actual American History

The American Revolution
The American colonists viewed that they were entitled to the full democratic rights of Englishmen, while the British view that the American colonies were just colonies to be used and exploited in whatever way best suited the Great Britain. Hence "no taxation without representation".

The War of 1812
Considered the second war for independence from British rule.

The Mexican American War
A war over the territory Texas becoming part of the U.S.

The Civil War
A war between industrialized and agricultural economies, even slavery was not a prime motivator, cosidered part of the southern economy at the time.

The Spanish American War
The ongoing revolution in Cuba against Spanish rule had long been a source of friction between the United States and Spain.

World War 1
Caused by Nationalistic beliefs, competition over colonies and territory in Africa and other places and a complicated series of alliance systems. Wilson wanted to stay neutral but Germany and it’s allies sank our ships and in 1917 we entered the War.

World War 2
Hitler, Moussolini and the Empire of Japan.

Korean War
In 1904 the Japanese took over Korea, as many countries had done. This took place until the end of the second world war. In the east, there was a war going on with Germany against Adolf Hitler. But, we need to keep in mind there was a war in the west as well, against Japan.
The Soviet Union (led by Joseph Stalin) and the United States made a deal with each other to force the Japanese out of Korea. Together, the United States and the Soviet Union succeeded in freeing Korea from Japanese rule. However, as part of the agreement to form an alliance, the Soviet Union would maintain the top half of Korea after the war, and the United States would do so in the bottom half. The dividing line was the 38th parallel.
After two years, both countries pulled out of Korea, leaving it on its own. In North Korea, where the Soviets had been, a communist government was left behind. The United States left behind a democracy.
And this is where problem begins....Because the two separate governments were left behind and Korea had been split into North Korea and South Korea (1948),

Vietnam War
Initially, the United States had little interest in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, however as it became clear that the post-World War II world would be dominated by the US and its allies and the Soviet Union and theirs, isolating communist movements took an increased importance. These concerns were ultimately formed into the doctrine of containment and domino theory. First spelled out 1947, containment identified that the goal of Communism was to spread to capitalist states and that the only way to stop it was to “contain” it within its present borders. Springing from containment was the concept of domino theory which stated that if one state in a region were to fall to Communism, then the surrounding states would inevitably fall as well. These concepts were to dominate and guide US foreign policy for much of the Cold War.

Desert Storm, Kuwate was invaded, Bush 1 arguably wanted to protect Saudi oil supplies. But hardly a relgious war.

As it is I have trouble agreeing with your contention that most wars are religious in nature.

As to Michelangelo, I have read extensively about him having written a collegiate term paper on his works, his principal failing was his ego but he was a Roman Catholic worked incredibly long hours for pay that did not make him a wealthy man. He had a number of fallings in and out with church officials, but had tremendous passion for his work. He was considered tempermental and anti social. Check your sources on th Athiest thing-you are barking up the wrong tree.

As to the suicide bombings and such, those are tragic expressions of hate, not love of God.

Bill,
I believe that your numbers are a little bit off. While 85% of the World population might be in one or the other faith groups, they were “forced” into religion by their parents and by the time they grow up at least 30% of them no longer practice their “assigned” religion or become atheist.
“If these numbers are true then 85% of all human accomplishments (good or bad) are done by people who have faith in something other than themselves.” Unfortunately, history tells us that our accomplishments were mostly bad: nearly all wars were fought in the name of God, the subjugation of countries and its people were done in the name of God, ethnic cleansing were and is being done in the name of God, suicide bombings and in some cases individual murders (i.e. abortion doctors) are done for or in the name of God/religion.
On the other hand, I don’t believe Michelangelo (a known atheist) painted the Sistine chapel for anything other than money, nor did Einstein developed his theories for or in the name of God/or religion.
It is normal and, according to most scientific research, it is beneficial to be “spiritual” and believe in “something greater than ourselves”. Unfortunately organized religion when preaching “love thy neighbors”, they mean only the ones belonging to the same group/church and hate and or condemn (in some cases to kill) everyone who does not believe the same way or the same dogma as they do.

It never ceases to amaze me that people judge massive groups of people by the actions of a tiny group of individuals. Approximately thirty three percent of the world are Christians of some denomination, twenty one percent Islamic, 14 percent Hindu, and 18 percent tribal, traditional chinese, Jewish or Buddist. The other 15% fall under agnostic, atheist, humanist or nonreligious. If these numbers are true then 85% of all human accomplishments (good or bad) are done by people who have faith in something other than themselves. I also would wager that the percentage of good to bad is much greater among those that follow a belief system based on moral guidlines, example: the ten commandments, torah or other document. Like all human beings some claim to be something they are not, and do not understand the difference.

Although logic and science are very valuable to the human experience, I would hate to see the cold place this would become without the concept of the soul, or the heart, or belief in something greater than ourselves.

History teaches that if you place your faith in worldly people or worldly things, you eventually see them fail. Some worship a politician, political movement, or pop icon. I cannot think of any of those who have not had their own failings.

Bravo, Ms. Peck!! Very well said.

I couldn't agree more. One could make the same argument about many religions, though. Take Catholicism just as an example: their mass abuse of innocent children, their idea of women as second class citizens, the ruthless lengths they are willing to go to for power, etc. They are just not as bold in flaunting it- they take the cowardly approach of trying to hide it which I find even more dangerous because they are able to vicimize more people before their crimes are discovered. Unfortunately, it is about religion. It can be so destructive. I don't know what the solution could be as long as everyone wants freedom of religion. I say we need freedom FROM religion or at least protection from religion. There are some really, really, bad people (ie, Warren Jeffs) that do unspeakable things in the name of their god.