What do Atheists believe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i don’t think I could be an atheist, because I don’t see how people born with horrible disabilities or birth defects, or those born in terrible countries under primitive and grim circumstances are addressed by such a worldview.

From the atheist standpoint, each human is born and lives and dies, correct? So if you are born with a defect that renders you unable to speak or walk, that’s it for you. You’ll just be a damaged human being, unable to take care of yourself, have meaningful relationships, do good, etc.

And then you die. That’s it. If you are born in a third world country and are a child prostitute who is horribly used and contracts AIDS and dies before you are 30, well, that’s it for you.

Atheism offers no hope for the millions of people who have nothing in this life.

I don’t want to sentence my fellow man to such hopelessness and misery. If there is no higher power, no soul that exists independent of the body, those people will live miserably and painfully and then, nothing.

I think every human born is worth more than that.

Does atheism have a theory about things like that? I’d like to know the perspective on that.

I think that your confusion lies in your belief that atheism is a unified belief system. It's not. It's "a-theist" as in, without theism. It's the absence of a religious belief system, non-belief in religion.

Whether you want to or no, millions of people live hopeless, miserable lives in this world. Maybe you and other theists of various religious communities are right and those millions will go to heaven and be at peace or be reincarnated as something less hopeless and miserable. But one way or another, those people are still miserable here and now. I believe very strongly in human rights and eliminating suffering in this life. There are many secular groups who do work to alleviate the suffering you hope will be alleviated by heaven. I have experienced pain and misery in my life, and at no point did it feel comforting to me to imagine that I was living through what I was living through and would be rewarded later. When you are sick or grieving or in pain, your wish is for that suffering to be alleviated now, not in some nebulous spiritual future reward realm.

So as someone who doesn't believe in a creator, I'd say that I believe every human being is worth the same and that we should all do,our best to alleviate suffering in this life because it is the right thing to do. If I am wrong and there is an after life of some kind, that does not diminish the righteousness that is striving to end suffering now.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you explain your thoughts and feelings about life and why you follow a "god" whom has never shown anyone proof of existence. Can you explain how religion has been changed over the years, and why we have so many different forms of Christianity and other religions (which were really changed by kings, popes, and others who claimed something different from what they were taught)?

Please start your own thread, I am interested in hearing from atheists. Thanks.

I am an atheist and do not believe in any god or religion. I don't need to justify it and want to know why you are so concerned about what an atheist believes. Maybe you are one too?

Serious question: Then why are you on a religion board asking believers to justify their faith? Doesn’t seem fair or rational.

DP atheist here: I have literally never done this on this board, ever. Why do you believe atheists do this, or are all the same? Do you want to be classified in with the religious people who have done awful things in the name of religion?

Right above us on this thread, an atheist (you?) asks believers why they believe in a god with no proof, i.e., demanding pp justify her religion. This happens all the time on nearly every religion thread.

Unless this is your first post ever on DCUM, you know this very well and are probably a part of it. That makes you a liar, I guess.

And do you get a prize for being the first to invoke the religion/atheism equivalent of Hitler? Obviously nobody here thinks atheists are “all the same” — everybody is making a clear division between respectful atheists vs. disingenuous twerps like you. You apparently have no idea how completely ridiculous you look. Sorry!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


I love it when people speak for Christians. It’s so meaningful.

How about speak for yourself and quit generalizing.

Where did you hear or see or come to think Christians don’t have robe good people, just accept Christ?

Christ preached many times on morals, values, and the way He wanted is to treat one another.

You cannot just say oh save me Jesus, I accept you, and be saved.

P
That's exactly what some Christians believe. I know this because some have told me when they were saved and asked me, presumptuously, how and when I was saved.

And they followed that up by saying now they didn’t have to be good people because they were saved?

They didn't mention anything about being good people. Just how great is was to be saved and how great I'd feel if I got saved too.

There was a whole thread on this just last week. Bottom line: no church, anywhere, preaches that hypocrisy will get you into heaven. Your repentance must be sincere and you must make a sincere effort to change your ways completely and lead a Christian life. I assume the people you were talking to also factored in sincere repentance, but I don’t now. There are delusional hypocrites in every religion and among those with no religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some religious people I know have a hard time believing a person can be moral without guidance from an authority. That fear of god drives behavior. They simply can't understand why anyone would behave ethically without belief. As people have posted, being an atheist entails behaving as if this is all there is. For the atheists I know, it's doing our best to make this world a better place today because things won't be better in a magical place that we don't get to until we die.

And if you fail at it, there isn't a higher power that will make it right for the people you wronged, or fix the planet, or forgive your sins. You have to do as well as you can, now, no takebacks.

This is an honest question, and something I’ve always wondered. What about the people who decide, screw it, there’s no punishment so I’ll just steal and murder and die rich and happy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i don’t think I could be an atheist, because I don’t see how people born with horrible disabilities or birth defects, or those born in terrible countries under primitive and grim circumstances are addressed by such a worldview.

From the atheist standpoint, each human is born and lives and dies, correct? So if you are born with a defect that renders you unable to speak or walk, that’s it for you. You’ll just be a damaged human being, unable to take care of yourself, have meaningful relationships, do good, etc.

And then you die. That’s it. If you are born in a third world country and are a child prostitute who is horribly used and contracts AIDS and dies before you are 30, well, that’s it for you.

Atheism offers no hope for the millions of people who have nothing in this life.

I don’t want to sentence my fellow man to such hopelessness and misery. If there is no higher power, no soul that exists independent of the body, those people will live miserably and painfully and then, nothing.

I think every human born is worth more than that.

Does atheism have a theory about things like that? I’d like to know the perspective on that.

Athiests, by and large are not evangelicals who travel to communities of the poor and downtrodden and tell them how to think. I take a live-and-let-live approach where I think everyone deserves to make up their own mind about faith and religion.

I think you can give people hope by helping people to overcome poverty, giving them access to healthcare and education and working to eradicate child prostitution.

I think it's also worth considering that so much of the poverty and inequality in our world is an outgrowth of colonialism which presume that people without a certain religion were subhuman and could be exploited

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


I love it when people speak for Christians. It’s so meaningful.

How about speak for yourself and quit generalizing.

Where did you hear or see or come to think Christians don’t have robe good people, just accept Christ?

Christ preached many times on morals, values, and the way He wanted is to treat one another.

You cannot just say oh save me Jesus, I accept you, and be saved.

I am a Christian and I agree with you. Christians have no place on this forum. Please do not entertain or provide more material for ridicule. This is forum for atheism and other religions.

DP. Agree with PP. Christians have no place on this forum. Your posts aren’t read by even the respectful atheists and the more hateful atheists (and the Trump-supporting Jew who hates Christians) will just twist your words to poke fun at you.

However, this is a thread about atheism and I’m taking and asking questions about atheism, respectfully, so....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is it. All we have is each other. Therefore, we ought to make this the best of all possible worlds, and help each other to achieve it.

There is no future reward for the suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to end it now. There is also no future punishment for those who cause suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to get them to change their ways, or limit their ability to cause suffering.

And ... cycle of life, science, amazed that we exist at all -- that stuff.

NP here. I've posted before and have described myself as agnostic.

Here's the problem with what you've posted: It all depends on the greater collective to have some sense of obligation to protect those who are suffering and bring about justice, stop those who cause the suffering.

Religion has its flaws, for sure. But I'm not sure atheism is much better. I do know a few very moral atheists. But they have a strong sense of obligation, so they really hold themselves to their morals. I know a lot of atheists who think they have morals and values, but when it comes down to choices, they ALWAYS choose the path that is self-serving, no matter who they hurt in the process. They have no sense of obligation to uphold vows or oaths. It really is all about what serves them best at any given time and what they can get away with. They talk a good game about morals and values, but their system of ethics is kind of like the notion of financial companies regulating themselves: they'll do the "right" thing so long as it is in their interest and they see that the other options will have negative consequences, but if they see no net negative consequence to doing the wrong thing or skirting the edge of right, they'll go for it.

My point is, as much harm as has been done in the name of religion, I'm not so sure that pure atheism would be better for society unless there is a strong sense of obligation to the larger whole. There are some cultures in which there is a strong sense of duty to others that is ingrained in people from youth on up, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I know atheists who do have a strong sense of obligation and internal moral compass, but I also know atheists who basically see morality as a suggestion, not a rule; they do what they want. I know one person in particular who is like this. This person is very self-righteous and will use any opportunity to criticize religion or point out how immoral a religious person is, but this person is kind of a liar and a cheater.

I think the more important question isn't "what do Atheists believe"; it's, what holds your feet to the fire when it comes to actually making ethical choices? Most everyone, religious and nonreligious, has a view of right and wrong. The real question is whether or not they do the right thing even when it runs counter to their own self-interest. And what makes them do that? For many religious people, religion is important not just as a framework for morality and ethical behavior but also as a motivator -- as sort of a cosmic system of justice. It's one thing to say we have a justice system for crime. But there's a lot of unethical behavior that isn't criminal (nor should it be). Most of it falls within the realm of interpersonal relations, be it social or professional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP here. I've posted before and have described myself as agnostic.

Nearly all atheists are also agnostic.

Anonymous wrote:
Here's the problem with what you've posted: It all depends on the greater collective to have some sense of obligation to protect those who are suffering and bring about justice, stop those who cause the suffering.

Religion has its flaws, for sure. But I'm not sure atheism is much better. I do know a few very moral atheists. But they have a strong sense of obligation, so they really hold themselves to their morals. I know a lot of atheists who think they have morals and values, but when it comes down to choices, they ALWAYS choose the path that is self-serving, no matter who they hurt in the process. They have no sense of obligation to uphold vows or oaths. It really is all about what serves them best at any given time and what they can get away with. They talk a good game about morals and values, but their system of ethics is kind of like the notion of financial companies regulating themselves: they'll do the "right" thing so long as it is in their interest and they see that the other options will have negative consequences, but if they see no net negative consequence to doing the wrong thing or skirting the edge of right, they'll go for it.

My point is, as much harm as has been done in the name of religion, I'm not so sure that pure atheism would be better for society unless there is a strong sense of obligation to the larger whole. There are some cultures in which there is a strong sense of duty to others that is ingrained in people from youth on up, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I know atheists who do have a strong sense of obligation and internal moral compass, but I also know atheists who basically see morality as a suggestion, not a rule; they do what they want. I know one person in particular who is like this. This person is very self-righteous and will use any opportunity to criticize religion or point out how immoral a religious person is, but this person is kind of a liar and a cheater.

I think the more important question isn't "what do Atheists believe"; it's, what holds your feet to the fire when it comes to actually making ethical choices? Most everyone, religious and nonreligious, has a view of right and wrong. The real question is whether or not they do the right thing even when it runs counter to their own self-interest. And what makes them do that? For many religious people, religion is important not just as a framework for morality and ethical behavior but also as a motivator -- as sort of a cosmic system of justice. It's one thing to say we have a justice system for crime. But there's a lot of unethical behavior that isn't criminal (nor should it be). Most of it falls within the realm of interpersonal relations, be it social or professional.

I am sure you know that since the vast majority of people are theist the vast majority of immoral acts are committed by theists. Atheists likely commit immoral acts in a very similar percentage. I personally believe it is only an individual's sense of right and wrong that motivates them to do what they do, whether religious or atheist. If you think, "man, I'd really like to steal that but I won't because god is watching" then you are still a bad person at your core. I think most of you religious people are good people and won't steal something because you know it is not right in any world, and not just because you may have eternal judgement over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is it. All we have is each other. Therefore, we ought to make this the best of all possible worlds, and help each other to achieve it.

There is no future reward for the suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to end it now. There is also no future punishment for those who cause suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to get them to change their ways, or limit their ability to cause suffering.

And ... cycle of life, science, amazed that we exist at all -- that stuff.

NP here. I've posted before and have described myself as agnostic.

Here's the problem with what you've posted: It all depends on the greater collective to have some sense of obligation to protect those who are suffering and bring about justice, stop those who cause the suffering.

Religion has its flaws, for sure. But I'm not sure atheism is much better. I do know a few very moral atheists. But they have a strong sense of obligation, so they really hold themselves to their morals. I know a lot of atheists who think they have morals and values, but when it comes down to choices, they ALWAYS choose the path that is self-serving, no matter who they hurt in the process. They have no sense of obligation to uphold vows or oaths. It really is all about what serves them best at any given time and what they can get away with. They talk a good game about morals and values, but their system of ethics is kind of like the notion of financial companies regulating themselves: they'll do the "right" thing so long as it is in their interest and they see that the other options will have negative consequences, but if they see no net negative consequence to doing the wrong thing or skirting the edge of right, they'll go for it.

My point is, as much harm as has been done in the name of religion, I'm not so sure that pure atheism would be better for society unless there is a strong sense of obligation to the larger whole. There are some cultures in which there is a strong sense of duty to others that is ingrained in people from youth on up, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I know atheists who do have a strong sense of obligation and internal moral compass, but I also know atheists who basically see morality as a suggestion, not a rule; they do what they want. I know one person in particular who is like this. This person is very self-righteous and will use any opportunity to criticize religion or point out how immoral a religious person is, but this person is kind of a liar and a cheater.

I think the more important question isn't "what do Atheists believe"; it's, what holds your feet to the fire when it comes to actually making ethical choices? Most everyone, religious and nonreligious, has a view of right and wrong. The real question is whether or not they do the right thing even when it runs counter to their own self-interest. And what makes them do that? For many religious people, religion is important not just as a framework for morality and ethical behavior but also as a motivator -- as sort of a cosmic system of justice. It's one thing to say we have a justice system for crime. But there's a lot of unethical behavior that isn't criminal (nor should it be). Most of it falls within the realm of interpersonal relations, be it social or professional.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I wondered. I think everyone knows atheists don’t believe in God. I just wondered what philosophy or guidelines or morals/values atheism entails.

Still, it doesn’t seem like much to “embrace” with atheism. Atheists want to alleviate suffering on earth but I guess they each do so individually in small ways because there’s no atheists outreach or aid organizations, apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


I love it when people speak for Christians. It’s so meaningful.

How about speak for yourself and quit generalizing.

Where did you hear or see or come to think Christians don’t have robe good people, just accept Christ?

Christ preached many times on morals, values, and the way He wanted is to treat one another.

You cannot just say oh save me Jesus, I accept you, and be saved.

At bible study it always a debate between "accepting Jesus as your savior" and "work of good deed".

Talk to a born again Christian.

Catholics believe in works of good deed. Not every Christian does. Maybe you should not talk for all Christians.

[Anonymous]

Those are words from scripture. They aren’t my words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is it. All we have is each other. Therefore, we ought to make this the best of all possible worlds, and help each other to achieve it.

There is no future reward for the suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to end it now. There is also no future punishment for those who cause suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to get them to change their ways, or limit their ability to cause suffering.

And ... cycle of life, science, amazed that we exist at all -- that stuff.

NP here. I've posted before and have described myself as agnostic.

Here's the problem with what you've posted: It all depends on the greater collective to have some sense of obligation to protect those who are suffering and bring about justice, stop those who cause the suffering.

Religion has its flaws, for sure. But I'm not sure atheism is much better. I do know a few very moral atheists. But they have a strong sense of obligation, so they really hold themselves to their morals. I know a lot of atheists who think they have morals and values, but when it comes down to choices, they ALWAYS choose the path that is self-serving, no matter who they hurt in the process. They have no sense of obligation to uphold vows or oaths. It really is all about what serves them best at any given time and what they can get away with. They talk a good game about morals and values, but their system of ethics is kind of like the notion of financial companies regulating themselves: they'll do the "right" thing so long as it is in their interest and they see that the other options will have negative consequences, but if they see no net negative consequence to doing the wrong thing or skirting the edge of right, they'll go for it.

My point is, as much harm as has been done in the name of religion, I'm not so sure that pure atheism would be better for society unless there is a strong sense of obligation to the larger whole. There are some cultures in which there is a strong sense of duty to others that is ingrained in people from youth on up, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I know atheists who do have a strong sense of obligation and internal moral compass, but I also know atheists who basically see morality as a suggestion, not a rule; they do what they want. I know one person in particular who is like this. This person is very self-righteous and will use any opportunity to criticize religion or point out how immoral a religious person is, but this person is kind of a liar and a cheater.

I think the more important question isn't "what do Atheists believe"; it's, what holds your feet to the fire when it comes to actually making ethical choices? Most everyone, religious and nonreligious, has a view of right and wrong. The real question is whether or not they do the right thing even when it runs counter to their own self-interest. And what makes them do that? For many religious people, religion is important not just as a framework for morality and ethical behavior but also as a motivator -- as sort of a cosmic system of justice. It's one thing to say we have a justice system for crime. But there's a lot of unethical behavior that isn't criminal (nor should it be). Most of it falls within the realm of interpersonal relations, be it social or professional.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I wondered. I think everyone knows atheists don’t believe in God. I just wondered what philosophy or guidelines or morals/values atheism entails.

Still, it doesn’t seem like much to “embrace” with atheism. Atheists want to alleviate suffering on earth but I guess they each do so individually in small ways because there’s no atheists outreach or aid organizations, apparently.

There are plenty of non-religious affiliated organizations that do outreach - e.g., doctors without borders, UNICEF, etc. There are also humanist groups that do outreach, among other things, e.g., the American Humanist Association.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is it. All we have is each other. Therefore, we ought to make this the best of all possible worlds, and help each other to achieve it.

There is no future reward for the suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to end it now. There is also no future punishment for those who cause suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to get them to change their ways, or limit their ability to cause suffering.

And ... cycle of life, science, amazed that we exist at all -- that stuff.

NP here. I've posted before and have described myself as agnostic.

Here's the problem with what you've posted: It all depends on the greater collective to have some sense of obligation to protect those who are suffering and bring about justice, stop those who cause the suffering.

Religion has its flaws, for sure. But I'm not sure atheism is much better. I do know a few very moral atheists. But they have a strong sense of obligation, so they really hold themselves to their morals. I know a lot of atheists who think they have morals and values, but when it comes down to choices, they ALWAYS choose the path that is self-serving, no matter who they hurt in the process. They have no sense of obligation to uphold vows or oaths. It really is all about what serves them best at any given time and what they can get away with. They talk a good game about morals and values, but their system of ethics is kind of like the notion of financial companies regulating themselves: they'll do the "right" thing so long as it is in their interest and they see that the other options will have negative consequences, but if they see no net negative consequence to doing the wrong thing or skirting the edge of right, they'll go for it.

My point is, as much harm as has been done in the name of religion, I'm not so sure that pure atheism would be better for society unless there is a strong sense of obligation to the larger whole. There are some cultures in which there is a strong sense of duty to others that is ingrained in people from youth on up, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I know atheists who do have a strong sense of obligation and internal moral compass, but I also know atheists who basically see morality as a suggestion, not a rule; they do what they want. I know one person in particular who is like this. This person is very self-righteous and will use any opportunity to criticize religion or point out how immoral a religious person is, but this person is kind of a liar and a cheater.

I think the more important question isn't "what do Atheists believe"; it's, what holds your feet to the fire when it comes to actually making ethical choices? Most everyone, religious and nonreligious, has a view of right and wrong. The real question is whether or not they do the right thing even when it runs counter to their own self-interest. And what makes them do that? For many religious people, religion is important not just as a framework for morality and ethical behavior but also as a motivator -- as sort of a cosmic system of justice. It's one thing to say we have a justice system for crime. But there's a lot of unethical behavior that isn't criminal (nor should it be). Most of it falls within the realm of interpersonal relations, be it social or professional.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I wondered. I think everyone knows atheists don’t believe in God. I just wondered what philosophy or guidelines or morals/values atheism entails.

Still, it doesn’t seem like much to “embrace” with atheism. Atheists want to alleviate suffering on earth but I guess they each do so individually in small ways because there’s no atheists outreach or aid organizations, apparently.

NP. Since no atheist subscribes to a set of rules, it’s impossible to list the morals/values that atheism entails. You can certainly ask what morals/values specific atheists follow. For my family—I’m an agnostic Jew and DH is an atheist—it means makingbour time on earth count, making our world (local and far-reaching) a better place through on-the-ground work and donations, and raising a compassionate child who will keep that cycle going. We don’t refrain from harming others because (a) god is watching us and will punish us; we refrain from harming others because their way of life will suffer.

And there are plenty of atheist or secular charities and helping organizations, including Doctors Without Borders, The American Humanist Association, UNICEF, the ACLU, and Oxfam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is it. All we have is each other. Therefore, we ought to make this the best of all possible worlds, and help each other to achieve it.

There is no future reward for the suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to end it now. There is also no future punishment for those who cause suffering, so it is incumbent upon us all to try to get them to change their ways, or limit their ability to cause suffering.

And ... cycle of life, science, amazed that we exist at all -- that stuff.

NP here. I've posted before and have described myself as agnostic.

Here's the problem with what you've posted: It all depends on the greater collective to have some sense of obligation to protect those who are suffering and bring about justice, stop those who cause the suffering.

Religion has its flaws, for sure. But I'm not sure atheism is much better. I do know a few very moral atheists. But they have a strong sense of obligation, so they really hold themselves to their morals. I know a lot of atheists who think they have morals and values, but when it comes down to choices, they ALWAYS choose the path that is self-serving, no matter who they hurt in the process. They have no sense of obligation to uphold vows or oaths. It really is all about what serves them best at any given time and what they can get away with. They talk a good game about morals and values, but their system of ethics is kind of like the notion of financial companies regulating themselves: they'll do the "right" thing so long as it is in their interest and they see that the other options will have negative consequences, but if they see no net negative consequence to doing the wrong thing or skirting the edge of right, they'll go for it.

My point is, as much harm as has been done in the name of religion, I'm not so sure that pure atheism would be better for society unless there is a strong sense of obligation to the larger whole. There are some cultures in which there is a strong sense of duty to others that is ingrained in people from youth on up, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I know atheists who do have a strong sense of obligation and internal moral compass, but I also know atheists who basically see morality as a suggestion, not a rule; they do what they want. I know one person in particular who is like this. This person is very self-righteous and will use any opportunity to criticize religion or point out how immoral a religious person is, but this person is kind of a liar and a cheater.

I think the more important question isn't "what do Atheists believe"; it's, what holds your feet to the fire when it comes to actually making ethical choices? Most everyone, religious and nonreligious, has a view of right and wrong. The real question is whether or not they do the right thing even when it runs counter to their own self-interest. And what makes them do that? For many religious people, religion is important not just as a framework for morality and ethical behavior but also as a motivator -- as sort of a cosmic system of justice. It's one thing to say we have a justice system for crime. But there's a lot of unethical behavior that isn't criminal (nor should it be). Most of it falls within the realm of interpersonal relations, be it social or professional.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I wondered. I think everyone knows atheists don’t believe in God. I just wondered what philosophy or guidelines or morals/values atheism entails.

Still, it doesn’t seem like much to “embrace” with atheism. Atheists want to alleviate suffering on earth but I guess they each do so individually in small ways because there’s no atheists outreach or aid organizations, apparently.

There are many aid organizations that don’t have a religious affiliation. You’ll find plenty of atheists involved with them.

[Anonymous]

Most of the better charities are secular:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=2203