January 31, 2007

To be honest, I think I was always an atheist deep down, but I deluded myself about it for years.

I was raised in that hazy quasi-christian way that most Americans seem to be, in that we celebrated the Christian holidays but were more or less secular. My father made us observe Lent, but he was agnostic. He just thought it was a healthy thing to do. My mother was an "atheist who hated god" (paraphrasing her own words- I'm aware of the contradiction.) She told her kids that we should believe, but not tell her to believe. As you can imagine, this lack of coherent discourse on religion left me searching, even from a very young age. I distinctly remember thinking about things like the origin of time when I was four years old, in my sesame street pajamas. I asked questions about god all the time.

Most of my religious education up until adolescence came from my grandmother, a fairly liberal Catholic. She was and still is more spiritual than dogmatic, although she was raised during the Depression by strict parents and went to Catholic school, which left its mark in some of her habits. Anyway, she basically taught me 1) God loves you (and so does Mary) 2) good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell 3) you should pray and go to church because it's good for you and "the spirit world" will help you and 4) someday we'll all be together in heaven.

As I got older, though, Grammy's answers to my questions were no longer satisfactory. In looking for better answers, I went to several different churches with several different people over the course of ten years or so- junior high through college.

I believe that by my junior/senior year of college, I'd decided I was firmly Christian. I had gotten into countless passionate discussions about the origin of evil, heated debates about literal vs figurative interpretation of the bible, and structured arguments about suffering, especially nonbelievers going to hell. In the end, though, I felt genuine comfort, and told people that I was spiritual. I prayed nightly, I read the bible (although admittedly, not very astutely- I browsed it- I felt my faith and prayer were strong). I went to a church that I liked; it made me feel good. Somehow, looking back, I feel I tricked myself into believing.

It took a catastrophic event to strip all my illusions away. This event was four years ago almost to the day- September 6th, 2002. Let me go back a few days before that, though. My mother, deeply wounded by her concepts of god and faith, had always - ALWAYS - told me to keep my religious beliefs to myself. She hated hearing about them. She hated the church. But, my belief was that I had to "save" my mother from hell. I wasn't quite convinced she'd go to hell just for not believing, but looking at the "facts" as presented to me by Christian doctrine, I feared for the possibility. It took a lot of slow, careful prodding, but I finally found an opportunity when she said she'd been wearing a Catholic saint charm necklace and had had good luck ever since. And it's true, our lives were getting better. I had just days ago passed my nursing exams (praying about them, listening to uplifting Christian music etc in the meantime) and she had just sold our house. My middle brother had just started college. After a lifetime of poverty, our lives were looking up.

I gently, carefully suggested that maybe we could go to church that weekend, to say thanks to god for how well things were going. I reasoned that maybe all our bad luck was finally behind us.

My mother, much to my surprise, was quiet for a minute and said "maybe I will. But no promises."

Please understand, this was the most open she'd ever been to anything having to do with religion in my entire life. Aside from occasional superstitous behavior, I mean.

Well, on September 6th, she and my brother Jesse- the one who'd just started college- died in a car accident. This was before we ever got to church or anything. Jesse had never even been to church in his life as far as I'm aware.

Naturally, I prayed (a lot) when this first happened. But the very first words out of my mouth when I heard the news were "you can't do this to me" - directed, inexplicably, at god.

Despite that, for the first couple of days I felt that god "carried" me through it. But my brother, who was a professed agnostic who leaned towards belief in a lot of different gods, was lying brain dead while literally thousands of people prayed for him. We performed, at Grammy's request, the sacrament of the sick. I watched, knowing with absolute clinical certainty that he was dead, as my family hoped for a miracle. I was the only one who really knew he was gone. I knew from the first day, and it was me who explained things to my father. We made the decision together to remove him from life support. The funeral went by and the shock wore off and with it went the feeling of invincibility, the feeling of being almost wrapped in a protective cocoon, that I had ascribed to God's grace.

Suddenly, "god's grace" was nowhere. I can't even begin to describe what it felt like; a friend of mine, trying to reassure me, said that Job felt the same way, that God was testing me, and that even Jesus had cried out about being forsaken- but he wasn't. This friend told me this was my gethsemane.

As for the gory details, I prayed, I read the bible, I screamed at god, I threw the bible across the room. I talked to priests and friends who were in seminary. They actually made it worse. I retreived my mother's lost pendant, the one she'd been looking for days before the accident, and wore it. I threw that across the room too. I felt like I was losing my mind. I went to church and while everyone around me prayed, I had to supress somewhat crazy laughter. I felt that god was real, and was my enemy. I blasphemed like nobody's business; I told god in no uncertain terms how much I hated him, with lots of elaborate cursing thrown in, and told him I'd rather go to hell than be with someone who would create such a painful reality. I told him that if my mother and brother were in hell just for not believing, then I would go to hell with them. I said "get out of my life, get out of my heart, and stay away. I don't need you and I don't want you. I hate you with every fibre of my bei ng and if there were a way to kill you, I would do it." I don't think you can get much more blasphemous than that.

Fortunately, this volatile phase eventually passed as well. I got counseling; I needed it. I started exercising and eating better (after losing an unhealthy amount of weight). Lots of other things happened in my life, and I read books about physics, philosophy, eastern religion, etc. I talked to my best friend, a devout christian who remains my best friend today. She still prays for me, but she's afraid to talk to me about religion because she can't answer my questions and I think it gets too painful for her. She asked me to read books by C.S. Lewis and things, and I did. She gave up after a while, and will only say "it's never too late to change you mind." She's respectful and supportive, but we cant discuss the issue in any kind of detail. It's just too much.

I began to uncover what, for me, was a profound truth. Between physics and taoism, I began to feel that I was asking all the wrong questions. The question wasn't "why." The questions were "why not?" and "why ask why?" Furthermore I began to realize there didn't need to be a reason for anything. Most of my belief had been based on the sense that there must be some origin, some reason, some force behind existence. And a little bit on Pascal's wager, when I'm honest with myself. But during two years of sleepless nights spent reading mind-bending quantum physics and philosophy that I hardly understood, I began to let go of my need to blame some imaginary man in the sky for what had happened. I found I'd long ago lost the need for imaginary comfort, for answers to the unexplained. I'd become incredibly self-reliant. My life was no easier or more difficult for lack of prayer. I gradually saw the humor and futility in it, and I just realized... there is no god. There's no heaven, no hell, no afterlife, no spirit world, and no point in forcing yourself to believe in it all. It was an epiphany in the truest sense of the word.

I guess I'm a 'soft' atheist because I admit the (very slim) possibility that god exists. But I maintain my original assertion from 2002: if there is a god, and he has condemned my mother and brother- who were good people- to hell, then I would refuse heaven even if I still warrant the choice. If god turned out to be real, my anger with him would return, and I wouldnt want to spend eternity with a god who would send good people to suffer torture forever. I would rather be in hell where my family was, even if it was the literal place of fire, darkness, stench and agony. Fortunately, the evidence in favor of hell's non-existence is strong enough that I see no need to worry.

It took so much anguish before I came to this conclusion that seems so obvious to me now. I've found more peace in the lack of god then I ever did back in the days when I thought I was "spiritual." I'm a stronger person than I ever was, and my life is in much better shape. I'm rational, my emotions are no longer out of control, and I take care of myself - knowing I'm the only one who can.

To be honest, I do feel some lingering animosity towards Christians. I know it's not a good thing, but I can't seem to help it. Most of the outspoken Christians I encounter are bigoted and pushy fundamentalists. Even from the ones who aren't, I get all the "but you HAVE to believe in something!" and "you gotta get yourself back to church" crap you can imagine. I keep telling myself that they're not all bad, and in fact I know tons of people who are religious (like my Grammy and my best friend) who are wonderful people. I sometimes think "religious people are stupid" despite knowing that's not true either. I know people with PhDs and IQs in the 150s and higher who believe in God. I don't honestly think I'm smarter than them. I'm just frustrated because I feel I've discovered, through immense pain, an immutable and liberating truth. I wish my best friend would realize what I have, although without having to go through what I did. When I look at her, and her life, it seems to me that religion causes her more doubt and confusion than comfort or guidance. I wish she could be free of it- I wish everyone could.

Since all this happened I've also been to Iraq, and now more than ever I feel that religion is one of the biggest causes of voilence and hate in the world. Then I have to admit that I understand why. It hurts to have your beliefs challenged. It hurts when people can't see your point of view when you feel it's both true and important. Obviously, trying to force atheism or agnosticism onto others is no better a solution than crusading and jihaading against them.

I wish everyone were an atheist, sometimes. But rationally I know that wouldn't solve the world's problems, and that it wouldn't really be good for everyone. Some people are scared of the idea of nothingness after death, of randomness in the universe, of not knowing the answers. Some people need the comfort of their faith. Those people need their belief to make them feel that all is right with the world.

I don't know if I have a point to make or not. I just wanted to share my story. Thanks for creating this site, I really do appreciate your positive approach to the subject and the effort you've put into it.

I am very, very flattered that you chose to share your story. It is powerful and makes many important points. As I read it, I thought of a great many things I'd like to say about what you went through and the people you describe, but I think I'll just let your words speak for themselves. Everything worth saying is there.

I just had to say something about this line from someone elses comment

"and it would be nice to have the answer of an intelligent and mature athiest who probably understands that the existance of a God is a possibility at least"

if you are an atheist then you deny god period. There are no possibilities of a god in any way shape or form....if you think otherwise maybe you should consider agnostic or becoming religious..there is no way to have your cake and eat it to when it comes to believing in god and being an atheist.

I disagree, but our disagreement is simply one of vocabulary. What you describe is "strong" atheism, but not all atheists are strong atheists. One can be an atheist (in the sense of being a person without religion) without explicitly saying that there are no deities. In fact, I prefer that philosophy myself.

Think about it this way. I don't think that there is multi-cellular life on Mars, and although I agree that there is a possibility, the odds are looking bad. So, given this, do you think that I should state my opinion as, "I deny that there is life on Mars"? Of course not -- what sense would that make? Do I think that there is no multi-cellular life on Mars? Well, until I see evidence otherwise, yes. The scientific evidence is mounting in that direction, and there is enough of it to make a tentative conclusion, if not a definitive one.

I don't think there is anything wrong with thinking in this way, and I don't see any reason I should grant special status to the possibility of a deity, causing me to use special terms and a special label for myself because I feel about God the same way I feel about anything else I don't think exists. Would I say that there is a possibility God exists? Sure. Would I say that there is a much greater possibility that Mars once was teeming with life? Heck yes.

And thanks for the cake.

Fuck you, I was set up. I wasn't an atheist before coming here. Now wil have to start over again.

I just wanted to let you know that by my visiting your site, you have been registered as an honorary member of the Flat Earth Society. I have also disabled your browser's pop-up blocker and your email's spam filter.

Well, that's what you get for not accepting Western Religious Doctrine. I do hope you enjoy your correspondence with your new friends at www.ilovetogetwhitesupremacistnewsletters.com

You will have plenty of time in hell to reflect upon this. Enjoy!!! ;)

Not accepting Western Religious Doctrine gets me more spam? Well, that does explain a lot. Thanks!

Check out this hilarious/prescient/scary Choose Your Own Afterlife novella, The Rapture Is At Hand. I SU d it today in the Atheist cat. It s an interactive novella like the old CYOA books. The Xtian Rapture is imminent and you are in the Bible Belt. Do you leave or stay? Go inside the head of an Evangelical or be an atheist. I ve gone through a dozen times with a dozen different endings. On my first try I went to Pastafarian heaven and drank from the beer volcano!

www.theraptureisathand.com

seems like that your "rights and responsabilities" are quite similar to the Ten Commandments. So, being an atheist is something like finding a new name for an old stuff?

I'm disappointed

No, being an atheist is more like getting rid of a lot of old stuff you don't use any more.

The point of the page is that, even though atheists are not that morally different from "Bible believing" Christians (or, at least, from how many of these Christians describe their morality), many Christians still condemn us as immoral.

There is no God. Period. Your site's given me so many arguments against this supernatural being and its religion, and I thank you for that.

*bows to site creator*

i like your site. specially the faggot comment. that one's the best. and your disclaimers. hilair.

what a line of bullshit the pope you say he the biggest con game going intodays world. he neededs to lock way till he dies and never ever put any man kind in that high of spot. if he and his group is not steeling money from hard working just to better them selfs they are haveing sex with little boys and getting away with free and clear. never going to jail for any for there steeling raping, remove me frome your lisst and never send to me

Hi, just wanted to let you know that you're wrong.

Thanks! You, too!

Nice site! In some recent correspondence, you mentioned a Mark Twain quote that you couldn't quite put your finger on. In case you haven't found it yet, here it is:

"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain

I am very sorry that I have not written in a long time and that this must be a short letter. I will tell you why I am writing these letters then I am afraid I will have to close and write another. The only time I have to write you is on some Fridays. I am very sorry. If I am to try and convince you from the way I learned it, there might be some problems. For every question I have asked you and other people, there has been an answer. I am still young in years and have quite a lot to learn, but so far even though you say you have found holes in my questions, I can fill them in my mind though its hard to explain them to others. Plus, I have felt God in my very being and even now, when I really have nothing to say, I am given words to say that make sense and some of it I have never learned. I have been exposed to many other religions and athiesm and Islam both really interest me for several reasons, which is why I am writing to you. I am in a Bible study about atheism and science and I had some questions that only an atheist could answer. Yes, I have not been asking you questions, but I have learned many things. I could not believe that anyone could point blank deny God. I still don't think you do but you are waiting for some proof that you cannot deny. Finally, we are commanded to go into all the world and teach others about God. Since I cannot travel I am writing to you, telling you everything I know in ways that I believe you can understand. I hope that clears it up for you. There is a saying that you will believe what you want to believe. If you really believe you are going to die today then you will. The mind is a powerful thing. If you continually convince yourself that there is no God, then no matter what you will continue to believe that.

Great to hear from you again!

You mention that you feel God in your very being, and of all your reasons for believing in a deity, I'd say this is the best. That's something to keep in mind.

I'd be very interested to hear more about your Bible study, particularly about what it says regarding atheism and science. If you could tell me what kind of group it is (casual, formal, if through a church then what denomination), that would help me understand where you are coming from as well. I certainly welcome any questions you -- or, for that matter, anyone in your group -- might have about atheism.

You say that you could not believe that anyone could point-blank deny God. You're right that I don't do this, in part because "deny" is a bit of a loaded term. For example, I don't "deny" that I'm from Japan, but I'd sure be surprised if it was the case since I was born in California. More to the point, I wouldn't come right out and say that there is no deity, because I can't prove any such thing. But, again, I feel that the evidence is very, very much in line with that conclusion. I wouldn't say that I'm waiting for proof that I can't deny since that would imply that I'm searching for proof of God's existence, but it is certainly true that it would take significant evidence to make me change my mind.

Your beliefs include a command to teach others about God. I'm happy to provide you a forum where thousands of people will read what you have to say. I don't have any divine command compelling me, but I, too, believe that the world will be a better place if we all understand each other's beliefs a little better.

You're right that people often believe what they want to believe. I'm sure we all do some of that (and some do a lot of that ). However, I wouldn't put myself in the camp of someone who continually self-convinces that there is no God. My beliefs are the result of many, many years of searching for a belief system that made sense to me, and I spent a lot of time being very religious before I realized that it wasn't something I needed. I have no rancor against religion, and I am always willing to learn. And one thing I've learned is that belief due to need comes in many forms, and we all need to watch for it in ourselves.

I am an Athiest and I agree with this website!

Thanks! Me, too!

Ur not an atheist,ur just fucking gay


Okay, so what is it with the whole "gay" thing? Apparently there are many more homophobes with no ability to think of a good insult out there than I ever imagined.

Hey, I've been an Atheist since i was fairly young, despite my school's attempt to turn me christian i was never really interested so here i am, bored at work and typing "Iamanathiest" in to my browser and seeing what happens.

One thing that slightly irritates me about the site. You seem to reply to your correspondence that you have a complete respect towards theists and non-theists alike. Fair enough. However on another one of your pages (i forget which one) you say that all theists will "have a go" at athiests because of their beliefs. So all i'm saying is, i agree with you on most parts, but you're a little hypocritical on the website.

I think you might be talking about the rights and responsibilities page where I say that "theists will condemn you for living by this code." If so then you're right -- "will" should be "may." I'll make the change.

Woopiee Free from reading anything at all and now I just go around and push people down. If the complain I yell "theises are people too. or better then them." I'm so glad that you told everyone you know and repesent me. I'm going to use you in court. That charge will be down to vountery manslater in no time.

Manslater?

Fagot! Faggot! I'll say it easy so you can understand, u r a faggot! When the time comes you and all the other faggots are going to be gathered together and burned like the kindling you are. Faggot!

Hello, I have been reading your site and enjoy your posts. For several years now I have considered myself an agnostic. I never felt that I could commit to saying that I was atheist. This was in part, because for so long I thought that I KNEW there was a God and looking back on that it seemed like arrogance. So now I find that I cannot say with the same conviction the opposite, that I know there is no god.

However, I came across a site recently. I do not remember the link but the author was talking about 'strong' and 'weak' atheism. I'm not so sure I agree with the adjectives they used to describe atheism but as you probably know they're pointing out that some atheist say 'there is no god' and others say 'they see no evidence of god'. The author then went on to point out that atheism/theism deals with beliefs in god (or lack thereof) while agnostic/gnostic dealt with knowledge. So it was their claim that someone cannot be either theist, atheist, or agnostic because it doesn't fit on the scale of belief. Instead they posed it as matrix of knowledge and belief, pitching people into 4 groups. Gnostic Theists, Agnostic Theists, Gnostic Atheist, and Agnostic Atheist.

I just wondered what your thoughts were on this line of thinking. I guess this would cast me into the Agnostic Atheist camp. It looks to me though that anyone who claimed to be a gnostic 'anything' is fooling themselves. Perhaps in their own perceptions they are sure they can 'know' that god does or does not exist. I'm just not convinced that anyone who claims to be a gnostic really knows anything. Isn't the whole point of the scientic method to support a hypostheis or disprove a hypothesis. Meaning that you can never reach that 100% certainty. Only that you can make a very well informed highly probable statement.

Anyway, I only bring it up because I've noticed that same subject of 'strong vs weak' atheism on a few sites and wanted to see your take.

I think that trying to subdivide atheism and agnosticism generally just leads to confusion. The fact is, there are many kinds of atheism and many kinds of agnosticism (just as there are many kinds of Christianity). I agree that this leaves some ambiguity, but I think this is better than trying to think up labels for all possible subdivisions of non-religious philosophy, since it's difficult to do that rigorously. For example, the terms you list seem to leave out people who call themselves atheists because they are anti-Christian but believe that there may be some kind of spirit, universal mind, or other big supernatural thingy (these people drive me nuts, by the way).

I, too, don't like the adjectives "strong" and "weak" atheism, but the definitions are useful. I am a "weak" atheist myself, in that I cannot prove that there is no deity. Depending on personal preference, I think that a weak atheist can use either the atheist or agnostic label, because the terms overlap a bit, but I personally try to avoid the word agnostic because using it would make me feel like I'm defining my philosophy by what I can and cannot prove, and I find that unsatisfying (particularly since I don't use that type of definition in other parts of my life — I'm not a "bigfoot agnostic," for example).

At least in my case, atheism is not about belief or disbelief in god. It's about "a-theism" or lack of religion. Not believing in god goes along with this, but it is not the crux of my belief system. I see atheism more as a strong dedication to Occam's razor than a statement about deity, and as such it touches every area of my life.

It sounds to me like you could comfortably call yourself a weak atheist — or just an atheist — if that sounds better to you than agnostic. Use which ever you are most comfortable with.

ok il add osme slightly more constructive comments

neway, i do not believe its possible to 'disprove' gawd, or nething else, instead the more logical approch to dealing with belief systems is analysing hte belief rather htan atempting to fight crazy magic stories and circulur logic with real logic and science

first of all people of today who werent blessed with the prevliege of seeing jebus and his numerous mircicles nor having any direct contact with gawd only hear about gawd thru people who hear it thru people why not walk back thru the chain and assess the validty of these people's claims and how stupid it would be to believe PEOPLE as a pos to anything less than seeing mircles and gawd urself?

people should focus more on why they believe something than wether or not god COULD exist, and why they should or should not believe

but as for attacking god il have a crack firstly i cant subjectivly fight the concept of an ompitiant being with out first being one, nor can i really argue agisnt an omipitant being doing say evrything the bible says such a being did.... so i wont botehr while attacking gods morality doenst disprove nething it shure raises questoins of his character if god is omipresent, then why would he doom man kind?

I agree that it's generally futile to try and prove that God exists. One can, however, argue about particular characteristics of a deity if one exists (for example, is God "good").

I disagree that it is illogical to argue against circular logic and other errors in thinking. In fact, I think that the best defense we have against the advancement of untrue ideas is to help people who have little experience in thinking through their philosophy and beliefs in a logical manner or who have beliefs that contradict themselves.

You talk about arguing against belief based on the reports of witnesses. Certainly that is a valid argument (although I would never use the word "stupid" to describe people who have belief for these reasons). However, you should be very careful about how you apply this argument, since it can easily be used against you. For example, why should you believe the reports of a scientific experiment if you haven't done the experiment yourself? I think a far better tactic would be to point out that extraordinary claims (such as miracle) require extraordinary proof, and that the kind of reports we have of Biblical miracles do not live up to that standard.

I agree that it is important for people to think about why they have belief. Reasons for belief do not tell us whether or not religion is truth, however.

I don't see how you can say that you can't argue about whether or not an omnipotent being exists because you yourself are not omnipotent. We can discuss the possibility of an infinite universe without being infinite. I agree you can't argue that an omnipotent being couldn't have made all the things in the Bible happen as written (so far as they are logically consistent). I also agree that God's morality has nothing to do with proof of His existence, but I don't understand what you mean when you say that an omnipresent God wouldn't doom mankind. To me, these are not related concepts.

Hi, all!

I found this website yesterday, and I loved the whole "Rights" concept; the whole "10 Commandments minus God" bit. So I was talking with another guy today, a man with his PhD nonetheless. He is very smart in academics, but in life as well. I am not sure if he is athiest, but he left the Catholic Church at age 12 (I was also around that age when I too left the Church).

Anyway, he said something very interesting today. Now, I know both sides (those who are religious and those who are athiest) both have their morons who don't listen and their only reason for their beliefs, or lack thereof, is because the other one is "stupid". However, this man and I both find more than enough Christians whose reasons we should be religious is "because it's just not right if you aren't religious", and then they talk in circles; we never meet the people that make sense and listen to our side of the story as well.

So this one obnoxious Christian was trying to tell the man about how he will go to Hell if he doesn't believe in God and such, and this man said, "That's great; I'd actually prefer Hell; that's where all the interesting people are!" And if you think about it, it is true. Some of the most interesting people in history had some form of an aspect (being athiest, not believing in God, committing mass genocide) that would condemn them to Hell, but those are the interesting folk. I am not making it sound as great as the man described it today, but basically his thoughts were, "Even if I had a choice, I'd still chose Hell over Heaven".

So there you go. I thought it was a neat idea, since everyone seems to think Hell is bad. And here, this guy would take Hell over Heaven, if given a choice.

That is indeed a neat idea, and perhaps the most famous reference to it is more than 100 years old: "In heaven all the interesting people are missing," Friedrich Nietzsche. I believe Mark Twain said something along these lines as well, but I can't find the quote so I may be mistaken.

You might be interested to know that the concept of going to hell to be with the interesting people is not unknown to all religious people. I have heard it specifically (if, generally, lamely) addressed a number of times.

Descartes: 1. I exist 2. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections. 3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create such a concept. 4. The concept must have come from God. 5. To be a perfect being God must exist. 6. God exists.

OR

ThaTGuY: 1. I exist. 2. I eat stinky cheese. 3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create stinky cheese. 4. The concept must have come from God. 5. To have a perfect head of stinky cheese God must exist. 6. God is stinky cheese.

I mean really the evidence is there!!! Who could refute?

Love, me

Y'know I have to say that if men are from mars and women are from venus then I have to say, atheists are from saturn and believers are from I really don't know where. At a private level, I am stuck in the middle - an agnostic. I would like to believe but cannot really do so. My rationality does not let me. But neither does it allow me to say it just aint so because I keep having this damn hunch that there may be something to this God thing. Not the bible stuff - thats a crock: A bunch of silly fairy stories told by a group of tribal elders to their people to explain the unexplainable and the fact that so many damn silly fools take it seriously in the 21st century just has me goggle eyed with amazement and gasping for breath. What ever is true then I know one thing; its more complex, confounding and, at the end of the day interesting than either side perhaps acknowledges. (Another hunch.) But this is a private belief as I say. I mostly try to keep it to myself and I sure as hell do not go aroound trying to ram it down other people's throats.

This is the thing that most of all gets me damned angry about the believers. So is it worth an atheist trying to argue the case to convince a believer to recognise the errors of their ways.Well as long as "God is on thier side" its not an option and sorry pal its about as useful as trying to fill up the grand canyon by pissing in it. Speaking from personal experience, atheists do not chose not to believe. They just cannot believe something that is so patently absurd that blind Freddy and his half wit dog rover would not believe it unless they were brainwashed. (Mostly I am talking about the literal "truth" of the bible here.)

Believers on the other hand are called believers for a good reason - they want to believe, they need to believe and cannot help themselves! I have no problem with someone having a private belief that I do not share. But I get pretty shitty when they try to beat me over the head with it and force me to believe. And if there is anything more reprehensible than a bunch of self righteous God botherers trying to force society to obey their private beliefs then I cannot think of it.

I just wanted to thank you for your response. I do appreciate your insight and it is nice to hear these things from a stranger. Anyway, I just wanted to say that...Thank you.

Now to turn to a completely different topic. I was wondering what your take is on the recent debates over federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The only reason I bring this up to you is because of the ethical/moral implications. There are plenty of people out there who do not support it because they have a belief (often for religious reasons) that life is 'sacred' and begins at conception and that this cluster of cells actually does have soul. Personally I have my doubts about the existence of a human soul but it's still a murky issue for me. Because as much as some of these politicians aggravate me...especially Sam Brownback with his grandstanding, obnoxious, condescending presentations...there seems to be a rational point in there. If you destroy that cluster of cells (the blastyst) you do destroy a potential human life. Of course if you don't further this research you only delay the development of new cures for certain diseases or injuries. This has a potential direct impact on the quality of life of those people who are currently living with diseases or handicaps.

To me it looks like the crux of both arguments hang on the word 'potential.' The potential for new human life vs. the potential for cures/treatments of life threatening problems. I just wondered what your thoughts were being an atheist who encourages people to lead ethical/moral lives.

Whew -- heavy stuff! Not that I mind .

Okay, so avoiding the topic of whether there should be federal funding for any science at all (which is too far outside the scope of this site to get into), here's my take.
  • The concept of soul is, obviously, unimportant to me. However, I think that humans have certain rights regardless of whether or not they have a soul.

  • I think that any statement about when human life begins is going to be, to some extent, arbitrary and purely philosophical. For this reason, I have no problem with saying that life begins at conception, even if it's just for the sake of argument.

  • I don't have a problem in general with using human tissue for experimentation, particularly when the experiments could lead to significant benefits for humanity.

  • If I understand it correctly, the law under discussion involves using for experimentation embryos that are slated for disposal.

  • If I had a one-month-old baby and it died, I would feel that donating my baby's organs for transplant or donating some of my baby's cells for significant, respectful experimentation might bring some good out of a great tragedy.

  • Therefore, I think that it may actually be better to use tissues from these proto-babies for research than to just dispose of them as bio-waste.


I too am annoyed by some politicians who use the "life is sacred" argument in this particular discussion. If these people honestly consider the embryos to be fully human, then why aren't they pressing for funerals or decent burials for them? Why aren't they trying to at least have them cremated and returned to their parents in a little vase? I know I'm sounding sarcastic here, but I think this is a very important point.

As for Sam Brownback in particular, I do find his arguments annoying but at least he is pretty consistent in his beliefs. He is against embryonic stem cell research, but he's also against abortion, and he has two adopted children (I'm a great believer in encouraging anti-abortion advocates to adopt children and therefore possibly make abortion less necessary.) I'd never vote for the guy, but at least on this subject he's not the worst of the bunch. What Brownback needs to do is realize that his opinions on these subjects are based on religion and therefore have no place being put into law.

While we're on the subject, I'm generally against full-body human cloning and elective genetic engineering. I don't have any problem with cloning individual human organs for use as transplants or with eliminating disease genetically. And I'm against the recent anti-fetal farming bill, because it bans something that, to my knowledge, nobody is even proposing doing and it colors the debate on stem-cell research.

So that's where I stand. Thanks for asking!

OK, so having had a brief canter through defining good/evil, and legislating morality, I'm now interested in the question of WHY faith?

Having the background I do (English, white, lower-middle-class, brought up in the 50's and 60's) I was constantly exposed to christianity - Church, Sunday school, Bible classes, baptism, confirmation, and so forth. All of this was presented to me by competent teachers, clergy and communicators, none of whom ever gave me cause to doubt their sincerity.

All of my young friends and schoolmates had pretty much the same experience - yet I cannot think of one who is now a believer.

Nontheless, there are many people in the wider community, with similar backgrounds, similar or better intelligence compared to mine, who were and are believers.

What is the difference between us?

The above suggests that it is not "nurture" but "nature". I and people like me lack an inner something that allows us to have belief in something the existence of which we have no credible evidence for. At the same time, some very similar people - similar enough to be a matched cohort - have no trouble with this.

Anyway, aftre long and convoluted arguments with myself, I am leaning toward the idea that I lack the "faith" gene (or gene complex)- or conversely, that believers lack a fully functional skeptic gene/complex.

I can see some past evolutionary advantage in having the "faith" gene - besides the more subtle societal advantages, there have been many periods in the histories of many cultures when a lack of religious belief, if not well concealed, could have been fatal - indeed, this is still true in some places.

My lack of belief seems (so far) to be doing me no harm, unless and until some fervent believer decides to be the instrument of god and strikes me down, that is - so perhaps the evolutionary advantages are slowly disappearing.

Is it true to say that there will soon be an advantage in inheriting the ability to need to understand rationally that which is known and will become known about the workings of the Universe?

Well, yes - because the corollary of that is that if you believe in a supreme being, you tend to leave your fate in its hands. If you have a burning need to understand the HOW of everything, your descendants will be the ones who will discover how to escape a dying universe if such a thing is at all possible - or better still, will discover sufficient of the HOW to develop the techniques of building a new one.

So it could be that the the spawn of the skeptical become the (no doubt benign) amsters of the new universe, whilst the offspring of the credulous faithful die with the old one.

Now there's a thought.

Personally, I think that religious belief is almost 100% nurture, not nature. But just to confuse the issue, I think that the potential for religious belief -- and the propensity for it -- is nature.

Let's look at the nature part first. Humans are very good at recognizing patterns. We do this instinctively and automatically, and it is a facility that has many evolutionary advantages (by helping us identify hunting targets in complex environments, for example). The down side to this ability is that humans also tend to pick out perceived patterns in random data, and this cherry picking of data very often leads to beliefs that would not be supported by more rigorous evaluation.

For example, let's say that 80% of the land in a certain area is over an underground source of water. A dowser comes in and chooses ten places to dig. Eight turn up water and two do not. It would not be at all unusual for the dowser to find some pattern that justified the eight "hits" and made the two "misses" not count -- for example, perhaps the two misses were near natural sources of magnetism. So with 8 hits out of 8 tries that "counted," the dowser feels that he has a 100% success rate when he is not interfered with. And, of course, this completely ignores the fact that random chance would have given the same results.

The same kind of thinking can "prove" the efficacy of prayer. When prayers appear to have been answered, God is credited. When prayers are not answered, it is for a good reason known only to God. So no matter how things turn out, even an imagined deity couldn't help but win.

Now think about our ancestors, way back when religion was in its infancy. Og has an argument with Ur, runs out of the cave during a storm, and is hit by lightning. On another occasion, there is a lightning storm while the tribe is considering moving to a new hunting ground. Is there a pattern here? If you're still figuring out how the world works, you certainly might think so.

Another factor -- and I think this is a cultural one -- is that people have a big problem with saying that they don't know the answer to a question. We try very hard to find answers even when we have nothing even close to enough information, and when some of these answers become part of our culture, they are very difficult to revise. You can see this in some parts of current creation/evolution debates: because creationist explanations have become part of culture, a creationist might say that scientists are attacking religious beliefs instead of saying that scientists are trying to find out the truth.

So, summing up, humans have the propensity for religious belief based in part on pattern recognition and a need for answers. Even so, I say that religion is largely cultural because I am not convinced that anyone has an innate, genetic need or resistance to religious belief. A child may have a propensity for curiosity that will lead it to investigate its cultural beliefs, but such curiosity can generally be suppressed or limited by cultural factors (e.g., punishment of one sort or another for questioning authority).

I think that the relatively large numbers of people "losing their religion" today is not due to any genetic shift, but instead due to the availability of information and more acceptance of the fact that asking questions is not in and of itself evil. It might be interesting to informally survey your friends who have lost their religion and those who have stuck with it -- is one group more willing to investigate their beliefs than the other?

This is one of the main reasons why I spend so much time talking about examining beliefs, and pretty much no time talking about trying to get rid of religion. I think that asking questions is the path to atheism or, at the very least, fully informed religious belief, and both are an improvement over where much of the world seems to be today.

I have really enjoyed your site - thank you for the hard work that must be behind it. Your responses are genuine and well thought out. You provide an excellent behavioral model for intellectual discourse.

I'd like to know your philosophical leanings. Is there a particular line of thought that you agree with, or a particular philosopher?

I have considered myself to be an atheist for many years, but have a lot of faith in Buddhist teachings (which does not rely on a creator god, but does have a significant amount of metaphysics to it). What are your thoughts on Buddhist's concepts of emptiness and interdependence?

Thank you for the kind words about me and my site. I have read the work of a great many philosophers, but there is none whose school I would put myself in. I guess the person I most admire would be Robert Ingersoll, but he's not really a philosopher.

My knowledge of Buddhism is sorely lacking, so I can't really answer your questions on these topics. Can you describe the Buddhist concepts of emptiness and interdependence to me?

Thank you for your response. I enjoyed reading it, and it certainly gave me some more things to think about. In particular, I enjoy discussing concepts with people that both have a strong opinion, and know why they have that opinion. I always enjoy talking to someone that can better increase my understanding of the world.

You seem like a very educated person. I'm curious as to what you do with your life. With what profession does the webmaster of IAmAnAtheist.com support himself with?

Which also brings me to another question. Do you consider it a personal prerogative to "cleanse" the world of religion?

I enjoy discussing politics more than anything. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of fighting in the middle east stems from competition over the "Holy Land". Do you think we can live in a peaceful world where religion exists? Must people give up their belief to establish serenity?

And finally, my last question. From an atheists perspective, is it wrong of people to follow organized religion? Even if none of it is true, is it wrong to follow an idea that makes people feel safe?

Don't take anything I say too seriously. I'm eighteen years old, and my family just moved following my graduation from high school. I've got an entire summer (which is winding up pretty fast), zero friends, and only an internet connection to entertain myself.

Thanks for your complements and further questions. I'm going to have to pass on discussion of my profession as I like to leave certain personal details out of bounds. (I also avoid references to my gender, even in pronouns.) I will say that I do not have a college degree and that Pants Aflame Productions is the Webmaster of this site.

You asked if I, "consider it a personal prerogative to 'cleanse' the world of religion". I assume that by "prerogative" you don't mean to ask if I think I'm the only person who can eliminate religion from the world. Rather, I think you're asking if the elimination of religion is one of my main goals. In either case, my answer is no. I do not seek to eliminate religion. I realize that religion is helpful to many people and I don't seek to deny them this comfort.

What I do want to do is help people examine their own beliefs and make sure that they conform to my two rules for acceptable philosophy (that is, an acceptable philosophy must at least be self consistent and not condemn those who think in the same way). I think that promoting rational thought and behavior will go a long way toward eliminating a great many social problems, including those caused by the blind following of certain religions.

Despite the situation in the Middle East, I do think that peace and religion are compatible. However, I also think that any kind of fanaticism -- be it religious, political, or what have you -- is dangerous in that it discourages free thought and can therefore lead people to take completely irrational actions.

Must people give up their beliefs in the name of serenity? No. Heck, you can even believe that members of other religions deserve to die and live in peace, just so long as you also believe that you aren't the one with the right to carry out the death sentence. (This is an extension of my second rule -- if I believe I have the right to kill unbelievers, then I must not condemn anyone who believes they also have the right to kill unbelievers, so if I don't want everyone killing everyone else the rational thing to do is leave the killing to God.)

From an atheist perspective, is it wrong to follow an organized religion? Well, it would be wrong for an atheist, obviously. For anyone else, it is, at most, incorrect. Individuals must decide for themselves whether giving a certain amount of their belief up to faith is worth the benefit they get from religion. For those who think that the universe makes more sense if religion is true, then following an organized religion may make sense. But for anyone, I'd say that giving up your thought processes to another is always bad -- even if that other is always correct. Fortunately, there are some religions that do not require mindless belief.

Your last question is a difficult one: "Even if none of it is true, is it wrong to follow an idea that makes people feel safe?" The reason it is difficult is that you are mixing the theist and atheist perspectives. Is it bad to devote ones self to an idea that one knows is untrue for the sake of comfort? Probably. But this isn't generally what religious people do since they don't consider the ideas they are devoted to are false. But what about the person who believes in an afterlife because life without such belief would be overwhelming and there's no proof one way or another? Although it's bad to have any belief for simply emotional reasons, since this belief in and of itself harms nobody and helps the one holding it I can't condemn it to strongly -- just so long as the person with the belief admits its origin and does not try to convince others that it is based on something objective.

You tell me not to take what you say too seriously and mention that you just graduated from high school. If these are your beliefs and your honest questions we're talking about, I'm going to take them seriously whether you're 18 or 80. Even if you are just having this discussion to entertain yourself, so long as you are doing so seriously and with an intention to learn even when you disagree, then I welcome your correspondence.

I like this, from the "Feedback" column, New Scientist, 22 July 2006

"....Feedback's Statistical Proof of Alatry.* It goes like this. The only thing we know about deities with any certainty is that the number of them is a whole number, the idea of a fractional deity being frankly absurd. So the number of deities in our universe is an integer, in the range from minus infinity to plus infinity. (We leave the theologians to interpret a negative number of deities: this is number theory, and its conclusion should save them the trouble.) For it is commonly accepted that we should expect our universe to be typical of possible unoverses. So the expected number of deities is in the middle of the range of of possibilities. That is, zero. Quod erat demonstrandum"

*Alatry - the practice of not bothering to worship any deities.


That's pretty funny (even if the conclusion is not logically sound).

I like the point about what it would mean to have negative deities. Perhaps -1 dieties might be a new type of agnosticism -- there are no deities but the universe owes us one?

I am interested in having a rational conversation on religion with you. I need a sounding board and your posted conversations reveal that you are logical, ethical, and thurough when helping people clarify their positions. Would you talk with me?

I certainly welcome your correspondence. Just keep in mind that anything you write to me may be posted on my Web site.

Thanks for the reply! More to think about, which is always welcomed. I'm afraid I can't reply without addressing a few more things. Probably at length again...

I'm afraid I seem to have misled you somewhat. My intention was not to establish that one must believe in God, or in any specific belief. I personally don't believe in God. My point was just that one can alter one's beliefs by a choice, and that they are not "inherent" to who we are.

I completely agree that a change of belief cannot be brought about instantly by choice.

Hoever, when you say that one could bring oneself to believe something that one initially *knew* to be true, that statement slightly misses my point (I think). If one actually knew something to be true then one would indeed be irrational to bring about one's belief in the opposite (or really, negation, I'm a maths student) of that thing. But the point is that I am talking about changing a belief, a thing one holds true through faith, and not a rationally "known" idea at all. For example if one currently believes in God, but for some reason wishes to change that belief, my contention is that this is possible, by a process that begins with a choice. Since I am not talking about holding a view which is supported by rational thought, it cannot be irrational to alter that view through choice.

Perhaps we have differing interpretations of what exactly beliefs and faith constitute. My position is, as suggested above, that a belief is an idea that is held, irrespective of any rational arguments against it. It's not fixed in stone though, like any of this.

I like your example about the long-lost King of Prussia. That made me smile. But, I'm going to have to object to that as well. Sorry!

I don't accept that, if forcing yourself to believe you are the King of Prussia will make you happy, doing so makes no sense, or is irrational. It seems quite straightforward to me that making oneself happy is a rational action. Or perhaps the notion of rationality doesn't apply to such complex ideas as happiness. Rationality is very straightforward in plenty of circumstances, but hopelessly convoluted in plenty of others. Perhaps this is one.

All in all, though, I agree with you're most general point that there is no rational argument to convince anyone that God exists, and I would never make such a claim. I apologise if that didn't come across. I'm in agreement with you about a lot of things, but thought I'd take the opportunity to start a discussion about one particular point. Thank you for the opportunity!

I think our only real point of disagreement here is that, even if one can alter one's feelings, one must first make a decision to do so, and I have trouble seeing how a rational atheist could be convinced to change their own beliefs about religion in this way.

You are right that making yourself happy is a rational action. But is intentionally deluding yourself to make yourself happy a rational action? Even if you could argue that it was, I think that such self delusion could easily lead to an inability to trust your own thoughts, and in that there is a minefield of potential difficulties.

I'd just like to address a fairly minor point (at least in comparison with most of the concepts related to religious faith!) that you've made in reply to the person who accused you of making up other people's minds for them.

The point that I'd like to address is pretty much contained in this quote from you:

"The "you are now an atheist" concept is a joke, largely at the expense of those who believe that an intelligent person can just choose what to believe."

Specifically, the idea that an intelligent person can just choose what to believe. Now, I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here, but my own perspective on that issue is that an intelligent person actually can choose what to believe, as well as choose how to behave and feel in any given situation. However, I am not stating that they may *just* choose, but that byt their own choice they may modify their own beliefs however they please.

Now, I am by no means suggesting that this process is easy in all, or even the majority of cases. For example, it would be very easy to change a weakly held belief that the only word worth saying is banana, but it would be very difficult indeed to sincerely adopt a belief that a human can live without breathing oxygen.

The reason I say I'm playing devil's advocate a little is that in the case of belief about the necessity of breathing oxygen, it would be so difficult to change that belief that it would be nigh on impossible. The devil's advocate in me is saying that this does not mean that its impossible. The exact nature of the belief here doesn't really matter, since we can easily imagine beliefs that would be nigh on impossible, if the breathing oxygen example is not sufficiently difficult.

I haven't actually argued my case here, merely presented my opinion on the matter, but essentially my case is that this is precisely what one can learn from a psychological therapy technique known as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. My trust that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy can change how one feels, behaves and believes about things is born out of personal experience, which obviously I can't simply transmit to you. So really, I am unable to argue my position, except to point to empirical evidence that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy works, which must be interpreted as you see fit, obviously.

Also, I'd just like to say that I find your correspondence very interesting, and think that it's a very good thing that you receive and respond to comments other than the shouting and abuse demonstrated by some. It's good to see some genuine debate on the matter, rather than the dogma which appears so often on both sides of religion/atheism debates, particularly online.

If I have misinterpreted your position on the matter I've just commented on at far too much length, then I apologise, but at least I've given you something to chew on. Also, I've never formally studied philosophy, so if there are good arguments against my position that you think are worth mentioning please let me know. I'm always interested in any arguments against any position I take, cos how else am I supposed to develop my thinking on the question?

Cheers, and sorry for the length. Succinctness is not often one of my strengths...

If I understand correctly, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is a means by which one can use inner dialogue to modify bad mental habits or change negative feelings. I suppose that one could use this technique to gain a belief in something one initially knew wasn't true, but this, it seems to me, would essentially be self brainwashing.

Even if I am incorrect on this point, though, I think that it has no impact on my statement.

If a religious person comes up to me and says that I should not worry about rational arguments and "just believe" that God exists and Jesus died for my sins, I cannot, as a rational and sane individual, simply instantly gain that belief by choice. It may be possible that through a process such as that you describe I could build up a belief in the supernatural. However, before doing that I would have to make a conscious decision to undergo a process that I knew would mess with my thoughts and emotions, and I would need to be convinced that this was a worthwhile course of action before doing so. Which brings us pretty much right back where we started — to the necessity of convincing me that God exists through rational argument.

I should also point out that, in my opinion, using a process such as you describe to create belief in something I currently believe to be untrue and that I am not convinced reflect reality is not rational. Forcing myself to believe in God just because it would make me happy makes just as much sense as forcing myself to believe that I'm the long-lost King of Prussia for the same reasons.

I saw of your recent conversations with the man who s girlfriend was a Christian and he believed he was an agnostic. It got me thinking. I have a somewhat similar situation. At least from the relational perspective.

My wife and I were married last year. We are very much in love and I cannot imagine my live without her. When we met one of the first things I did was tell her that I wasn't a Christian. During that time I wasn't sure what I was. I had been raised in a Catholic family. It was fairly conservative as Catholics go but I had a pretty good education at a Catholic high school an some of the more archaic believes were no longer being taught. They were hard-line on things like abortion, euthanasia, no women priests, etc but also taught that while they believed the bible contained inherent truth that many of the stories in the Old Testament were not meant to be taken literally. I appreciated this very much. I did believe in God and in Catholic teachings and this willingness to acknowledge that some of the old miracle stories were not literal made a lot of sense to me.

During my time in college I continued to attend church every Sunday but this was an extremely progressive Catholic church. They encouraged me to think outside the box and be accepting of other religions and faiths. These new teachings coupled with my philosophy courses pushed me toward agnostism. I realized that his existence wasn't scientifically justifiable so all I had was faith and quite frankly that just wasn't enough for me.

Since that time I've found that I am very happy with my life and do not feel like I'm missing anything by not believing in God. But back to reason I'm writing you. Like I said, I told my soon to be wife when we met that I wasn't Christian/Catholic. I felt it was important to reveal that to her right away because I knew she came from a Catholic family like mine. Well we jumped in with both feet and are happily married. But that doesn't stop me from worrying about how our differences will affect us later. She says that she does believe in God and the Christian belief that Jesus is the son of God. But she is also fairly progressive. She doesn't believe that Catholics are 100% right and all the (insert your religion of choice) are wrong. In fact the only groups that do bug her are the extremists from any religion who shout that they re right and everyone else will burn or suffer or whatever because they don't believe in the right god.

She s never said she wanted to convert me back to being Catholic or forced me to attend church with her. She asks me to go with her and most of the time I do because it doesn't really bother me and I know she appreciates having me there with her. And probably in her heart she wishes I did believe. But (and here's the part that gives me pause) we don't talk about it. I will occasionally broach the subject. Just trying to see why she believes or whatever. I try to be delicate with it. I don't want to strip her of something that does make her feel good inside or give her life direction. But I guess part of me expects that if she tried to vocalize why she believed it more often then it would cause her to think about it and maybe start asking herself those questions. But she usually avoids the subject. She doesn't like to bring it up or talk about it because I think it makes her uncomfortable and she doesn't like to make waves.

What bothers me is that one day we may have children. If we choose to have children then we'll reach a point where we HAVE to talk about it. The question will come up about where to send them to school? Do they attend just Catholic church, do we expose them to multiple faiths, or expose them to none? I personally want my children to be free to decide for themselves. But of course children at a very young age don't have the cognitive skill to make those choices. I'm afraid that sending them to a Catholic school will imprint on them while they are impressionable and that will be that. Could I undermine what they learn in school? Of course I could but that would probably just confuse them more and make my wife unhappy.

I could go ON AND ON about how having children will complicate things but the root of all of it right now is that we don't talk about or differences. I don't know if I'm seeking your advice or just venting. But it does worry me. Because I do love her so much I don't want this to become a problem. I know every marriage has problems of varying degrees but as always, issues of religion tend to have their own especially high level of complexity. It's not a regular argument over where to live or what car to buy. It's an issue that's deeply tied to who people are and they will fight to protect and may be deeply hurt of you take it from them.

I'll stop now because I could go on and on but I think I've said all that needs to be said for you to get my drift. Lastly I want to thank you for putting together your website. I do appreciate that you always give respect where it deserved and that you can carry on civil debate and conversations with theists and atheists alike.

I am flattered that you chose to write to me about this very personal subject, and I will offer what advice and support I can. I think you are absolutely correct to want to work this out with your wife now, before children are on the scene and the issue is forced. I also would like to complement you on your attitude toward your wife's beliefs — you are supportive and realize that she may have different needs than you do, which is something some atheists and agnostics have a hard time doing.

Obviously you need to discuss religion with your wife, but this is difficult because she is uncomfortable with the subject. Is it possible that she thinks you think less of her for being religious? Many non-religious people have a condescending attitude toward religious people, so it's important that your wife know you are not like that.

If you have read some of my past conversations, you may have noticed that I believe some people have an emotional need for religion and that I don't condemn them for this. You seem to think along the same lines. So I'd say that the first thing you need to do, if you haven't already, is make sure that you wife knows you understand that the two of you have different emotional needs in this area and that there's nothing wrong with that. Fortunately, because your wife is Catholic, she does not believe that you will be sent to damnation for not being a Christian, so you don't have to worry about her fearing for your soul (assuming that you're living a moral life, of course ).

I think it's nice that you go to church with your wife if it makes her happy. I see no reason not to continue to do this. There is a sticky point, though, about whether or not you should receive communion. You did not bring up this subject, but as a non-Catholic I do not believe that you should receive communion. If there is any doubt on this subject, your wife should speak with her priest about it.

The reason the communion point is important is that you want to make sure your wife isn't basing her future on the hope that you will return to Catholicism. By the same token, I don't think you should worry about whether your wife will some day lose the need for God. You guys can live happily with the beliefs you have right now. If those beliefs change, fine. If the don't, fine. There is nothing insurmountable here.

But what about when you have children?

That's a tough one, but I don't think it's as tough as you might think. I think the key thing here is that your children understand that Mommy and Daddy have a difference of opinion, that the difference is based on how you feel (as opposed to on objective proof of whether God exists), and that you all love each other anyway. Your wife can help your children learn about Catholicism, and you both can help them learn about asking questions and thinking rationally. I'd say, don't worry so much about trying to "undo" any learning, just make sure your kids have the tools to undo it themselves when they get older, if necessary.

I wouldn't worry too much about Catholic school. Choose a school that is best for your child from an education standpoint and help your child see religious education from both your and your wife's perspective. There's actually plenty of important cultural information in religion, so there can be a benefit to learning such things even for an atheist. I also think that knowing a bit about religion can make a person a better (or, at least, more tolerant) atheist.

Now, I will hasten to point out that there are plenty of atheists who are going to disagree with me on all of this. They will see the difference of religion as a war to be won through your children. They will see it as evil to give children religious education. I don't see how a marriage can be anything but a time bomb with that kind of thinking. Don't go there.

I also should point out that I would feel very differently if you were an atheist or agnostic and your wife was a fundamentalist Christian. There is a big difference between fundamentalism and Catholicism. Modern Catholicism actually gives a lot of leeway for freedom of thought and doesn't condemn people for asking questions. Those are both factors in your favor.

So, to sum up: You love each other. Talk it over. It's not a war. Nobody has to change to make things work.

I hope some of this has been useful to you. Please feel free to write again if the mood strikes you.

Firstly, let me thank you for presenting ideals that I have held close to my hart since adolescence. Also thank you for posting the opposing ideals of the others, as one would not see such statement of atheism on any religious website.

Preface: I will speak in regards to Christianity, as I am not very knowledgeable as to other religions, though I am sure the following relates.

Fear, according to wiktionary is An uncontrollable emotion of anxiety about something that causes a scared reaction or frightening impression. Fear and fear alone is the driving force behind all religion. Not the so called love of a Heavenly Father or his begotten love child, or some ghost that tickles the hairs on the back of ones neck. Since the dawn of man, from him monkey forefathers, fear has been the justification for religion to rape, murder, pillage, enslave, seize and degenerate mankind. And to this day fear is what drives losers like myself and the other fuckos to defend their ideals on this website.

It has been said that mans greatest flaw is the knowledge of his own demise. With this understanding we can see how fear has become the catalyst for a needed God. The prospect of nothingness post death is certainly unnerving to all persons. We all fear death like we all fear the unknown; the question we should all ask our self is how are we going to deal with this fear.

Theist: I shall live the literal message of the Bible. I shall putt my faith in my religious leader s judgment and that of my brethren. I shall tolerate other religions, though I shall never concede to there ideals, for I know my religion is the one true path to heaven. I shall pretend to not fear death for I am told that I am heaven bound. I shall not use reasoning to question a place beyond the physical laws of our universe. I shall strike out at those persons and ideals who threaten MY FACT MY TRUTH .

Atheist: I shall live my life as I see fit. I shall putt my faith in myself and others who use objective reasoning. I shall tolerate and embrace the people of all religions, reaming open to all ideals and perceptions on life and death, never assuming I know fact because I FEEL it is right inside of me. I shall fear death, darkness and nothingness, though I will LIVE to the best of my ability and reach achievement outside the bound of heaven. I shall use reasoning to question everything in order to find FACT and TRUTH . I shall strike out at persons who use religious Doctrine as fact.

You make a number of interesting points, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't.

I agree that some religious belief comes from fear of death. However, I also think that much of religion comes from a need for answers where simple answers may not be available. Why are there disasters? Where did the universe come from? How can disease be cured? You might call this fear of the unknown, if you like. A third "fear" that leads to religious belief is the fear of injustice. Without a deity, some wrongs will go unpunished and some bad things will happen for no reason.

On the other hand, I would say that you could name fear as the cause of atheism as well. In this case, it might be the fear of believing things that are untrue. To an atheist, the truth is more important than certainty. And to the strong atheist — one who says that there is no possibility of a deity — there may in some cases be fear motivating such a strong statement.

The point here is that fear, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing as a motivator. It's a matter of what you do with it.

Your breaking down of theistic and atheistic beliefs is interesting, but unfortunately it does not allow for the wide variety of beliefs in these two areas. There are plenty of Christians who do not believe the Bible to be literally true, don't tolerate other religions, or don't strike out at those who disagree. Likewise, there are plenty of atheists who don't tolerate religion, aren't open to all possibilities, base beliefs on feelings, or don't fear death.

Beliefs and motivations are incredibly varied. I think you would be hard pressed to find two meaningful boxes in which everyone clearly fits.

I find it hard to believe that you don't believe what I believe. How can you not understand that the Bible is infalliable? For instance, it states that we were made in God's image. In the evolutionary debate and the larger, more important "banana is perfect for human use" example, we know evolution is ridiculous because humans were created perfectly by god. That is why we have appendix (Sorry if my spelling is off, I'm praying very hard for His guidance in that regard!!!!!) (also, I'm letting him lead me in my punctuation!!!!). Why would we have wisdom teeth if God didn't put them there???? Huh???? Or sinuses? Or the cocyx bone at the end of the spine? All these things show, without doubt that God CREATED us as is. I'll pray for you but I don't think it will do much good because the Bible says we have to make choices and by praying for you I'm asking God to influence you which would not be your choice. Actually, on second thought, I guess I won't pray for you. I'll p ray for aborted fetuses (fetusi?), and maybe soilders and murder victoms, and the sick. But mostly aborted fetuses.

May God have mercy on your soul for surely you'll go to hell when you die. But before then be sure to enjoy the lovely bananas He's provided.

You have every right to your beliefs or non beliefs. I am not sure which is the correct term. My oh my but the emails are a bit vitriolic . I have unanswered questions about the world, universe, life but there is bad news and good news as they say. The bad news is there is no key to the universe. The good news is that is was left unlocked. God or not, life is what you do with it- it is a journey. I guess we just all have different tickets and destinations. If free will was given to anyone then I think that means that you may feel and do what you feel that you should. I apologize for the closed and mean minds of those who believe (as they say that they do but do not sound like it at all). Sincerely yours in this world and who knows what others.

I would just like to say that I love your site. I just visited after being away for several weeks and caught the new section with your favorite hate-mail and I have to say that some very closed minded people have stumbled accross this infinitly small section of the internet and still don't have the intelligence to type in complete sentences or spell correctly. Funny how it doesn't seem that they have actually read the bible in context... Anywho, I love what you are doing and would like to say keep it up.

OMG I JUST THINK ITS SO SICK OF WAT UR DOING U CANT JUST GO AND SAY THAT GOD ISNT REAL CCUZ OF THAT ONE BABNANA THING WELL I CANT RMEMEBER THE LINK RIGHT NOW BUT IT SAYS THAT IF YOU CAN HODLD A BANANA IN UR HADNA THAT GOD IS REAL!

If I understand you, you're referring to the video in which a man describes a banana's "design" as proof that God exists. The argument is that a banana is just the right shape for the human hand, has a tab at the top so it's easy to open, has a biodegradable "container," turns yellow when it's ripe, and is easy to eat, and since these are all things that are handy for people, God must have designed bananas for people to eat.

Right off the bat, this argument ignores the fact that domestic bananas (the kind most of us are familiar with) are the product of selective breeding. Wild bananas had seeds and, if I remember correctly, were tougher and brown. Saying that God designed the modern banana for us is like saying that he designed dachshunds for us.

Even if we look at wild bananas, any "convenience" they might have for eating by humans could just as easily be the product of evolution. There are many plants that have evolved with fruit that is attractive to animals so that the animals will eat the fruit and excrete or discard the seeds, helping the plant spread to new locations. If wild bananas appealed to primates, they may have benefited in the same way.

I think the most important thing to note, though, is that this chain of reasoning sounds good when it's applied to bananas, but it's a mess when applied to other things. For example:

  • Cocoanuts are difficult to open, one must avoid sharp needles to get to cactus fruit, and improperly prepared pork can lead to serious illness. Can we conclude that God designed these things in this way so that we wouldn't eat them?

  • Or look at how good a tapeworm has it. Its human host protects it from predators, keeps it warm, feeds it, and has plenty of intestinal length for the parasiteto grow into. Can we conclude that God designed humans as homes for tapeworms?

  • Bananas are just the right shape to stick in the tailpipe of a car or abuse in an urban-legend-about-Richard-Gere kind of way. Were they designed for these purposes as well?

Really, this kind of thinking gets us nowhere.

It is an interesting byproduct of their breeding history that domestic bananas are sterile. I'd say that this argument is equally virile.

lol to all the ppl who write you hate mail:

"I LOVE JEEEEZUS!"
"YOU.RE GAY!!!"
"YOU.RE GONNA BURN IN HELLLLLL!!!!!"

shutthefuckup.

bunch of rambling-ass, loud-mouthed fuckin' baptists this guy.s not spreading some "sickness" - he.s spreading some common sense.

gofuckyourself.

to you, mr. ownerofthesite:
if there is indeed a hell, my friend, i.ll be happy to burn with you. keep up the work. :)

Firstly I want to say that I will understand completely if you do not reply to this, for there may well be a lot of questions in here that are unrelated to each other, but I will appreciate it if you do. And I also would be willing to reply if you reply with any questions of your own.

I stumbled upon your website and browsed it for a bit, and a few things caught my eye which compelled me to send a comment. One of the things being the hate mail you have recieved. I have heard of numerous atheists who generalise religious-folk as those who hold their beliefs, but when questioned they get angry and start insulting people and make themselves look stupid. After seeing your hate mail and posts on other websites, at times, I find myself reluctant to label myself as a Christian, but I am not the kind of person who attacks anyone with other beliefs. Secondly I have read a few of your replies and you seem mature in your responses compared to some of the athiests I have met, like those who consider believers instantly stupid, and it would be nice to have the answer of an intelligent and mature athiest who probably understands that the existance of a God is a possibility at least.

The following are a few questions I would have liked to ask for sometime, but have never found a person who would give me an answer that wasn't along the lines of "that's just stupid" and such. One of them is against a usual reason why people are atheists - the usual "I've never perceived God and therefore I don't have a reason to believe in him". However, I believe that there are a lot of atheists who have faith in other things which they have never percieved. One example I could give is the fact that I have never percieved America. I have never been to America myself, never touched it or seen it (aside from TV, but I've seen Santa Claus depicted on TV and I don't believe in him), and so I have absolutely no proof that America even exists, yet I believe it in. I would tell someone that I was 100% sure that America exists even though I do NOT really know. Of course you might say that you've been told by people that America exists, but I've been told by numerous people about God and his influence in people's lives and how he changes them. So I guess my first question is: if you say you cannot have faith in God due to lack of evidence, why do you have faith in other things?

My second question is slightly related to the first, but with a different slant I guess. I studied ancient history at college and a few of them thought the idea of God stupid, and yet they believed in Julius Caesar. Now, as far as I know, there are more writings concerning God than there are talking about Julius Caesar, and yet they were more willing to believe in Julius Caesar. Now, I guess this is because Julius Caesar was a normal human being who (aside from being deified after his death) did nothing as 'unbelievable' as things mentioned in the Bible. Why is it we (well, a lot of us, I'm sorry if you don't) believe in what a lot of history books tell us, but when we get to a part that contains something we don't deem as possible we rule it out. The Bible supposedly (I've not researched it that much) contains a lot of factual events that historians verify as being historically true to what happened at the times, even the death of Jesus is written in Tacitus' work (it s peaks of him being put to death by Pontus Pilate), and yet when it comes to other things we consider them as obviously untrue. This is very hypocritical, because I know myself that I do not believe in everything that is written down, but I accept the possibility, as often I have to do in history, that when I take a writing to be false it could well be true. My second question, then: Why believe in things which have less evidence for them? And when is the point where the Bible turns from historical document into mythical text?

Sorry if those previous questions aren't relevent to you, but I obviously have to make assumptions because I don't know you. However, this next part is not really a question, but it's in response to something you typed about in part of your response to the guy who talked about his girlfriend. You said, "If her faith does not believe that there can be salvation through living a good life... how her religion believes God to be good when he will eternally punish a moral individual just because that person has no (or has the wrong) religious faith." Okay, I'm going to make a simple point here, and it is this. Let's just say for a moment that there was something which was all-powerful, do you think that you could understand it fully? Personally I don't think I could, and therefore I accept that what we, as human beings, perceive as good might NOT always be what this all-powerful being thinks is good. I don't really think that humans even know the meaning of the term 'good' (philosophists have been asking their question for years and years and not arrived at an answer), so how they can suggest that an all-powerful being (still assuming such a one existed) is wrong while they are good is beyond me.

I apologise for the length of this, and if anywhere it seems I might be insulting in anyway it was not meant that way. I appreciate your answers to these questions, and if you have questions of your own (I'm sure you know of lots of questions which I couldn't answer), feel free to ask them. I do have other questions, but they can wait for another time - I've gone on for long enough. Thanks.

I'm going to answer your questions and address your points briefly as best I can (which, it turns out, isn't very briefly at all ).

Don't let the hate mail I (and other atheists) receive make you worry about calling yourself a Christian. There are plenty of people -- both atheist and religious -- who are obnoxious, unthinking, judgmental, or all of the above. This isn't the fault of belief or lack thereof, it's the fault of the individual. It has nothing to do with you, although trying to be a good example to counteract the idiots who say that they represent your group is certainly a good idea.

I do understand that the existence of God is a possibility. However, I should point out that I consider this to be a very, very remote possibility. In my opinion, there are many other more likely explanations for the universe.

You ask an interesting question about atheists having faith. To answer, I would first like to point out the difference between faith and trust. As I use the word, faith is believing in something without evidence or in spite of evidence. Trust is believing something because experience has shown that the source of the information is reliable. I trust that when I think I see a cat there really is a cat there, because my eyes have never deceived me to that extent. I have faith that the universe exists, even though I can't test that statement, because other options make less sense.

It's also common to trust a source for one type of information and not another. I trust medical information from my family doctor more than I trust it from my philosophy professor. I don't trust what I see when I'm asleep.

I live in the United States, so let's talk about my belief that Japan exists. I have met people from Japan who say it exists, I have seen atlases that show where Japan is, and my sister says she's been to Japan. For me, these are trustworthy sources for information of this type, so I think they are sufficient evidence that Japan exists. In Gulliver's Travels, Jonathan Swift writes about Japan. However, because most of the places in that book are obviously made up, I would not believe that Japan exists just because of Swift's writing -- I don't trust him on this subject.

God is such a huge concept that I can't imagine believing in Him just because someone said He existed. I trust you to tell me if you believe in God (since you are an expert on what you believe), but that does nothing to prove to me that God exists. It is not uncommon for people of all intelligence levels to sincerely believe all sorts of things that aren't true. If I took their word for the existence of God, I'd have to take their word about all sorts of things, and that would complicate my search for truth unnecessarily.

So, because I don't trust anyone's expertise on the subject of God's existence enough to take it as the final word on the subject, I must see convincing objective evidence of His existence. I have not seen this evidence, so my only other option for believing in God is to have faith that God exists. I do not feel that God exists, and I do not see that having this faith is my best available choice (as having faith that the universe exists does), so I have no faith that God exists.

So, to sum up, I agree that everyone has faith (as I define it) in some things. The goal should be to have faith in as few things as possible as a defense against unnecessary or incorrect beliefs.

Your second question is another complex one.

For the belief in Julius Caesar, you are correct that less evidence is required to believe in his existence than to believe in the existence of God. This is because the more extraordinary a claim is, the more evidence is required to support it. Scientists used to believe the thought that meteors fell from outer space was ridiculous, but after enough evidence was amassed, they changed their minds. They would need significantly more evidence to be convinced that meteors fell from outer space because God was throwing them at something, because introducing the concept of God massively complicates the issue.

The Bible does contain some historical facts (although not as many as some would like), but it also has a lot of things that are pretty obviously legendary (such as the Tower of Babel), or that should be considered extraordinary claims because they violate science as we know it (such as many miracle stories). I wouldn't say that these things are obviously untrue, but I would say that I would need a lot more evidence before I considered them to be proven true.

Some argue that there is so much historical accuracy in the Bible that we should consider it accurate on all subjects. I do not believe that this logically follows. A biology text from the fifteenth century might have a lot of correct information in it, but that doesn't mean I should consider it accurate by modern standards. Also, religious texts are unreliable (from my perspective) because their standard of truth and mine may not agree. For example, someone might say that they saw Jesus, when what they mean is that they saw Jesus in a vision. To me, these are not the same thing. Also, a religious person might argue that event X happened because it was prophesized that X would happen when Jesus was born, prophecies are true, Jesus was born, and therefore X must have occurred. This statement might have religious veracity, but it does nothing for me.

Let's take another example. Homer's Iliad tells the story of the Trojan War. There is now evidence that this war took place, and that some of the military facts in the Iliad are correct. The Iliad also says that the War was caused by the gods, that the gods took an active hand in it, and that warrior Achilles was invulnerable. How much evidence for the Iliad's accuracy about the Trojan War would you need before you believed that it was sufficient evidence for the existence of the Greek gods and magical invulnerability? I assume that complete military accuracy would not be enough.

There are many, many examples like this. Another one: the Japanese used to trace their emperor's ancestry back to the sun god. No matter how many hundreds of years of accurate ancestry they had, without a lot of additional proof I'm going to assume that the list of ancestors becomes inaccurate at some point before the deity is named. And I seem to recall reading about an Egyptian military monument on which was written that the Egyptians had completely wiped the Jewish race from the face of the earth. No matter how much we rely on such monuments for our history, we obviously can't rely on this one.

At one point does the Bible turn from a historical document into a mythical text? There is no point at which this happens. The Bible mixed history and religion, and individual facts must be judged on their own merits. In some cases, the truth is not yet known because there is not enough evidence. All historical documents should be treated in this way, to one extent or another.

In the discussion of good, you make some excellent points. I agree that the term "good" is hard to define, and in fact I discuss this at length in some other conversations on this Web site. I also agree that if there is an all-powerful being, I can't know its mind. Might this being and I disagree about what is good? Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that I might consider its behavior not to be good. For example, an infinite being might believe that it can do whatever it likes for its own enjoyment with creatures it created, and that obtaining entertainment in this way is "good." I would disagree. This does not mean that my definition of good is wrong, only that this deity and I have divergent moral systems.

Even if we can't rigorously define good, I think that most people these days would say that not killing innocents is good and torturing the guilty is bad. Many religious people would say that these are things that are not good if people do them, but are good if God does them. In that case, we shouldn't refer to God as good in the same way that we would tell an individual to be good. Things get even more complex when religious people refer to God as "infinitely good."

But at the root of the argument, all this is irrelevant. My question was about how a particular religion defined God to be good under these circumstances -- not about whether God really has these qualities. If their answer, akin to yours, is that God is good and we can't say otherwise, then they are just defining "good" as "whatever God wants good to be," and I'd say that this is a pointless definition.

By the way, in my experience, most religious people I've heard address this issue in a coherent way generally say that anyone who doesn't believe in God is specifically showing hatred for God (whether they admit it or not), and that such hatred deserves eternal punishment even from an infinitely good, infinitely loving, infinitely forgiving deity. I don't buy this argument at all.

Thanks for all the great questions. Nothing insulting here at all. If you have anything else to ask or wish to discuss any of these topics in greater detail, let me know.

Now, I have a question for you (and it's a big one): If you don't mind my asking, why do you believe God exists?

Hello. I stumbled upon your sight when trying to search for a way to talk to my girlfriend, a somewhat "devout" Christian. Sometimes it can get very frustrating when I try to discuss why she believes what what she does, and she just resorts to saying "I just want you to be saved". Fortunately, I feel I'm making some progress with her to opening her mind. If she wants to believe in Christianity that is fine, but at least accept the fact that we can't be sure of pretty much anything that she has been taught, and that it is most important to cherish the life we live now, and let whatever happens after we die to just happen.

The reason for this comment, however, does not relate to my girlfriends belief. I'm curious on your opinion of Agnosticism. I have always been very math/science oriented kid. I love sitting in bed at night thinking about random things, analyzing concepts, etc. Sometimes I wonder about us, as people. I am a person. I am made up of organs. Organs are made up of tissue. Tissue is made up of cells. Cells are made up of various parts. The necleolous of a cell consists of DNA. DNA can be stripped down and made up of whatever it is. It just gets smaller and smaller. You can keep dividing the pieces, and what do you have on the smallest level? Who knows. But what I do know, is that there is something about that very small part about us that makes us a living being. We are charged with some special power that seperates us from a rock, that gives us life. And when we die, meaning that our complex body systems can no longer function as a whole, what happens that "power" ?. Cleary, it is no longer contained within our body, as we are no longer a "living" being. So what happens? Does it float off, becoming part of nature? Do we become some spiritual being? Does the "power" infuse some other complex organism on the other side of the universe?

Something is fueling us. I think we are proof of that. It's not just the grilled chicken sandwhich I had earlier; its something else.

Because of this belief, I consider myself agnostic. It may not be "me" that passes on, with the same brain and logical patterns. But I do think there is more to life than the 80 or so years I'll live on this planet. I guess we can only wait and see, and live life to the fullest. I would appreciate an E-mail back from you, to hear your opinion of my views.

I know you said that your note isn't really about your girlfriend, but this is an important topic that we haven't really discussed on my site yet, so I'm going to go ahead and say a few words about it before getting to your main question.

I noticed a few interesting things in your description of your apparent frustration with your girlfriend's beliefs. One is that you put the word "devout" in quotes. I'd be interested to know why you did this. Do you think she's not really devout? Or that the word is of dubious meaning or potentially bothersome? I'd say that there's nothing wrong with describing someone as devout if that's what they are. It's not an insult, just a statement of fact.

I understand that it can be frustrating trying to discuss a difference in religious opinion with someone you care about, particularly if neither of you have a lot of experience with this kind of discussion (which may be the case here). You seem to be taking the right track by asking why your girlfriend believes what she does, as opposed to specifically confronting her beliefs. Too many would start out by attacking details of the religious person's beliefs, and that very frequently turns into a struggle instead of a mutual understanding.

If your girlfriend does not have a strong theological base (that is, if she is devout without a lot of significant religious learning), she may have difficulty explaining why she is religious. It may just be part of the way that she thinks at this point. This may be why she falls back upon "I just want you to be saved" when you are looking for something more specific. She doesn't really have the answers you are looking for, but because she cares about you and believes that people who do not share her beliefs will be punished, she is understandably concerned about your eternal welfare. It says good things about her sincerity and her feelings about you that she wants to save you from eternal punishment, whether or not you think that such punishment exists.

You mention trying to open your girlfriend's mind. Personally, I would stay away from thinking in those terms. Far too often, people use the phrase "open your mind" to mean "stop thinking rationally and just agree that I might be right." You aren't using it in this way, but I think that avoiding the phrase might serve you well down the road. (Also, it can sound a little condescending.) Really what you want to do is help your girlfriend see your point of view while, at the same time, make her point of view clear to you. You both need "open minds" because you both need to be able to see the situation from the other's perspective.

I'm going to dissect your next sentence rather severely. You say, "If she wants to believe in Christianity that's fine." This makes it sound like she is making a conscious decision to agree with Christianity or to disagree with you. I very much doubt that is the case, any more than it is the case that you are choosing not to agree with her for one reason or another. You don't want to risk thinking that she's religious because she's stubborn, when she may be religious because she has feelings that compel her to be religious.

You continue by saying that you want your girlfriend to, "at least accept the fact that we can't be sure of pretty much anything that she has been taught." Well, this may be true, depending on what she has been taught. I don't know what religion she is specifically so I can't say. I would, again, caution against making such sweeping statements, though, since if she gets her sense of morality through religious education you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater (that is, some of what she believes may be correct, even if it is correct for incorrect reasons). The important point you are making is that if she has faith based on feelings instead of evidence, then her reasons for faith are compelling to nobody but her. She can't expect you to be religious because she feels religious. True, she may have concerns about your eventual damnation, but if she has no other compelling reason for religious belief, then she has no way to convert you. I'm guessing that in her religion you can't just say you believe in Christianity in order to be saved (since God would know that you are not sincere), so you must be convinced.

Depending on your girlfriend's particular faith, she may believe that you can avoid damnation by living a good life, whether or not you believe in Christianity. This is something you and she should discuss. If her faith does not believe that there can be salvation through living a good life, then it might be worthwhile for her to find out (if she doesn't know already) how her religion believes God to be good when he will eternally punish a moral individual just because that person has no (or has the wrong) religious faith.

Finally, you say that you want your girlfriend to know, "that it is most important to cherish the life we live now, and let whatever happens after we die just happen." Frankly, I think you're a bit off base here. This statement makes sense from a non-religious perspective, but it doesn't make sense from the perspective of many Christian believers. If your girlfriend thinks that there is a serious chance of being punished for eternity, then letting the afterlife "just happen" makes no sense at all. From her perspective, you might be saying something similar to, "I know that there's a bomb in that house, but it may not go off, so let's go live there and just let what happens happen." In order for your girlfriend to accept your beliefs about life and death, you need to convince her that either there is no afterlife or that if there is an afterlife you have as good a chance of a good afterlife as she does (since for all we know God may value sincerity over rote devotion). This may require a significant change in her religious thinking, and you need to be prepared for the possibility that she cannot make that change.

Sorry for going on about this in such detail, but this is actually a very important topic. If your relationship with your girlfriend is serious, then these issues need to be addressed sooner or later. I have seen several couples come to great difficulty when they believe that they can live with mutually exclusive religious beliefs -- particularly when then try and raise children. Even if the relationship is not that serious at this point, couples may have difficulties when dealing with philosophical differences about the morality of intimacy and other subjects. It is great that you are working through these issues now. And if your girlfriend would like to write to me about the issue from her perspective, I would welcome the correspondence.

So, after an acre or two of answers to questions you didn't ask, let's get to your actual inquiry.

You ask about agnosticism. I use the word agnostic to indicate the belief that the existence of a deity is not provable one way or the other. I don't think that the beliefs you describe having fit into that category (if I had to choose, I'd say you actually sound a bit more Deist or Buddhist).

You say that you know, "that there is something about that very small part about us that makes us a living being." This is a very interesting statement, coming as it did after your statements about your girlfriend's beliefs, because it is essentially a statement of faith. There is no logical, rational reason I can think of for believing that life has anything to do with some "special power that separates us from a rock" If you have two lumps of iron, I don't think there's any way to tell that one lump is composed of iron that used to be part of a living creature.

I'd say -- and this is completely from an atheist perspective, so you may not agree -- that your feeling that there is some kind of life force is similar to the feeling that a cave man might have about an automobile. The cave man might see the car drive and then take it apart to see what makes it move. He'll keep looking and looking, dividing the car into smaller parts, but never find something he recognizes as a force of motion. He may end up holding a single bolt, looking at it, and wondering what it is about this bolt that makes it part of a moving thing instead of just something made of metal. But his belief that there is a special motivating force is nothing more than a statement of his ignorance (in the non-pejorative sense) of how a car works.

I think that your feelings about life fall into the same category. Life is an incredibly bizarre and difficult to comprehend phenomena. It is, in fact, difficult to define life in a rigorous way. Are viruses alive? Is fire? But I'd say that life is just a natural phenomenon, a wonderful, fascinating, complex process that deserves our respect and inquisitiveness. Science can tell us a lot about living things -- and there is still a lot to learn -- but it does not require any thing beyond the visible to explain living systems.

Given all this, if you feel that there must be more to life and thought than mere mechanics, that's okay. But in that case, you must realize that you have a belief based on your feelings as opposed to on objective evidence. This puts you in the same boat as your girlfriend -- you both have beliefs that are not based on evidence. That might be a good basis for your next conversation.

Good luck, and feel free to write if you wish to continue our discussion.