I agree that we'll remain in disagreement about #1 (and similarly agree that that disagreement isn't important enough to argue), and I agree that I could have been more careful with my word choice as you point out in #2.

That said, my first point still stands: you say on your website that atheists are "bound" by the list of Rights and Responsibilities you've drawn up. Yes, I do understand that the site is intended to be humorous, but I think you could be more accurate about atheism without losing any of the comedic value of the webpage. I have absolutely nothing against people suggesting that atheists act a certain way, but to claim that to be an atheist is to be "bound" by those rules is simply incorrect. And don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that your list of Rights and Responsibilities is bad or lacking; I merely take issue with the fact that you force it instead of proposing it. The change that I ask you to make does not involve making any substantial addition of detail; all I'm asking is that you change one word. And you have agreed that it would be more sensible - what's holding you back?

(Regarding the aside, the Satanic Golden Rule is not meant to be technical. I hesitated to put "a meaningful amount" of harm in its statement and ended up leaving it out because I thought it might just incite some more inane dialogue - "what do you consider meaningful," etc. Satanism also has this "punish unforgivable stupidity" undercurrent, which was actually what led me to respond to the content of your website (not "throwing the first punch"). You're too smart and experienced to make such a mistake as to claim that atheists are "bound" by an arbitrary list of Rights and Responsibilities, and I felt that the sharpness of tone in the reminder I gave you was well within the realm of negligible emotional harm. Though if you were in fact meaningfully affected by my feedback, then you can thank me for helping you determine that you should seek the services of a psychiatrist.)

And though I strongly doubt that "all" read your blog, I thank you for posting our exchange... after asking my permission (as the exchange you posted was no longer on the feedback form but through a private email), for crediting me, and for preserving the original format of the message. You wouldn't believe how many people are so rude as to do none. What a world we live in, eh?
-Tsukatu

Fair enough.

I've changed the "Rights and Responsibilites" page to say that it applies to moral atheists (which should make clear that it does not apply to things that are atheistic due to their inability to make decisions (e.g., rocks), and that it does not apply to atheists who are not moral). Does that make more sense to you?

You've also reminded me that I have for a long time intended to put a statement in my e-mail signiture indicating that correspondence will be published on my blog unless there is a request otherwise. I've taken care of that.

Discussing your original correspondence in light of the practices of the Church of Satan: You are, of course, correct about not suffering stupidity. But one of the church's rules (if I remember correctly) involves showing respect to someone in their lair or not going there in the first place. I would be interested to know if you would consider visiting someone's Web site to be visiting their "lair". I ask this not as a criticism of your original message (which I now more fully understand), but as a point of interest.

By the way, you mentioned being credited for your part of this discussion -- do you want your name on the entries in my blog? In leave names off unless requested to do otherwise.

If I can recommend a most excellent book, try hunting down the elusive "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith. Of all the theological literature I've read, that book provides the most sensible perspective of the world of theists and atheists. In particular, it gives a very thorough, very reasonable explanation of terminology (which is why I think you should read it).

I said that you were embarassing atheists to emphasize the "you don't accurately portray the nature of atheism" bit. That had nothing to do with morals, on which I'll comment in a bit.

Atheism is, as a matter of fact, a negative descriptor. This doesn't mean it's bad or immoral, and it doesn't mean that it's an empty statement. It means that atheism is described entirely by saying that it isn't theism. This makes it an "other" category. The most popular parallel I use to explain this when I'm talking to a theist who doesn't understand that atheists don't worship Satan is the quality of being a cat. One can either be "a cat," or one can be "not a cat." One cannot be both, and one cannot be neither. Being "a cat" is a positive assertion; it gives us positive information about what one is. Being "not a cat" is negative in its nature; it is denial of the quality of being "a cat;" it doesn't give us any information about what one is, only what one is not. In other words, a thing that is "not a cat" is free to be anything similar to a cat, nothing at all like a cat, a plant, an abstract noun, or something that doesn't exist; being "not a cat" doesn't say a damned thing about what we are describing, only that it is not "a cat," and that makes "not a cat" an "other" category - if it is not "a cat," then it is "something other than a cat," or "not a cat." (Also, being "not a cat" means nothing if "a cat" doesn't exist, but that's not nearly as relevant.) Atheism, which is a- (non-) -theism (belief), is exactly the equivalent phrase as "not a theist" ("something other than a theist"). This means that an atheist is free to have his own opinions, free to be entirely without morals... even free to dispute science as he does theism. Someone who is entirely ignorant of theism is an atheist by default, yet this does not mean he believes in science and the "rights and responsibilities" you've written up. A cat is an atheist by default because it is incapable of higher thought to such a degree. A rock is an atheist because it is incapable of belief. Justice and the color purple are also excellent examples of unwavering atheists. We don't commonly use them because it's for the most part purposeless, but it remains true. None of the things I have just mentioned believe the claim made by theism, which makes them "non-theists," or atheists; whether or not they are capable of belief is irrelevant, and what matters is only that they don't believe. For this reason, being called an atheist says diddly squat about your own beliefs, including whether or not you agree with science or have a moral code. It's a damned good idea to follow science and to act morally, but it has nothing to do with being an atheist.

Then there's agnosticism. God, how I hate it when people say they're agnostic when I ask if they're religious. That's one of my biggest pet peeves. (I'm going to refer to the opposite of agnosticism as gnosticism (lowercase 'g') for the sake of practicality. Note that I'm not talking about Gnosticism (uppercase 'G'), which is a sect of Christianity.) Theism describes what you believe, and gnosticism describes how much you know. They are two entirely different descriptors that are for the most part unrelated. Just as a ball can be both blue and bouncy, you can be both a theist and a gnostic, because they describe two different characteristics of your perspective of the divine. The full set of possible claims is this (where 'X' refers to a supernatural and/or transcending being(s) or force(s)): Gnostic theism: Belief in X because you think X can be proven as fact, or because you have witnessed X. Agnostic theism: Belief in X despite lack of knowledge of X; having faith in X. This describes most Christian sects. Gnostic atheism: Refusal to believe in X because one thinks X can be disproven or that the existence of X is impossible. Agnostic atheism: Refusal to believe in X because one doesn't have enough information or thinks that all parts of X are beyond the scope of human understanding. (Most people, when they say that they are "agnostic," mean that they are agnostic atheists. I hate hearing that answer to the question "are you religious" because it isn't answering the correct question - plenty of Christians are agnostic theists, so by saying he's agnostic the person could still be a theist. Answering "agnostic" to the question "are you religious" is like answering with your birthday to the question "what is your name" - it may be a correct answer, but it's not what the question asked. I usually respond with "okay, wonderful, but are you religious?") Agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists are also known as implicit atheists and explicit atheists, respectively. But saying that someone is a gnostic atheist still doesn't say about what he believes, including whether or not he finds the scientific method rational or has his own moral code. It's the difference between saying "I do not believe that X exists" and "I believe that X does not exist," and that difference is tremendous. Atheism, because it is literally "not theism," is the former. The positive assertion that X does not exist is something different altogether - theistic denial, or the belief, with or without substantiated knowledge, that X does not exist; it would be a form of theism because it describes a belief - the belief that something doesn't exist is still a belief. Atheism describes the lack of a belief altogether; if you have a belief, whether that belief is that X exists or the belief that X doesn't exist, you're a theist, because that's what theism means.

So. Atheism doesn't say anything about supporting science, but it's still a very good idea. Atheism also doesn't say anything about following any kind of moral code, but that's also a very good idea. HOWEVER, saying that atheists believe science by definition, or that they follow a moral code by definition, is categorically false. And that's why I asked you to "take that shit down" and to stop embarassing atheists. I don't mind if you suggest it, so long as you don't say that being an atheist even implies it.

I didn't even read your suggested list of rights and responsibilities, actually, because I follow the moral code of LaVeyan Satanism, which is basically Humanism spiced with Epicureanism. The core of that philosophy is "do whatever makes you happy as long as you don't hurt anyone," where that hurting extends to direct and indirect harm as well as physical and emotional harm. This basically serves to cover assault, murder, theft, and adultery, among other things. Satanic behavior is a modified version of the Golden Rule: "at the first meeting, treat others as you wish to be treated, and from that point forward treat them as they treat you." (If I may: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zju8wSDAdXY)

Anyway, I'm sick of typing. I hope this has been a learning experience, cuz otherwise I've basically wasted an hour of my life. Not that I was going to do anything much better with it though, I guess.

If you're interested in discussing this matter in more detail or similar subjects, I invite you to join the Metanet forums (http://metanet.forumer.com). The forum is actually for a very addicting platform game called N, but the community is large enough that the Off-Topic section is the home of many involved discussions and debates. (I actually haven't touched the on-topic section of that forum for quite some time. For that reason I was given moderator status of the off-topic sections exclusively, though my jurisdiction has spread a while back to include the entirely of the forums.)
-Tsukatu

Thanks for mentioning "Atheism: The Case Against God" -- that was one of the first books on atheism I read, way back in the day, and I agree that it is one of the best.

Your discussion of the scope of atheism and theism is very good and helpful. I have only two minor quibbles:

1) I would hesitate to say that a rock is atheistic. I understand where you are coming from on this, and you are correct that a rock is without theism, but I would hesitate to assign a term like this to something incapable of thought just as I would hesitate to call a rock amoral. I would say that the rock simply does not have a context in which the terms are meaningful. In the large scope of things, our difference of opinion on this point probably makes no difference.

2) I would not use the phrase "refuse to believe in X" in the discussion of the types of atheism, because for many people this would imply that there is something in existence that is being refused. I would say, perhaps, "lack of belief in X".

Now, for my list of atheistic responsibilities.

The page is in the form of the Ten Commandments, and the point (which you will see if you have a chance to read it) is that some Christians say that atheists are immoral, but most atheists agree with Christians on the bulk of morality. You will also see that the list is pretty compatible with the practices of LaVeyan Satanism. This shouldn't be too surprising because, as I read it, the Church of Satan is pretty much a subgroup of atheism. As a Satanist, I hope that you would also enjoy the mild mockery of Christianity (in that LaVey did the same type of thing). (An aside -- I am a bit surprised that you follow LaVeyan Satanism, in that your original e-mail to me did not seem in keeping with this philosophy. It came across as abusive in the face of what at most could be a disagreement about vocabulary, and if I recall correctly Satanists don't believe in throwing the first punch.)

You and I diverge in our vocabulary even further in that when I speak of atheism I am speaking in the context of American atheism (in particular weak or, in your terms, agnostic atheism). I do not pretend to speak for all atheism, but for rather the "Platonic ideal" of atheism, as I see it. I do not concern myself with non-human atheism, but I think that humans have certain moral responsibilities and human atheists are subject to them. My list of atheistic responsibilities is simply a list of human responsibilities (as I see them) with a couple of statements about non-religion attached at the top to make them atheistic.

So, to sum up, the content of my site was created with a certain amount of pragmatic shorthand. Although I understand your point and agree with much of it, spelling out such details would make my site more difficult to access for the average person, and I would much rather over simplify to get people interested in discussion so that they can learn deeper truths later than risk alienating them at the outset.

What is it in Atheism that deems that I should not cheat on my significant other?

There is nothing inherent in atheism that requires moral behavior. However, atheists are bound by the same basic rules of morality that all people are bound by. Cheating on someone is immoral, no matter what your feelings about religion.

Re "The founding fathers intended the United States to be a Christian nation. Atheists aren't welcome."

Actually a number of the founding fathers were probably deists and certainly not Christians. They didn't hardwire the separation of church and state into the constitution on a whim. THEY REALLY MEANT IT!

Thomas Jefferson: "I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

John Adams: "Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

Thomas Paine: "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." "Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)." "It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible." "Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance." And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

James Madison: "What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Excellent quotes. A minor point, though: it might be said that at least some of the founding fathers were Christians in a very specific, technical sense. Jefferson, for example, thought that Jesus was a wise man and a good example, even though he didn't believe any miracles were involved. So if one were to define "Christian" as "someone who follows the example of Jesus," then Jefferson would be a Christian.

I have met some Christians who try and say that Jefferson is a Christian just like them by using this type of logic, but of course that is not the case at all. Jefferson didn't think that the parts of the Bible that spoke of magic were true, as his creation of The Jefferson Bible demonstrates. He certainly didn't intend for religion to have anything to do with government, as your quotes readily demonstrate.

This is a lot like that time I was tricked into being gay by sitting next to that guy that said he was straight but he was actually gay. Thanks a lot. No really, now that I have no God, I am 100% certain that I am a winner and it's okay to be gay. Except I'm not really gay because I don't like to do it homosexually except with my self. Oh yah and I'm not really an atheist because that shit is so plaid out - plaid out like the term plaid out - and that just wouldn't be wit it and shit.

I was tricked to come here by your tinyurl and thats not nice. I might be an atheist now but that doesn't mean my Priest can't exercise me. So there! You can bet I will tell my Priest about this place too, and he will have something to say about it. Yeah, you better be scared. My Priest has a personal elationship with God our Father and he doesn't like his children being atheists especially if they are TRICKED atheists. Once my Priest tells Jesus our Lord about what you have done, he won't like you anymore and I will go to Heaven and you won't be there. I know your url too its tinyurl.com, tiny my foot you are in BIG trouble. Just because I was teasing the atheists at that other site won't help you either. I can tease atheists all I want because my Priest says they are just animals. I have to go get exercised now. BYE and no I won't see you later.
;)

Hmmm...

Well how about this quote from a phsyc book: The only person that keeping quiet helps is the abuser/antagonist, etc? And the "victim" is always lost in this manner. While it is not a quote from this arena I wonder about the implication for theists and atheists? While I do not spend much time on this kind of exchange I do find it interesting and valuable when done from a intellectual perspective. I did not wish to imply it was a complete waste of time for a person... my meaning was it felt to me to be a waste of my time in the community I am in. This is especially true when I am in a position to believe that I have no idea about "God" or a deity(s). I am fascinated by reading old texts, I was very happy to hear of the find of the so called book of Judas and its implications irregardless of its authenticity. I feel it is the most important thing any person can do is search for their truth... better yet a absolute truth. But, I have learned from my studies that unlike the methodology of science some years ago, there is no golden bullet, there is usually a set of circumstances, events, chemicals what ever the Field of research that is involved in cures, historical happenings, etc.

It was your approach that included the idea that there is no one way with today's provable ideas, facts, etc that made me want to take the time to respond. Not to take a side, not unlike your position... but not expecting a whole bunch in clear proof for the time being.

We live in interesting times... It may be that these questions are going to be answered in their own way in the next 25 years... I also think that it will still be done on a individual basis, not a humanity wide revelation... but it would be a very cool thing if it was revealed on a humanity basis! I suppose that would likely entail a Deity... anything else less... oh how to say, less significant or dramatic would be just that and again leave it to the person to interpret... kinda a guarantee for further hostility...

I agree that talking and sharing ideas is pretty much always best, and I would even go so far as to say that sharing ideas with those you disagree with is of the most value.

There are definitely situations in which this type of conversation is a waste of time. For example, if you are talking to someone who is not going to discuss things civilly, you do far better to politely shrug off their barbs (and this can have the nice side effect of making you look calm, polite, and intelligent to anyone who might be observing). It's also a waste of time if you are an atheist who is just not interested in the subject or finds discussion of theology irritating.

I am also very interested in Judeo-Christian history and I found the Book of Judas very interesting. It's not going to change anyone's mind about anything philosophical, but it is an important document from a historical perspective.

It's interesting that you say I don't take sides. Actually, I am very firmly taking a side. It's just that, in doing so, I recognize that not everyone is going to agree with me and that, because some of what goes into my philosophy is personal opinion, others may have views that can not be proven to be better or worse than my own.

You bring up an interesting point when you talk about the possibility of a deity revealing itself. I'd say that, no matter how dramatic a revelation a deity might make, there will still be room for skepticism. And that's a good thing -- we don't want some alien civilization showing up, reanimating a few corpses with their superior technology, and setting themselves up as gods.

My hope is that, no matter what happens, people will come to realize that they should respect the thoughts and beliefs of others. That would go a long way toward bringing peace to the world.

I rather take offense to Responsibility #7: "Don't fool around on your significant other."

Could you please amend that with "unless they're into that sort of thing"?

Thanks. Otherwise I won't be allowed to strip for my girlfriend in front of all her other friends.

That's not fooling around on your significant other, it's fooling around with your significant other.

Perhaps I should change it to "Don't cheat on your significant other," as that would make it more clear that swinging, threesomes, open marriages, and (since you mentioned it) consensual exhibitionism aren't being ruled out so long as everyone is in agreement. What do you think?

I am an atheist and believe in the modern Scientific method. Which means that science till date has not found any evidence of existence of God. So unless proven wrong by modern scientific methods, i am an atheist.

Sounds good to me! (And I promise to update this Web site if science ever proves that God exists.)

I really like this site, because, well, it knows how I've felt since I was 6. I actually used some of the comebacks you posted, thanks!

d'oh looks like i'll be burning in hell thanks to your internet based trickery...

might've got away with it if it hadn't been for you pesky atheists

Looks like someone doesn't understand the nature of atheism.If I claim I'm an atheist, I'm not bound by any "rights and responsibilities" nonsense just because I'm an atheist. Atheism is denial; it is negative in its nature, and does not have any positive assertions of its own right. It's an "other" category.

Stop embarassing atheists and take that shit down, idiot.

Wow, somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed.

It's hard to tell if you are an atheist yourself from your letter. On one hand, your asking me to not embarrass atheists might indicate that you are one. On the other hand, your obvious ignorance of what atheism means indicates that you may not be.

Let's look at your misunderstandings a little closer.

You say that "atheism is denial". This is not a true statement, in that "denial" can imply saying something is not true when it is obviously true, as in "Holocaust denial". Atheism is the state of being without religion. It does not "deny" anything any more than being knowledgeable denies that ignorance exists.

You say that "it is negative in its nature". Again, not true, except for in the technical sense that it means without religion. Something being defined negatively does not mean that it is negative by nature, nor does it imply that the thing may not incorporate positive statements.

You say that atheism "does not have any positive assertions of its own right." Again, not true. Atheists, in general, believe in the results of scientific investigation. We believe that the world can be explained without resorting to the supernatural. We think that being correct is more important than being certain. I'd say that these are all positive assertions, and there are likely many others that can be made about atheism.

You say that, as an atheist, you are not bound by any "'rights and responsibilities' nonsense". Technically you are correct. I had rather hoped that my rights and responsibilities page was obviously describing a good atheist, as opposed to just any atheist. If you are an atheist and want to cheat on your spouse, steal, or write blathering e-mails that make you look like hopelessly ignorant, you can still call yourself an atheist, I just won't be particularly happy to have your beliefs associated with mine.

So, how am I embarrassing atheists? By pointing out that atheists can be just as moral -- if not more so -- than theists? By saying that being an atheist does not imply immorality, as many theists believe? True, I've gotten a number of e-mails from people who don't like the "rule" that atheists shouldn't cheat on their significant others, but I have no respect for someone with that opinion and don't mind embarrassing them.

If you want to tell me more about your philosophical beliefs, I'd be interested, if only to get some context for your letter. I'd also be interested to know if you think any of the items on my rights and responsibilities page don't apply to moral atheists.

A number of times in my replies to your letters I have mentioned that I consider personal revelation to be irrefutable (but only personally compelling) evidence for the existence of a deity. That is, if there was an all-powerful deity, that deity could reveal itself to an individual in such a way that the individual would have no choice but to be convinced that the deity existed. The rest of us might think that this individual was deluded or even simply mistaken, but for the individual the evidence would be insurmountable.

I've taken a bit of heat for this, both because there are ways an apparent revelation could occur without the existence of a deity (which is true and is why such a thing is only personally compelling) and, I think, because some atheists (and agnostics) don't like the fact that there is potentially an unassailable arguments for the existence of god.

Well, over the weekend it occurred to me that the existence of a deity is not the only thing for which personally compelling proof through personal revelation is possible. It seems to me that self awareness fits into the same mold.

For example, I know that I am self aware. I know that others say that they are self aware, but I have to take their word for it. There are experiments that can be conducted to show if something -- a chimp, for example -- has characteristics in common with self-aware creatures, but such tests can never be definitive. Why? Because there is no direct test for self awareness (or, if there is, I sure can't think of one). If we could build a robot that passed every test for self awareness, would we have proven it was self aware? No. At best, we could prove that it was functionally self aware.

Could a future test be designed to check if something is self aware? I don't see how. I could scan my brain and try to locate the part that shows me experiencing self awareness, but how would I test whether this test was definitive? I could check for this activity in the brain of another human, but such a check is only meaningful if I assume a priori that other humans are self aware. Even if I make this assumption, all I have done is made a test for whether a human is self aware, and I'm not sure how I'd go about testing my procedure further since there is seemingly no way to identify non-self-aware humans to use as counter examples.. But even if I got the test to work definitively on humans, how would I know if it applied to chimps? And it definitely wouldn't apply to a robot, an alien, or something else far from human.

Unless I'm missing something, it seems to me that self awareness, like personal revelation of a deity, is something we just have to trust people on.

I was and am interested in the amount of forethought and lack of raving used to get your point across... Of course it hardly seems fair as debunking the existence of a god is like shooting fish in a barrel... But you are still nice (and well thought out) about it in the blog...

I am not interested overly much in the discussion as it seems like a lot of effort for something that gets nowhere, yet, I also expect there are many trapped in a place (not unlike the Mormon fellow in your recent blog) that really need some support in thier confusion regarding many types of organized religions... and ones possition in the insanity of the same...I guess it would be a good thing to say thanks to you from those of us that have neither the time or patience to undertake this kind of service...So, I thank you for everyone that finds comfort, or at least some community that was missing for them before...

Hmmmm.... vile hate mail? Is that a God fearing or Christian thing to do? I always wondered... How is it any Christian, Muslim etc has the ego to think that anyone has to protect a supreme being? Well... there I go being all logical...

Thanks for your kind words about my responses on this blog.

Although you are right that in many cases debunking the existence (or qualities) of god is pretty easy, there are enough variations in argument to keep it interesting. There are also some arguments for the belief in a deity (if not for the existence of a deity) that I don't think one can effectively argue against, and some arguments that require some pretty detailed explanation. All of this keeps the subject interesting to me.

I disagree that the argument gets nowhere. In fact, I see a number of benefits (some of them peripheral) from this kind of discussion. Namely:

• Encouraging theists to examine their beliefs, which will (I hope) lead them to be more philosophically rigorous if they are not already.


• Encouraging atheists to have intelligent, reasoned responses to religion, rather than being mindlessly anti-religion or meeting arguments for the existence of God with derision.


• Demonstrating that atheists can have polite, respectful conversations with religious people.


• Helping atheists who have no community see that there are like-thinking individuals out there.

Interestingly, I have taken some heat from atheists who think that I should be steadfastly anti-religion or condemn people for being theists even if their only reason for believing in a deity is that it brings them comfort. I don't do that, and I don't see any value in doing that.

As for the hate mail -- I really wish I could find out more about the thought behind some of it (particularly the hate mail that seems to equate atheism with homosexuality, which baffles me to no end). No, it's not the Christian thing to do. But then, there are plenty of people in all religious and non-religious groups who would benefit their peers by simply keeping quiet.

You talk about Atheism as if it is a religion itself. Do you really see it that way? Unfortunately the thing is that the word Atheism itself is religious oriented since it defines the lack of beleaving in God. But if there is no God then is it not wrong to base a definition upon something imaginary! In my opinion no atheists exist, only theists.

There are many ways to define atheism without using the word "god." For example, an atheist is a person who is without religion or a person who is not a theist.

I also disagree with the statement that it is wrong to base a definition on something imaginary. In fact, from my perspective, "religion" is defined in just this way.

Not to happy about rule 7

You may not be happy about it, but as a moral person, you still have to follow it.

I have been raised as a Mormon for 17 years. And only in the past two have I come to reject it. At first it was not conciously done, now I am fully athiest. This has led to inevitable conflict with my family, especially since I still have to go to church and keep up the appearence of correct standards. I feel like I am being suffocated and know that I am greatly to blame. It will be awhile before I move out, and I want to know how I can make this situation more livable. So here I am spilling my guts like this simply because I am unable to do so at home. Yep.

You say that you have conflict with your family, so I assume they know about your feelings. This is a tough situation. I hope I can be of some help.

To start off, when you say that you "reject" Mormonism, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that you realize that its religious base is untrue, or that you reject all aspects of the culture you were brought up with? This is a very important distinction.

It is completely possible to reject a religion without rejecting your culture. There are people who are ethnically Jewish but atheists and who continue to go to temple because the ceremony is an important part of their culture. I am an atheist, but I was not born an atheist (my spouse is a former Mormon, by the way), and my family still celebrates Christmas and Easter in a secular way because we see no need to throw out traditions that we love just because they are rooted in mythology.

So, as an atheist, you might make a choice to be sort of "culturally Mormon" while living with your family. The important thing, though, is that you not feel like you are living a lie. Don't make a secret of your feelings. You might even want to talk to a bishop or other LDS official about this and ask if they see any problem with you attending services with your family even though you no longer consider yourself to be philosophically Mormon. The few Mormon officials I've had a chance to speak with have been pretty reasonable, and I would be surprised if you ran into a "say you believe or get out" attitude. If you and a church official can come to some sort of an understanding, it might help your family accept your status and it will stop you from having to pretend you're not an atheist.

If you more completely reject Mormonism and want nothing to do with it, your situation is much more difficult. You may want to continue going to services with your family in order to avoid difficulties, but that feeling of living a lie isn't going to go away. Let me know if this is your situation and we can look into it in more detail.

No matter what you do, don't let yourself fall into the "bad atheist" trap of being confrontational about religion, particularly with those you care about. I have seen atheists who make a show of not being quiet while others are saying a blessing before a meal or rolling their eyes when someone talks about something religious. Such things get you marked as unpleasant and rude, and there is no reason an atheist needs to be either, even when surrounded by religious people.

Also, don't be down on yourself just because you don't agree with those around you. You talk about "keeping up the appearance of correct standards." The fact is, if you're a moral person, you do have correct standards. Keeping up the appearance of being religious has nothing to do with appearing "correct" and everything to do with not appearing different.

Being different from those around you, particularly from your family, is always difficult. Your family may have a very bad reaction to your atheism. You can try and lessen this reaction by showing them that you can still be a completely moral person as an atheist, and that you are not rejecting them even though you don't agree with their opinion on religion. Tell them that this isn't about something they did or something you're mad at the church about -- it's a thoughtfully considered opinion, held without rancor, and one that you're happy to talk about in a reasonable manner. If you've got siblings or relatives or are going to try and bait you or make fun of you, don't let them get to you. They're trying to show that there's something shameful about being an atheist, when you and I know that there is nothing wrong with it at all. Don't fall to their level. If you are reasonable, polite, and tolerant of others, those who attack your beliefs are the ones that will come across as problematic, not you.

And if all else fails, if your family refuses to be reasonable, at least you're old enough that you can look ahead to being on your own. Don't do anything rash or make big decisions on the spur of the moment, but plan carefully.

You might also want to look for atheist resources in your area or online. There are plenty of us out there, and we're happy to help.

Let me know if there is something about your situation that I haven't touched on or if there is anything else you would like to chat about. Remember that I always post my correspondence to my blog, and that our discussion might be helpful to many atheists out there who are in your position but too shy to write.

There is an argument against creationism that some time ago occurred to me and, as you have publicly demonstrated your willingness to discuss such matters maturely, I would be honoured to read your opinion of it. It is not an argument that I claim to be of great depth or sophistication, but a simple point to consider.

A number of theists have asserted that the best explanation they have found for the immense complexity of life and the universe is that of intelligent design. To my mind this explanation has a central, fatal flaw: If intelligence was required to create the universe and intelligent life, how might we explain the existence of the creative intelligence of god?

Other than blind faith, or the logical paradox that god would have created himself, how do you suppose a theist might respond? I have not yet found polite opportunity to present this point to a theist myself, but hope that you may provide some insight based on your experience of conversation with them. Apart from that, as stated earlier, I would be honoured to know your opinion of the argument's validity.

Whether you know it or not, this is a big, gigantic question with many facets that are worth exploring. I'll go over a few of the biggies briefly, and see if that helps.

First, if someone says that, to them, they can't comprehend how the universe could have come into existence without a creator, then they are just making a statement about their personal understanding of the universe. That's okay. If someone says, "I am not convinced" about some subject, you can't retort with "Yes you are" because they are making a personal statement about themselves, and you can't argue against such a statement. You might introduce them to more evidence and hope that they change their mind, but if all the evidence in the world wouldn't convince them, then you're stuck.

The important thing to remember, though, is that the person who believes in God because they can't conceive of a universe that was not created can't be argued out of their feelings, but they also can't use those feelings to draw conclusions. For example, I couldn't say, "I can't conceive of a universe without a creator, therefore there must be a creator, therefore the Christian God exists, therefore if you don't believe in Jesus you are going to Hell." That doesn't follow. The most this person can say is that they are convinced that there must be a creator. Any attributes assigned to the creator (such as that it is identical to the Christian concept of God) are subject to debate.

Second, most people who talk about intelligent design aren't talking about just the origin of the universe -- they're talking about life on the planet Earth. That's a very different subject because it is heavily susceptible to scientific inquiry. If a person believes that God has a hand in the creation of life, it seems to me that they must be either, a) be Biblical literalists who either seriously misunderstand the evidence or assume it's false, b) believe that evolution is limited to change within species and that all species were created by God (again forcing them to ignore or dismiss copious evidence unless they think that species were created over time and not all at once), or c) believe that God works through physical laws without violating them (as Catholics believe). The first two options are pretty easy to argue against. The third option you can't disprove, but it also is not necessary from a scientific point of view.

Third, there are many arguments for why the statement "everything must have a cause" (itself debatable) does not apply to God. Like you, I don't buy them. Most of them boil down to a statement that God exists because God necessarily exists, and many of those are pretty much just linguistic arguments or logical tricks and therefore not compelling. To me, if something has to have existed back into infinity, then the universe (or a series of universes) seems much more likely than any sort of deity.

The most interesting thing about this type of question is that not all theists answer in the same way. Some will have answers that they've learned to parrot (and that they don't expect you to be able to respond to), some won't have an answer (but be comfortable just having faith), and some will be amazed that you would even ask.

I hope this help answer your question. Let me know if you'd like to discuss any aspect of this further.

I'm unable to accept atheism for the same reason I'm unable to accept theism; they are both faith-based systems; they both require belief in the absence of proof. There is not proof that there is a god, but there is also not proof there is not one. Both systems lack the intellectual courage to say the only absolutely true thing anyone can say regarding the existence of a god: "I don't know."

The question also pretty irrelevant. If you observe the universe and try to live your life within its framework as well as you can, you have the best chance at a happy life. If there is a god, I'd have to guess that sort of a life is the best chance to please him/her/it. If there is no god, that same way of living gives you the best chance for a happy life.

The reason the existence of a god is an unanswerable question is that we are finite beings with finite minds and we can never do better than approximate a concept of infinity. We can approach the ultimate truth asymptotically, but we can never reach it. That may strike some as an expression of despair, but it is an expression of great joy. No matter how long the human race survives, we will never run out of things to learn. That's the best news I can think of. I'm a patient person, I'll find out when I die, or I won't. It really won't matter, will it? Right now I'd prefer to not put my effort into trying to learn the unlearnable.

Thank you for your kind indulgence.

You may not be aware that there is more than one kind of atheist. I am not a "there is no god" atheist, but rather a "I see no reason to believe there is a god" atheist. The difference is that the former states categorically that there is no deity, and the latter's position is that there is not a compelling reason to believe in a deity. As the second type of atheist, I do not believe that there is a god, but I do not make it an article of faith. (You rather sound as if you might fall into this camp yourself.)

I don't think you are necessarily correct when you say that "the only absolutely true thing anyone can say regarding the existence of god" is "I don't know." I think the phrase "I see no reason to believe there is a god" is absolutely true and has the advantage of being more scientifically rigorous. For example, I wouldn't say "I don't know" when asked if there is a Loch Ness monster. Rather, I have no reason to believe that there is such a thing, but am willing to change my mind if proof appears.

The reason this is important is that, a) I don't want to go around saying "I don't know" if something exists whenever I can't prove something doesn't exist because it will make me sound like a nut ("Do unicorns exist?" "I don't know"), and b) I don't think that the concept of god's existence should be treated differently than anything else's concept of existence.

Your reason that the question is irrelevant is, in my opinion, a bit off the mark. I don't see it as particularly likely that a god would most likely be happy with you because you try to have a happy life by confining yourself to observable reality. There are also a great many people who would not be happy living their life with only the observable universe for comfort. I'd say that our inability to know anything about any deity's wants or desires is the reason that we should treat them as irrelevant. If there is a deity, the odds of it being a vengeful deity that will torture you forever because you chose not to worship it don't seem any better or worse than the odds that it will reward you in the afterlife because you were a materialist.

I would also tend to quibble with your statement that god is an unanswerable question because our finite minds can only approximate infinite concepts. Mathematicians have learned how to work with real infinities. I find it harder to deal with the possibility that time itself is not infinite than the concept of infinite stretches of time. And even if I can't hold a concept in my mind's eye -- such as a twelve dimensional cube -- that doesn't imply that nothing can be said of such a thing with certainty.

I do agree with one of your ultimate conclusions, even if I'm not on the same path as you getting there. I think that the joy of investigation and learning is one of the most wonderful things in existence. But where we differ is that I am more than happy to hear any arguments for the existence of a deity because, if such a thing did exist, it would be one of the most important facts in the universe, and the great importance of such a thing makes it worthwhile, at least to me, to make sure I don't miss what might be a compelling argument, even though I think the possibility of the existence of such an argument is almost vanishingly small.

What do you think about gay marriage?

I think that there is something good to be said about committing to a relationship, no matter who you are. Anything beyond that is pretty much just vocabulary.

A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: "I don't believe that God exists."

"Why do you say that?" asked the customer.

"Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things."

The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt. The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist."

"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber. "I am here, and I am a barber. and I just worked on you!"

"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside."

"Ah, but barbers do exist! That's what happens when people do not come to me."

"Exactly!" affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, does exist! That's what happens when people do not go to him and don't look to him for help. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

I like the "anecdote" style of presenting an argument and wish I saw more of it. It can make complex topics accessible and fun to read. The problem is, stories like this usually oversimplify a subject or make a number of unspoken assumptions. But at least that gives us a basis for discussion.

So, let's take a look at the barber story.

The barber assumes that, if God exists, God is loving. But how is loving defined? In my experience, theists generally say that "loving" includes allowing your "children" to make mistakes and live with the consequences of those mistakes. That's why they don't see a contradiction between a loving God and a world in which human evil exists.

I don't have a problem with that. But, unfortunately, this story implies much more than God allowing people to make mistakes. For example:

1) I can understand why a loving God might allow people to choose to be evil, but why can't this same God prevent those evil people from being successful? Why should Hitler (using everyone's favorite debating example) be allowed to engineer the murder of millions just because a loving God wants to let him and his followers make mistakes?

2) The barber mentions abandoned children. Sure, a parent might abandon a child because the parent is not "good" and God might let this happen because the parent didn't turn to him for help. But what about the baby? The baby hasn't turned away from God, and I see no evidence that God tries to make sure that innocents such as these have a chance to grow up and decide for themselves whether to worship him. Is it loving to allow a child to suffer because its parent is bad? I would say no.

3) The barber also mentions sickness. The argument I generally hear from theists is that disease, parasites, etc., were introduced into the world after the sin of Adam. But if this suffering was introduced into the world because of the sin of someone thousands of years ago, then a) a loving God doesn't have a problem with punishing people for hundreds of generations because of the sins of their ancestor, and b) you can't avoid this kind of suffering by turning to God. Unless, that is, you are saying that people who follow God never get sick, which is a claim that we could test scientifically.

It seems to me that the problem with the barber analogy is that we are, in a sense, dealing with an all-powerful barber who allows the shorn to suffer for the slovenliness of others and sometimes gives people cancer because their great, great, great grandfather refused to get a haircut. And things just get more difficult when people describe the barber with words like "infinitely just," "infinitely good," and "infinitely loving."

What do you think?

When you as an atheist have anal sex, do you see god?

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of the complex question?

Just a quick note to tell you that I enjoy your site -- both for the
humor and the discussion!

Everyone knows what you mean when you say God. It's true that religions talk about different details of what God is like but these are technical things. The commentor was right when he said that you saying these different details meant different Gods was like saying different numbers of rabbit claws mean different definitions of rabbit. You are just being difficult to make your argument easier by avoiding the point.

I don't think that's the case at all. Let's look at a non-God example to show you what I mean. You know who St. Nicholas is, right? If a bunch of people say "St. Nicholas," are they all talking about the same person? I'd say, not necessarily. There's the historical St. Nicholas. There's the St. Nicholas that Catholics believe is responsible for certain miracles. And there's the St. Nicholas who delivers presents on Christmas Eve. True, all of these people can be traced back to the historical person, but saying "I believe that there was a historical St. Nicholas" is not the same as saying, "I believe in Santa Claus." And, for that matter, since some people say that Santa is "the spirit of giving" as opposed to an actual present giver, then we might be able to argue for a fourth definition.

We can give Jesus the same type of treatment. By "Jesus" do you mean a non-supernatural historical person, the offspring of God, God in human form, or a prophet of God? I'd say that these definitions are different enough that we should treat them as different people.

If you still think I'm being disingenuous, then ask yourself if all God-worshippers would agree with the following sentences:

• God is a great scientist, accomplishing his goals through natural processes.


• God is infinitely loving and forgiving.


• God is vengeful.


• God's nature is revealed in the Hebrew Bible.


• God's nature is revealed in the Old Testament and further revealed in the New Testament.


• God's nature is revealed in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon.


• God's nature is revealed in the Hebrew Bible and further revealed in the Koran.


• God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same.

Now, I'm not saying that these sentences all describe different gods, but I'm guessing that, for example, a Jewish person wouldn't agree that "God is the being that came to Earth in the person of Jesus."

It's also possible that these sentences all describe the same being but that some of them got the details wrong. This would be like describing George Washington as the guy who chopped down the cherry tree. This is possible, but I'd say that if this is the case that people know so little about God that they might as well be talking about different people.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let's say that a little boy disappears. Three psychics come forward and say that they know who took the little boy. Psychic #1 says it was a tall, dark man who killed the little boy. Psychic #2 says it was a member of a cult who has taken the boy away with him. Psychic #3 says that the boy has been abducted by a space alien. It's true that all three psychics are talking about the same person -- the person who abducted the little boy. But I'd say that the persons they have in mind when they think of the abductor are so different that, given these details, we cannot rationally call them the same person.

This is how I feel when people say that God is defined as "the creator of the universe" so everyone who talks about a creator is talking about the same person, no matter what the details.

Looking at the disappearance of the little boy again, what if it turns out that the boy had just run away, or had fallen into a well, or was taken by a group of people? Then the phrase "the person who abducted the little boy" doesn't even identify a person, does it? That makes the people described by the psychics even more distinct. I think that, from here, you can see where I'd take the analogy with God.

I think I need to make my position more clear. "God" or "god" or "deities" or whatever you want to call them don't exist. It just makes no sense to say that they exist. People like you who play into the hands of religious gropus by semi-validating their aspaciotemporal beliefs but call themselves "atheists" are more correctly termed "idiots" and/or "morons" and/or "dupes." Lumping me in with creationists and other starry eyed dunderheads is a cheap shot and a complete ad homonym attack, I had hoped you were above such things

Thank you for demonstrating just why you get so much hate mail and how thoroughly you deserve it. I can't believe I wasted all this time on you.

This is a very interesting letter, in that it seems to be pretending to be part of one of my regular conversations. Fortunately I can tell that it's not -- both from context and from its e-mail origin.

Just in case anyone else out there has feelings similar to the hoaxer, let me point out that I never intended a personal attack against the person I was conversing with. I think his views are legitimate, and the fact that something he said reminded me of something a creationist said is not at all intended to imply that his arguments are not valid.

I also don't believe that I'm "validating" religious beliefs by saying that I can't prove they're wrong. Not being able to prove something untrue doesn't make it true.

Well, it seems like we are simply unable to agree on the supernatural vs natural distinction. You would like to preserve the possibility of existence outside space-time, while I hold that such a thing is inconceivable, unthinkable to a creature whose very cognitive ability arises from spaciotemporal relations, and is simply a linguistic malady. I find that saying "a supernatural god exists (or might exist)" is an abuse of the word "exists" by maintaining its use in a context in which it has no meaning. I hold that you, or I, or anyone else cannot imagine, and hence cannot describe or define what aspaciotemporal existence means. You seem to be satisfied with our ability to just say it, oh well, guess I'm shit out of square-circled glarbalb.

I agree that I can't describe what aspaciotemporal (a cool word that I hadn't come across before) existence might be. But since I can conceive of a being in a separate space-time context that we would consider to be a deity, I'm comfortable with that.

Agreeing to disagree is an okay place to end up. In fact, that's where I end up with most deep-thinking theists as well. Even though I don't share your opinion, you have convinced me that someone can have valid reasons to call themselves a strong atheist.

Your position seems to be very close to the linguistic argument against the existence of God, which holds that God cannot be defined and therefore cannot meaningfully be spoken of. But where the linguistic argument ends with "we can't discuss God because we don't know what 'God' is" you are able to specifically state that there is no such thing as God because you can see no possible context within which such a thing would exist. I think that's quite clever and hadn't run into it previously. The closest I've come is the creationist argument that it is inconceivable that our universe came into existence without a context, and that context must be God, but the creationist argument doesn't hold up under Occam's Razor and yours seems to.

Ok, so god would need to be, at a minimum, something that is not confined by laws of nature and the empirical world, i.e. supernatural.

I think I can perfectly well say "god does not exist," because I'm still using the definition of existence we apply to any other subject of that predicate. The statement can be rephrased as "god cannot exist," because, as you yourself agreed, god does not exist within the boundaries of the natural world.

"I would also say we can't say something doesn't exist just because we are unable to investigate it scientifically."

But would you say "we can't say something doesn't exist just because it is absolutely impossible, ever, for us to investigate it"? You yourself said that god cannot offer any evidence of himself that we would not be able to interpret as a natural phenomenon, you know, card tricks. Is this not the most egregious violation of Occam's Razor possible, to postulate an entity that nobody can ever experience as a causal agent? Such an entity offers no explanatory power, we can just as easily postulate the phenomenon itself as fundamental. What if I told you that rain is some perfectly elusive sky-clown pissing all over the world, would you say "yes, it's possible"? And even if you would say that, what difference would this make upon the world or our lives? I would claim none.

"Another point, because I think I let our definitions drift a little -- I wouldn't say that we can't define existence outside our universe, but rather that we can't describe it. So you could counter this if you could show that "existence outside our universe" is meaningless in the same way that "temperature below absolute zero" is meaningless."

Ok:

"Temperature below absolute zero" is, by definition of the terms, a meaningless statement. Temperature is a metric, and the absolute zero is the bound of that metric. Applying the word "temperature" to describe a state outside the bounds of its definition is nonsensical, therefore "temperature below absolute zero" is meaningless.

"Existence outside our universe" is, by definition of the terms, a meaningless statement. Existence is a property, and space-time is the bound of that property. Applying the word "existence" to describe a state outside the bounds of its definition is nonsensical, therefore "existence outside our universe*" is meaningless.

*should read "existence outside space-time", perhaps there are universes other than our own, but existence in those universes would still be bound by space-time.

I think you're misunderstanding my position a little when you say, "The statement can be rephrased as "god cannot exist," because, as you yourself agreed, god does not exist within the boundaries of the natural world." I didn't say that a god would not exist within the boundaries of the natural world; I said that a god would not be confined by the laws of nature and the empirical world. This is a big difference, and one we keep coming back to. I feel that restricting supernatural things from interacting with empirical things by definition is arbitrary. Saying that we cannot venture into a supernatural realm does not imply that a supernatural realm could not interact with us, even if we would perceive those interactions empirically. Similarly, I would argue that our inability to interact with a fifth dimension of space would not prove that there is no such thing.

You ask if I would say that something doesn't exist just because it is absolutely impossible, ever, for us to investigate it. No, I wouldn't. It might be impossible for us to detect alternate universes, but I wouldn't conclude from this that they don't exist. If something came before the big bang (so far as that term is meaningful), it is impossible to investigate, but I wouldn't say that the big bag was preceded by nothing. I wouldn't even make the statement that the big bang was necessarily causeless (keeping in mind that there could be a natural cause, of course).

Is it a giant violation of Occam's Razor to postulate something nobody can ever experience as a casual agent? Well, I don't agree with the implication that a deity wouldn't be able to cause experiences, but in any case, you're right that a deity is, to me, a giant violation of Occam's Razor. But violating Occam's Razor doesn't prove that something doesn't exist, it just makes it the less favorable explanation (in this case, the much, much, much less favorable explanation). Also, someone with different knowledge or assumptions about probability might reach a different conclusion (as is often the case).

As for the sky clown, how are you defining it? I'm assuming that we can't go and check for the clown, so perhaps you are using the term "sky clown piss" in the same way that a Catholic uses the phrase "body of Christ" during mass. If so, then I can't prove you wrong, but we would have to spend some time defining your terms before I was sure you were even saying something meaningful.

What difference would the sky clown make to our lives? You're right -- none (at least for practical purposes). But that doesn't prove anything. Of course, if we're talking about God, whether or not he exists makes a lot of difference to a lot of people. In fact, if a deity of some sort exists it might make a big difference to you and me, too, whether we know it or not.

I see what you mean with the proof that existence outside space-time as meaningless, but I don't necessarily agree with your definition of existence. Also, allowing for other universes to be included within this definition because they have space-time (even though it might not be compatible with our space-time) seems to make the issue even more complex.

When I spoke of a deity not being bound by the laws of nature and the empirical world, I was talking about our universe's laws of nature and the world we can detect. I would not rule out the possibility that a deity exists within some kind of universe. For example, a higher-dimensional being that created and can interact with our universe would fit my definition of a deity, even though it would have an empirical world of its own. I could not describe the properties of such a being, and I can't imagine what it would be like, but it seems to me that such a concept is not logically impossible.

Now, if you would consider this higher-dimensional being not to be god because it has a space-time existence in a context of its own, and you cannot conceive of anything without a space-time existence being possible, then I think you might be justified in saying you believe there is no god. But you would be doing so with a definition of god that might not be universally acceptable.

Everything happens for a reason. Can you point me to any site that discusses this statement? Something smells in it bad, but what? Probably the main problem is mistaking cause for reason. mistaking "there is an explanation" for "there is a reason", etc... I would appreciate to have some nice starting points to think about it.

I can't point you to a Web site, but I can give you my thoughts on the subject.

The big problem with the statement is that it is vague. What does the speaker really mean? I can think of a number of possibilities.

1) As you said, they may be using "reason" as a synonym for "cause". This is a trivial statement (and may not be true from the perspective of quantum physics). But if, from there, they then say that "reason" is a synonym for "intention," an only a thinking being can have intention, then they are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation (confusing two different definitions of a word).

2) If they mean that God has a plan for everyone's life and everything is a part of that plan, then this is a statement of faith. It also can raise many questions about God's intentions.

3) If they are referring to fate, karma, or something like that, it's just another statement of faith.

4) If the statement is made in response to bad news, it may just be the equivalent of "Don't worry, it'll work out." (I must say that I find this a tad annoying, though.)

I hope that helps!

You ask how I can tell someone that I don't believe in god without defining the term -- whose god don't I believe in, mine or theirs? That's a good question. From my perspective, since I say that I don't believe in god since I have seen no compelling proof for the existence of a deity, I feel that I'm covering all possible definitions of god. It is a true statement that I have not seen any compelling proof for anything that I could meaningfully label 'god.'

You seem to be saying that all possible definitions of "god" are limited to what you could meaningfully label "god". So, if I decide to use "god" as synonymous with "rabbit", you would say that it is an inappropriate label. Clearly, you must have some minimum requirements that an entity ought to fulfill before it can deserve the label "god". I would very much like to hear what you consider those to be.

I say that the inability to define something does not prove that something does not exist

Maybe, but the implication of this statement is that you believe we can still apply the predicate "exists" to an entity whose existence you agree we cannot define, I find this absurd.

From a philosophical perspective, I would say that a minimum definition of "god" for the purpose of this discussion would be something that is not bound by the laws of nature, is not confined to our universe, and has or had the ability to interact with our universe. This definition doesn't cover everything that some people call god ("god is nature," "god is love"), but I consider those types of definition to be in a separate class, one that doesn't impact whether I call myself an atheist. We might be able to come up with a better definition if we wanted to work on it a bit.

For practical purposes, though, I'd say that "god" is any supernatural thing that many people would label as a deity if it existed. That's a much easier definition to work with, and it again puts the onus on the believer (where I think it belongs). It also gives some pretty lame things the opportunity to be called god, but I can live with that.

You talk about the inability to use the term "exist" in relation to something undefined. You are right and I should have chosen my words better. Perhaps I should have said that we cannot make definite statements about things completely outside of our experience. I would also say we can't say something doesn't exist just because we are unable to investigate it scientifically.

Another point, because I think I let our definitions drift a little -- I wouldn't say that we can't define existence outside our universe, but rather that we can't describe it. So you could counter this if you could show that "existence outside our universe" is meaningless in the same way that "temperature below absolute zero" is meaningless.

I know this is totally not important, but it bugs me.

"You can't see love, but you beleive in it."

There's a typo in Bel"ei"ve.

p.s. awesome sight, you seem like a really intelligent person with well thought out comments and arguments. Keep up the good work!

Thanks for the catch, the compliment, and the ironic P.S.! I've corrected the typo.

I like the "conversation" you are having with the guy about proving God exists. It's fun to watch two idiots go back and forth about something they don't know anything about and use big words that they wouldn't know without a dictionary on their computer. You must be the two biggest morons on the planet to spend so much time and energy on something so stupid. It's people like you who give atheists a bad name because you go on and on instead of just admitting that religious people are fucked in the head and should just be left alone to blow each other up.

Remember that women were made from men's ribs. A vagina is like a hole in your head! A penis makes you smarter! God made it that way to remind you you've got something missing.

The problem is that the terms "rabbit" and "aliens" do not refer to a specific entity. Therefore, showing one rabbit or one group of aliens to be nonexistent does not show that all rabbits or aliens do not exist. The term "god" refers, in monotheism, to a specific entity, regardless of how one might describe that entity. Your original god~aliens analogy works like this: "well look, we cannot generalize from the nonexistence of a specific group of aliens to all the different possible aliens, and therefore we cannot generalize from the nonexistence of a specific god to the nonexistence of all the different possible gods." But, if we are focusing on monotheism, there are no different possible gods, so what you are really comparing are possible existence of different entities to possible existence of different properties of an entity, which is not a valid comparison, because I can then say "well, just because you didn't find the thirty-clawed rabbit in your pants doesn't mean that the thirty-one-clawed rabbit isn't in there." You would probably respond "who cares how many claws the rabbit might have, there is no rabbit in my pants," but then, if you still want to maintain that the absence of god defined in one way does not preclude the absence of god defined in another, you would then have to admit that it is not just the definitions of the term "rabbit" or "aliens" and "god" differ, but the manner in which you define them. And if you define "god" in some unique manner, all analogies go out the window anyway.

By the way, how can you tell someone that do not believe in god unless you define the term? In many of your exchanges you tell believers that you do not believe in god, whose god is it that you do not believe in, theirs or yours? How can you venture to make the statement "I do not believe in god" if you think that the people interpreting that statement have either a totally different conception of the term "god" than you do or they don't have one at all?

If it's impossible to prove that god does not exist, than it's impossible to prove that he does exist. If the proposition "God exists" is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, then it isn't meaningful.

Actually, my view on the whole thing could be better described as "strong" agnosticism than atheism. I think that humans cannot conceive of anything other than the empirical realm, and so the proposition "a supernatural god exists" is nonsensical. There is no such thing as "existence" outside of space and time, or space-time, if you prefer, because humans are simply incapable of defining existence outside of space and time. Theism and deism is thus an oft unfortunate byproduct of our capacity to make inferences, generalizations, or abstractions.

I think we may have come to the roots of our disagreement.

You are right that, in monotheism, "god" refers to a specific, individual entity. Where we differ is that, to me, all definitions of a monotheistic god are not equal. This is different than counting the claws on a rabbit, because in some cases different proofs are used to show that different definitions of god are problematic. For example, a discussion of whether God is "good" can go very differently when speaking with a Catholic than with a Lutheran. For the "claws on a rabbit" analogy to be true, there would have to be a proof that no possible deities exist, and I am not yet convinced that one does exist.

I would say that the definitions of "aliens" and "god" actually do have some similarities that are important to understanding my way of thinking about this problem. In our current context, "aliens" refers to two different things: A) aliens as described by people on Earth who say that they have experience with such things, and B) whatever extraterrestrial life is really out there. We have no idea what B is, but if it showed up, we'd call it an alien. I think of the concept of god in the same way. Protestants don't believe in the deistic god, but if there were some way to prove deism true, I'm guessing Protestants would still call this being "god" even though it was nothing like what they had been worshipping.

I think one of the reasons we keep going back and forth on some subjects is that I won't say "there is no god" just because some class of deity has been ruled out. Even if we were to completely agree that the monotheistic, non-deistic god didn't exist, I still wouldn't make that statement because polytheistic, Buddhist, deistic, and other concepts of god have not been ruled out. I think that these concepts are distinct enough from the god of Christianity to be considered different gods.

I am also extremely wary of an ontological argument against the existence of a deity. If we agree that humans know nothing definitive about the supernatural, then I am very uncomfortable making definite statements about supernatural aspects of supernatural things.

You ask how I can tell someone that I don't believe in god without defining the term -- whose god don't I believe in, mine or theirs? That's a good question. From my perspective, since I say that I don't believe in god since I have seen no compelling proof for the existence of a deity, I feel that I'm covering all possible definitions of god. It is a true statement that I have not seen any compelling proof for anything that I could meaningfully label "god."

"If it's impossible to prove that god does not exist, than it's impossible to prove that he does exist." Well, that's not true in and of itself, but it is true in the context of our conversation (ignoring personal revelation, which I think we've agreed to disagree on). You continue, "If the proposition 'God exists' is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, then it isn't meaningful." That depends on what you mean by "meaningful." Certainly the statement has important emotional meaning for many. From a scientific perspective, there are many things in science which can't be verified or falsified, only speculated on based on existing evidence (for example, other universes and some historical truths).

At most, I would say that deities do not appear to be necessary.

I think your final paragraph may sum up our disagreement perfectly. You say that there is nothing outside of space and time because humans cannot define anything outside of space and time. I say that the inability to define something does not prove that something does not exist, particularly when we're talking about my personal ability (which is all I have to work with). I also feel uncomfortable assuming that there will never be an idea or concept or means of proof that I haven't thought of but that would change my mind.

For me, this is a comfortable place. I am never put in the position of having to prove a negative. And from a pragmatic perspective (as we've discussed before) this allows me to bypass trying to convince people to give up something based on feelings alone and concentrate my efforts on aspects of religion that are more significant from a social perspective.

Well, then let's make a preemptive strike and eliminate those definitions of god which include contradictory elements before they are even formulated. These will simply be nice boundaries, a starting framework, so to speak. I also think there is less disagreement about the definition of god than you suggest, and that the parts most widely shared are usually also the ones that are problematic. I'm not sure that the more plausible, or I should say less implausible, definitions of god somehow validate the more obscene ones, nor do I feel the need to be politically correct and lenient towards religious views in general because some religious views are benign. Reportedly, when Dalai Lama was asked "What if neuroscience comes up with information that directly contradicts Buddhist philosophy?" he responded "Then we would have to change the philosophy to match the science." Quite an admirable sentiment, but not all religions are equal. I think it is self-evident that some religions are worse than others, just as some opinions are worse than others. I feel no compulsion to engage in moral equivalence and regard deism and theism as equals, they aren't.

I think the universe exhibits certain properties which can be formulated as mathematical principles. Pi is one of those formulations, but it is not a distinct object that exists independently of the aspect of the universe it describes.

Well ok, my turn. Let's talk about rabbits, and not aliens. I'm, for whatever reason, not all together in my head and I imagine that there is a rabbit crawling around in my pants. So, I check it out, and find that there really isn't a rabbit in my pants. Obviously, this does not mean that rabbits don't exist, but it does show that the specific rabbit I was referring to doesn't exist. Same with aliens, but not the same with god. Assuming we are talking of monotheism, the subject of discussion is always one and the same god entity. So, when you say: "well, just because we can show that this version of god doesn't exist doesn't mean that another version doesn't exist" it's more like talking about whether that imaginary rabbit in my pants has six tails, or five eyes, or thirty claws, and when I say "but look, there is no six-tailed five-eyed and thirty-clawed rabbit in my pants," the response "ahaaa, but you didn't check your pants for the six-tailed five-eyed and thirty-one-clawed rabbit" somehow doesn't impress upon me that I ought to check my pants again for this new rabbiteity, and the next one after that. It seems to me what you are essentially saying is that we can never disprove the existence of a deity because it is always possible to invent a new definition of a deity. I'm not sure what you expect me to conclude from this.

Well, I agree with this statement entirely "There would always be a non-supernatural explanation for the behavior of such a deity," but this is precisely what I find problematic, and I can't see why, particularly in light of what seems to me your strong preference for Occam's razor, you seem to regard this as somehow a defense of a deity. If you accept Occam's razor, without compromise, than postulating a supernatural entity in the face of weird natural phenomena is always a worse explanation than a natural explanation, because a supernatural realm is always an entity that is not necessary for the explanation of a natural phenomenon. This means that there cannot be an empirical evidence for a deity, ever, nevermind empirical proof. We seem to be in complete agreement on the problem a deity would have in showing himself through natural means, but I cannot figure out why you seem to regard this as a defense of the existence of a supernatural god.

"By the way, I'm really enjoying this conversation. I hope it's not driving you nuts!"

I'm already nuts, and the nuttier I feel, the more fun I have, so drive away.

I think we're getting very close to settling this here, which is kind of exciting. It's fine with me if we discard self-contradictory definitions of a deity.

It appears to me that there are a great many definitions of deity out there because, for example, different groups of Christians can't even necessarily agree on the nature of God (for example, does God consider good works to be important or only expressions of devotion -- and I'd say that these are significant distinctions in that they can be used as a foothold to examine other described properties of the deity). There is also the problem of whether we can meaningfully say that two religions who ascribe different activities to God (such as writing or not writing a holy book) believe in the same God. Christians, Jews, and Muslims will generally say that they do worship the same deity (the God of Abraham), but often their descriptions of God are so divergent that it seems to me to be overly charitable to grant this. Particularly when Christians can't even agree on who can be called a Christian. And when we look at the beliefs of individuals instead of those of organizations, definitions of God vary even more, even within Christianity (I say this based on personal observation only).

This is why I disagree that we are always talking about the same entity when we are discussing monotheism. Some of the definitions are mutually exclusive.

I agree that not all religions are equal, by the way. I also agree that deism and other forms of theism are not equal. An aside: there is also the point of view that all religions are reactions to the "experience of the divine" at some point in the past and therefore contain a grain of truth even if they are incorrect in all the details. I haven't a clue how I'd prove that isn't true, and I've heard it espoused by some people who say that they are Christians.

Now, for the rabbit in your pants (a sentence I never imagined I'd be typing). The pants rabbit is a different animal than aliens and god. You can check your pants for rabbits; humanity might some day be able to check every planet in the universe for aliens; we can't check for god in any way I can think of. So the idea of checking your pants for a variety of rabbit types is a bit of a false analogy, since we can't check for the existence of god. Or, rather, we can at best say what kind of animal isn't in your pants. And if you were to respond that the reason I couldn't find the rabbit was that it is an invisible, immaterial rabbit, I couldn't prove you wrong, although I'd suspect you were bananas.

You ask what I expect you to conclude from the fact that there is always a new possible definition of a deity. The conclusion I draw from this is that even if I can conclude that every deity ever described by humans does not exist, I can't say that there is no deity out there. This works for aliens the same way -- rule out every alien every described by a human, and there still may be aliens. Your rabbit does not fare so well -- check for him, and if he's not there, he's not there (assuming the normal definition of "rabbit").

You are right that I have a strong preference for Occam's razor. I agree that Occam's razor seems to completely rule out the necessity of a deity. However, this is not universally compelling proof that there is no deity because, a) the razor is a guideline, not a rule, and b) people with a different view of probability will apply it differently than I will.

Now let's get into a really technical bit: "We seem to be in complete agreement on the problem a deity would have in showing himself through natural means, but I cannot figure out why you seem to regard this as a defense of the existence of a supernatural god." I don't regard this as a defense of the existence of a supernatural god. Rather, it is a defense of the impossibility of disproving the existence (as opposed to the likelihood) of a supernatural god. I don't think god exists, but it is, so far as I can see, impossible to prove that god does not exist, so I do not say that god does not exist.

Life would be greatly simplified if, when someone asked, "Do you believe God exists?" I could answer "No" because I could demonstrate that the deity the questioner has in mind could not exist. I do not feel justified in doing so because:

1) I don't know what god they have in mind, and often they don't know either,

2) When I argue against a specific definition of god, people very often just start refining their definition to get around my objections.

3) I don't think such a response would honestly convey my opinion.

Both #1 and #2 may be evidence of belief without a good basis, and I recognize that, but it doesn't make my philosophical standpoint any easier. You and I could pretty easily prove to each other that the likelihood of a deity is vanishingly small. But this proof might not be accepted by those who make different assumptions about reality than you and I do, and since I can't prove that my assumptions are correct (particularly since they include an assumption that there is nothing supernatural), I would feel arrogant acting as if I am definitely correct.

You sound like you do not have this discomfort, so you feel justified in saying that there is no god.

I think most theists would admit that they'd still believe in god even if they had no evidence of his existence, which is what makes such a belief faith. In fact, I do not think there are any, at best fantastically few, people who believe in god on the basis of evidence or arguments. The "belief without proof" definition would result in propositions like "I have faith that the bus will hit me if I don't move away," or any statement about the future whatsoever. In fact, belief in any state of affairs which we admit can possibly be different than it appears would be an instance of faith. But nobody uses the word "faith" in this way, and I see no reason why anybody would except to engage in nihilism or religious apologetics. So, yes, I think the manner in which you, personally, are defining "faith" is a result of the special privileges generally granted to religious discourse, and I believe that such concessions are not beneficial.

Well, in order to disprove something only only needs to provide a single example of contradiction. It is not necessary to have an exhaustive definition of god in order to show that some of such an entity's alleged properties make it logically incoherent. For instance, if someone tells me that John is both six feet tall and seven feet tall at the same time, I do not need to know anything else about John to show that John so described does not exist.

Yes, I believe that there is no number "1" if there is nothing to be counted, but I also believe that there is always something to be counted.

The theistic god is the deistic god too, and more. I cannot think of an argument why an unprovable deistic god precludes a provable theistic one. Well, I could, but I think we will simply disagree on the premises, so I will not formulate it. I'm somewhat surprised that you do not seem to find this notion displeasing enough intuitively to reexamine how it arises. Oh well, disagreement is what keeps this fun.

Oh come on, aliens are nothing like a supernatural deity. If aliens exist, it is perfectly possible for me to go and look at them, smell them, touch them, hear them, and taste them. Hmm, I don't think I ever envisioned myself talking about tasting extraterrestrials, but anyway. A deity, or god, by definition is inaccessible to any mode of direct observation, I think we agreed to leave out souls. Even if tomorrow I see a Jesus-looking dude walking on water, that is not the same thing as observing a supernatural entity. Perhaps this is the essence of almost the entirety of our discussion, I feel there are reasons for denying the existence of a supernatural being other than simply a lack of evidence of such. I think these reasons apply from the very definition of such an entity. I believe it is more valid to believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, one that obeys the laws of physics, living on some other planet than it is to believe in a supernatural entity. Did you just want to get a rise out of me with this alien stuff?

You say, "I think most theists would admit that they'd still believe in god even if they had no evidence of his existence, which is what makes such a belief faith." I'm not completely sure that's universally true. I can think of a couple of people who say that they believed in God because a creator was the only thing that made sense, but whom later became atheists when their knowledge of science improved. I also think it's possible that you're right in general, but that in many (perhaps most) specific cases theists will not say that they have belief without evidence, even if to you and me they do. For example, some people would call "feeling God's love" evidence.

You are right that one needs only a single contradiction to disprove something, and you are right that one does not need an exhaustive definition of god before contradictions have to be looked for. But one cannot disprove all definitions of "god" by finding contradictions in one definition. I think the problems here are that there are many possible definitions and that a great many theists speak of "God" without even having a real working definition (although they think they have one).

Fortunately, when theists (at least Judeo-Christian theists) start working on a definition they generally run into the kind of problems you speak of pretty quickly. Buddhists and deists, for example, often do better because their deity is more detached from empirical reality.

So, summing up my position, I have no problem arguing against an individual's definition of God, but I hesitate to assume that I can argue against all possible definitions of a deity.

Your thought that there are no numbers without at least one countable is interesting. Off hand, I don't think there is anything wrong with this, but it is a new concept to me. As an aside, would you say that mathematical principles (such as pi) are invented, where I would say they are discovered? Just curious.

I think we got our wires crossed on the subject of deistic vs. theistic (meaning non-deistic) gods. I think I know what you mean when you say that a theistic god is a deistic god and more -- in the same way that (to oversimplify) a scooter might be seen as a skateboard and more, right? I don't know whether I agree with this statement, because if the deistic god does not interfere with reality because of either moral or physical (for want of a better word) restraints, then it is probably significantly different from the theistic god and not just a theistic god that does not interfere.

You are right that there probably isn't a useful argument to prove that an unprovable god precludes a provable one. Sorry if I implied that I thought there was. I would say that disproving a theistic god does not necessarily do anything to disprove a deistic god. And I would say that it might be possible for a theistic god to permanently detach itself from reality at any point and effectively become deistic, possibly rendering its existence impossible to disprove.

There really was a point to my bringing up aliens that had nothing to do with bugging you . I agree that aliens are nothing like a supernatural deity, but the way I argue against statements of their existence is very similar to the way that I argue against statements of the existence of deities.

You say, "If aliens exist, it is perfectly possible for me to go and look at them, smell them, touch them, hear them, and taste them." I think it is this statement that might be at the root of our disagreement, because I wouldn't make it, at least not in so many words. Your statement has an implicit assumption that aliens are accessible, and I am not willing to make that assumption even though I understand that you are speaking in a philosophical sense (because aliens are, in principle, accessible if they exist, even if access to them is not practical).

Let's assume there are aliens (meaning some kind of extraterrestrial life) so I can demonstrate how this has anything to do with anything.

I think that the probability of alien life is very high. I think that the probability that any of it has been observed by humans is very low. So if someone tells me that they tasted an alien (and it tasted like alien chicken), I think they're probably wrong. If they describe the alien in a way that is not logically coherent, then I can prove that they are wrong. If their alien encounter is more easily explained by more normal occurrences (you were sleepwalking and ate some leftover chicken), I consider that more likely. But in my mind, this has nothing at all to do with real alien life out there on some planet somewhere. Disproving every supposed alien encounter I run into would not prove that a) aliens don't exist, b) none of the people imagining that they encountered aliens got some of the details right, c) nobody I haven't run into really did encounter aliens, or d) if aliens wanted to hide from us, we could detect them. And this is assuming that my disproofs are valid.

There are people who say, with complete conviction, that aliens are out there, even if we can't prove it. I can't argue against that, because it's a statement of faith. And I won't agree with it, even though the probability is, for me, high that it is a true statement.

So, applying this thinking to a deity:

Our disagreement over your implied assumption that aliens are accessible is similar to our disagreement over your definition of a supernatural deity as completely detached from the empirical. I would say that aliens are not accessible because, at the moment, we can't access them. I would also not define a deity as necessarily completely detached from the empirical, even though we could never prove its existence empirically.

I think that the probability of a deity is very low. I think that the probability that anyone has proof that a deity exists is low. If someone tells me that they have experienced God, I think they're probably wrong. If they describe God in a way that is not logically coherent, then I can prove that they are wrong. If they offer no proof, I still consider mundane explanations for their experience far more likely. But in my mind the fact that people have developed incorrect religions or that they mistakenly believe that they have interacted with a deity does nothing to do with whether there really is a deity of some kind. I can rule out specific descriptions of a deity, but I can't rule out all possible descriptions or invalidate claims that I can't investigate.

You are right that a big part of our disagreement is whether or not a supernatural entity can be observed. I still do not agree that a supernatural being must by definition remain entirely within the supernatural realm. I don't know what it would mean for God to send part of himself to Earth in the form of Jesus, because I don't know how a supernatural being would work, but my not knowing doesn't make it impossible. Seeing a Jesus-looking guy walking on water wouldn't be proof of the supernatural (because there are non-supernatural explanations that are more likely), but my having a better explanation is not proof that the Jesus guy isn't supernatural.

Looking at this another way, there's a movie in which God is sitting in a courtroom and the judge asks him to show him a miracle. God takes out a deck of cards, spreads, them and asks the judge to "pick a card." If God uses supernatural means to state what card the judge picked, we'd never know it because there are so many mundane ways to do card tricks. For all I know, there is a deity out there that interacts with the world but always does so in a way that appears to follow the laws of physics. There would always be a non-supernatural explanation for the behavior of such a deity.

One last thing, just to keep our conversation traditionally overlong.

Let's look at the Catholic belief of transubstantiation -- if you're not familiar with it, this is the belief and bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus during a church ceremony. If you run tests on the food products before and after the ceremony, they will appear to be the same thing. If someone asked me whether the bread really became "the body of Christ" during the ceremony, I would not say no. Instead, I would say that I have no idea what transubstantiation really means and therefore can't make a statement. I feel the same way about most definitions of god.

By the way, I'm really enjoying this conversation. I hope it's not driving you nuts!