On one hand I agree that love can be irrational in a passionate sense; yet, on the other it can be a choice and a way of living that is decided by rational means. Although irrationality may have its place in art and life itself, it does not have a basis in any form of morality. Morality can be an ideal standard of behavior which the individual deems most conductive to better living. Although there is no ultimate morality, that does not lessen the individual’s need to build meaning into life.

If we can understand the view point of the philosophical rationalist, then it is apparent that to a rationalist, morality is based on reason. This implies free will as well, deeming that we can choose to behave one way or another based on what we believe to be good, and good need not be dictated by a supreme authority.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell7.htm

So, although Abgrund may be a positive atheist who denies any form of absolute morality or purpose within life, this does not mean that all atheists share the same view point towards free will or life itself. Our views change our perception and truth becomes a mirror rather than a window if all we can see is our own reflection.

Also, people like Harris do condemn religion per se as evil. To say that religion is an evil force in the world but that the people influenced by it are not evil is mere sophistry. Religion can be a force for good or evil, just as its followers can be good or evil. It is not inherently evil to “short-circuit” rational thinking. All moral restraints are irrational. Love is irrational. Clinging to a futile, finite life in a meaningless world is irrational. Reason is a tool, a means – not an end.

It is like asking someone to define Buddhism. You will get about as many answers as you ask questions. Sam Harris didn’t even use the term “atheist” in his book “The End of Faith”. Atheism can be defined as positive, negative, weak or strong. Where as Harris and Dawkins abide by positive atheism, there are others, such as Martin and Kuvakin, who adhere to negative atheism. Negative atheism is the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is denial of a god, and agnosticism is a lack of knowledge concerning matters of divinity. According to George Smith, author of “Atheism, Case Against God”, atheism is simply the absence of theistic belief. Smith writes, “Atheism in its basic form is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.”

Likewise, Valerii A. Kuvakin, philosophy teacher and author of “In Search of Our Humanity” claims, “It is wrong to identify an atheist as one who denies God, though this is what opponents of atheism usually claim. If such people exist, it would probably be more correct to call them the “verbal” murderers of God, for the prefix a- means denying as elimination. … I would like to stress that the prefix a- does not necessarily mean rejection. It can mean “absence of.” For example, “apathy” means “absence of passion.” Thus, the concept “atheist” does not necessarily mean nihilism.”

So, although some may have a tendency towards strong, positive atheism, there are many atheists who adhere to the negative form. This is not to be confused with agnosticism, because agnosticism is about lack of knowledge. It is not the same thing as lack of belief.

Albert Einstein described himself as agnostic in a letter he wrote to a friend, “”My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.” Einstein also stated: “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.” Personally, my childhood did not include a religious indoctrination and I agree with Einstein, Bertrand Russell, and Kuvakin regarding philosophical stance, yet I can appreciate the views of hard or positive atheists as well as agnostic theists.

I’d like to comment on one more aspect regarding the above post by Abgrund. People like Bertrand Russell and Sam Harris don’t say that religious people are evil. What they object to is the type of thinking that goes into religious dogma and short circuits rational thinking. They are not condemning the individual, as people are complex entities composed of many different variables. What they condemn is the mindset that allows for magical thinking to manifest as something objective because it is dangerous if one believes that the accumulation of knowledge is possible and that truth can be obtained through rational means.

Opponents of tariffs always forget that the U.S. prospered as a high-tariff nation for more than a century without government spending. Nations that have suffered from their own tariffs have done so because the tariff was poorly designed or because the country was too small or undeveloped to produce many of its requirements domestically. Except for oil and tropical agriculture products, America is capable of producing everything we need within our own borders.

But it wasn’t my intent to suggest protectionism as the only or the primary solution to our economic crisis. I was pointing out one reason why government spending will not have the same impact that it did in the Thirties. There are other reasons: heavy taxes on the working and middle classes, inflated mortgage payments due to the real estate bubble, tremendous consumer debt, and an overall higher standard of living which allows more discretionary hoarding. All of these things, together with the importation of most consumer goods, reduce the recirculation of money (i.e., the autonomous multiplier).

If government spending alone would suffice, Mr. Bush’s Iraq Stimulus Plan would certainly have been enough.

Are you suggesting that we buy nothing that is not made in America, from transportation to clothing, even if it means choosing an inferior product? Isn’t the world market now so interrelated that this concept no longer works?

Abgrund: you’ve just explained very succinctly why it does not count as spending money. The spending was previous and will contribute exactly zip to employing anyone now.

If the government is handing out money then it seems to me the most good would be done if the money is given to individual families rather than corporations or infrastructures.

Abgrund: Back in September I suggested a similar plan that I think would have prevented this breakdown. However, I believe that it is now too late for any kind of mere spending plan to succeed.

The reason why economies run on credit is because our corporate overlord rapists like it that way – it gives them complete control. More about the economics of it some other time. For now, suffice it to say that exactly the same thing caused the first Great Depression.

Hyperinflation isn’t a consequence of depressions, which rather tend to cause deflation. It’s a consequence of printing money to pay the bills.