Oh not my God! I was already an Atheist before I got to this site, so am I now an Atheist squared?

No, you're a theist twice removed.

You cannot escape the fact that atheism is hate speech. You are saying that everyone who believes in GOD is stupid and wrong when you say you are an atheist. This is the same as saying you are a white supremecist and everyone who is BLACK is stupid and wrong or that we should kill the JEWS. Does blogger know that they are publishing hate speech? I'm going to tell them!!

You couldn't be further from the truth, and your even thinking such things makes me rather sad. Atheism -- at least Moral Atheism, as I call it -- is not about calling names or saying who is smarter than who. It's also not about being "anti" anything. It's just a set of beliefs like any other, albeit one that was arrived at through a specific process of reasoning and that concludes there is no compelling reason to believe in deities. You might reason using similar tools to mine and come to different conclusions. That's fine.

If you are angry at atheists or have a bad impression of us because you have heard ant-religious speech from atheists in the past, you should know that not all atheists are like that. Many -- probably most -- of us are quite tolerant of those we disagree with.

I have been reading some of the writings on your site and on your blog and I would first like to congratulate you on a job well done.

I would however like to take exception with the oft-stated sentiment that religious people aren't unintelligent. In the context of their beliefs in a sky-god, they are most certainly, in every sense of the word, unintelligent. They may not be unintelligent in everyday life, but in this case they are. By way of analogy, Let's take a look at Hugo. Hugo paints, plays several musical instruments, sculpts, writes, and does origami--all with a high degree of skill. But Hugo can't sing. He has a terrible voice. When he sings in the shower, the locals speak in whispers of the chupacabra. Would anyone refer to Hugo as untalented? Certainly not. But if I want to take singing lessons, would you recommend I go see Hugo? Again, certainly not. Because in the context of singing, he IS untalented. And if, when discussing the art of singing with Hugo we go out of our way to praise his skill, aren't we being both insincere and condescending?

Every human has some degree of intelligence. Sometimes we make use of that intelligence and sometimes we let others tell us what to think. Religion is letting others tell us what to think. If you show me someone who lets every conceivable facet of his life be dictated to him, and I will say that that person has NO intelligence--none that he makes use of anyway.

When someone says that, for them empirical proof can be found in a 2000-year-old book that has been losing battles over "truth", both scientific and social, since the day it was written, I think that we can say that in the context of religion, they ARE unintelligent. They are not using the tools necessary for intelligent thought. They are letting the views of others become their own without any critical evaluation as to the truth of those views. And that is most certainly not intelligent.

There are unintelligent theists, just as there are unintelligent atheists. However, I do not think theism is a sufficient condition for labeling someone as unintelligent.

Although I understand your argument, I think it is based on a number of assumptions, some of which are not true. Not all theists slavishly follow the instructions of their church or believe that every word in the Bible is true. Many are quite critical of what their religion teaches and have investigated their beliefs in detail. Some people are religious because, after considering the alternatives, they honestly believe that religion is the most likely alternative.

To step back in history a bit, let's look at Thomas Jefferson (one of my heroes, by the way). He was a theist, if only barely, because he could not conceive of a universe coming into existence without a deity. He believed that Jesus existed, but didn't believe in those parts of the Bible that involved magic, hence his putting together The Jefferson Bible. We certainly have more scientific information today than Jefferson did, but I wouldn't call him unintelligent for reaching the conclusions he reached, and I wouldn't call someone today who reached the same conclusions unintelligent because they do not think science's explanations for the origin of the universe are sufficient.

Continuing with this, we must recognize that people have different levels of necessary proof. I'm personally very skeptical about the supernatural and think that all natural explanations must be ruled out before supernatural ones are considered. Others think supernatural explanations are more likely. I think they're wrong but I can't prove it (as a general case), so I can't say that their conclusions drawn from these lower levels of need for evidence are wrong unless I can demonstrate that they have reached an incorrect conclusion (which, in the case of believing God exists, I can't).

As for the Bible, there are copious arguments for its historicity. For example, there is an argument that the New Testament is likely reliable because it recounts both negative and positive aspects of the early church. I disagree with these arguments (in general), but they are good enough that I wouldn't say that someone who is convinced by them is unintelligent. At most, they are merely wrong, and one can be both intelligent and wrong.

Finally, as a general rule I assume that everyone is intelligent. That way I am less likely to dismiss the ideas of others because I consider my beliefs to be superior to theirs. I'm not saying that this is what you are doing, but it might be something to keep in mind.

Your funny.
You'll be even funnier burning in hell with Satin's dick up your ass.

Satin?

I've spent a bit of time reading the comments and your wonderful responses. I really admire you ability to remain so calm in the face of such awful bigotry and non-nonsensical comments.

What I fine truly ironic is that such hate can come from those who preach and "believe" in love. I realise how lucky I am to live in a country where I am not denounced for my lack of belief.

Thanks again :o)

I am a strong believer in separation of religion and government, and I feel truly sad for those who are not able to speak their thoughts for fear of government retaliation. But I think the first step toward getting more governments to not judge is to get more people to not judge, and that is turning out to be quite a task.

How long have you been involved in the skeptical movement? What are your favorite podcasts?

This may be a lame answer, but I don't consider myself to be involved in the skeptical movement. I'm just a skeptic. I am, however, a gigantic fan of James Randi and Isaac Asimov, and read Skeptical Enquirer for many years.

Favorite podcasts at the moment: Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, Onion Radio News, Come Let Us Reason (currently falling from favor a bit), Logically Critical, Stand to Reason (new to me but currently gaining favor), Skeptoid, 60-Second Science, Old-Time Dragnet, and Rantamonica.

Dear I Declare:

I'm flattered that you should bend your rules for me. God is love, which is a logical conclusion based on the idea that if good and evil exist together, then freedom is the reason that evil exists, not because God is evil. Or doesn't exist. If God was either one (evil or nonexistent), we'd never be having this conversation. Of course this is all my own thinking. I don't say that anything I say is true. But if evil existed in a vacuum without love ... the human race, which evil wants to destroy, would not have ever had a chance. Which sets up a showdown, between good and evil, where good wins, which is precisely what the Bible predicts. If there are errors in the Bible ... Christian heretics put them there. And if Jesus is not a threat ... why would they bother?

Bless you, I declare. I have been where you are. My intense desire to know and understand reality (after being terrified by hallucinations and finding peace when I resolved God didn't like these things any more than I did, because his creation did not reflect hatred toward mankind, nature, etc.) has led me to find truth only by assuming this scenario and then that one. God is provable by who he is, but mostly because of who he obviously isn't. The cosmic drama, conflict will have a conclusion ... and I expect it to be geologically spectacular, for one. Based on Zechariah 14, when valleys become mountains and vice versa. Evil destroys, God uses that energy against itself to create.

I'm not going to go into your discussion of God, good, and evil in huge detail because it doesn't sound to me like you're looking for a debate (let me know if I'm reading you wrong on this). I would like to start out, though, by saying that you don't need to couch your words with "I don't say that anything I say is true." If you have a reasoned opinion, I think you should come right out and say, "this is what I believe." We all understand that nobody's opinion is necessarily true, that's why it's worth having these discussions. I guess what I mean is you shouldn't sound like you're not proud of your beliefs or if you think they are less than anyone else's. All reasonable people are equal in this sense.

A brief refutation of your argument -- from my standpoint, it appears to rely on "good" and "evil" being metaphysical forces in and of themselves that require balancing. I don't believe that there is good or evil without human thought, and I don't think there is any metaphysical requirement for balance of good and evil. So, because I disagree with your premises, I disagree with your argument.

Thanks for writing!

Hey again, long time no talk! Anyway, my brother and I have recently taken a big part in some different threads on a forum, discussing everything from Biblical concepts of what Christianity should be, to hard-core debates on ID vs naturalism. If you ever have the time, check out the link here to our first thread: [URL]

I know it is on a gaming forum, but it spread rather quickly. There are actually probably 7 different "religion" threads now because of my brothers thread there. Please take a look some time if you are interested in some pretty deep stuff. Thanks. Take care.

I only had a chance to read a bit of what you pointed me at, but it's very nice to see some polite, informed discussion out there. Keep it up!

Can't dispute one point you've made. I "think" the reason I always throw the "but you can decide for yourself later" at them is so if they ever take a spouse that's a christian it helps them to know that I know, love, and tolerate people that believe...as if we have a choice ;) I don't want them to think I want them hating all religious people. I just don't want religion to become a dividing issue for our family later in life. With that said, if you asked either of my kids if there is a god you would get two resounding no's. I've never made any bones about my opinion in front of the kids when the subject comes up, so they know exactly where their dad stands on the subject ;) They never get the christian or creationism or any other point of view in our home...it's pretty simple, I just don't believe it so I certainly can't teach it. They get evolution, period. That's an interesting point you make about implying there may be something to the arguments for religion by simply stating that they can decide for themselves later. I'll have to keep that thought in mind next time we talk about it. From your description, I think we're probably not too far apart in what we tell our kids. Keep up the good work with the website, the humor is great and you have a thick skin to put up with all those vicious threats.

I agree -- it sounds like our parenting methods are pretty similar. I have heard from people who really do try and "balance" everything they teach their children philosophically, to the point that they are essentially hiding their own beliefs from their children, and frankly that drives me nuts <G>. Glad to hear this isn't the case in your home!

Hi whatever-your-name-is!

Whenever we ask an important question, there are several desirable properties an answer can have:

1) It is available within a resonable amount of time

2) Most people can understand it easily

3) It fits well into our preexisting framework of answers to other questions

4) It agrees with reality, i.e is true

Ideally all of these are fulfilled, but it of course often happens that it is not possible to find an answer that meets all criteria. Then a tough choice has to be made about the priority of the properties above. As I see it, science focuses entirely on 4) and leaves the rest as second-hand concerns whereas religion goes for 1, 2 and 3 (e.g. "God did it!") and then simply assumes 4 to follow.

And a side note about the problems some people have with "Thou shalt not kill" issued from the same God that orders killings right & left: I think it's meant as an abbreviation of "Thou shalt not kill another jew".

That's an interesting point! I'd say that science demands 4, hopes for 3, and would like 2 and (more importantly) 1 but can do without them.

How religious people fit into the equation is going to vary by individual. Some religious people who have thought about the question in detail feel that they are forming their beliefs in the same way a scientist would. Others can't comprehend a universe without God, in which case they are starting with #4. I think that if we are talking about the development of world religions over time, though, you may have pretty much hit it on the head.

Regarding "Thou shalt not kill" -- I believe the original translates better as "Thou shalt not murder." This probably fits better than "Thou shalt not kill another Jew" since the laws included rules for when Jews should be put to death.

I have just become an atheist.

I eventually realized all the gaps in Christianity, and faith in general. I feel very free now as a result of not living in fear of being punished for "thought crimes" such as not buying into things which have no logical proof. A theologist professor said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Oh yeah? Where's your evidence?

That my friend, is called full circle logic. A=B because I said so. aka, the bible is right because it says its right.

So, my question, how do I go about telling my devoutly christian parents, friends, and church about my new worldview?

Although I appreciate what you are saying, your theology professor was actually correct that, in a logical sense, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Or, in a nutshell, you (in general) can't prove a negative.

For example, right now we don't have proof that any of the variant string theories of physics is true, but that doesn't mean that none of them are true (although that might be the case). Or, more ridiculously, if you have no evidence that your great, great, great, great maternal grandfather existed, that doesn't imply that he didn't exist.

Where theologists get in trouble is when they treat absence of evidence as evidence of existence. For example, a theist must argue that we don't know what was there before the Big Bang, therefore God was there. That's a spurious argument.

Theologists also are on shaky ground if they are using the "absence of evidence" line to argue that you can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore God might exist. While this is true in a logical sense, it doesn't say anything about the likelihood that God exists. I won't say it's impossible that there is a Christian-type God out there, but I consider the likelihood to be incredibly small.

I'm glad you started out with a subject I'm comfortable with so that I had something constructive to say before I tackled your second question. I've heard that Richard Dawkins' Out Campaign (outcampaign.org) will have resources for people in your situation, but at present these have not been made available.

How you reveal your change in philosophy to your parents is going to depend quite a bit on your parent's feelings and your relationship with them. Many people feel that just sitting down with them and having a heart-to-heart is the way to go. I, on the other hand, feel that some parents might see what appears to be a sudden change in your attitude as a sudden change in your beliefs, as opposed to a change that has developed within you over time. They might assume that there was a single incident that lead you to reject their beliefs or that you are being influenced an anti-religious source (as someone who joined a cult might be).

I don't know your parents so I don't know what will work with them. I think that it's generally better for them to see your beliefs developing than to see a "sudden" change. This could be done by talking with them about specific theological topics, expressing your doubts, and seeing how they react. Then again, if you think your parents might find out about your atheism from other sources, it might be better to break it to them now so that they don't end up feeling you've been hiding a "dark secret" from them.

I suppose this hasn't been all that helpful. What it boils down to is that every situation is unique and there is no one way to handle telling your parents you're an atheist. There is also no way to guarantee that they will not take it badly, but I think that if you reassure them that you are still the moral, ethical, thoughtful, loving child they brought up, they will be less likely to worry that you have become an "evil atheist" (if they are prone to such thinking).

I am going to ask my blog readers who have gone through an experience like this to please share it with the rest of us. We could use some real-life examples!

Note to my valued readers!

I've moved the blog portion of this site to blog.iamanatheist.com. Be sure to change your bookmarks. Thanks!

Thanks for the e-mail - I had forgotten about your site...

I get this sneaking suspicion that I may be a part of that group of particularly annoying Christians. I hold to what I believe is true, because I believe that Truth exists. Not that anything I believe automatically becomes true - I have changed my opinion several times concerning many issues - salvation among non-Christians not being the least of these.

Christianity is a salvation-based religion. It teaches that no man is perfect - meaning that all have done wrong, if only once - and that the punishment for wrongdoing is death. Thus, all men are equal, in that, by themselves, all men are dead in their wrongdoings. Christianity teaches that God sent Christ Jesus, his only begotten Son (also God - let's not get into that right now) to pay atonement for the wrongdoings of the world, so that we might evade death and receive life through Him.

So to say that "being a non-Christian theist is better than being an atheist" is woefully ignorant of the basic fact of Christianity. To be anything but one who believes and has trusted in the death, burial, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus is to be dead. There is no difference, then, between an atheist and a non-Christian theist.

This, I believe, touches on a major misconception about Christianity: it is not about doing good things. My friend explained it to me this way once:

If I am dead in my transgressions, I cannot do anything to the better or worse of mankind or myself. But when I come alive (spiritually) - freed from my sin and death - I do good things as a result, much in the same way I breathe in and out because I am physically alive. Doing good things is a byproduct of the hope that resides within a Christian.

As for "some brands of Christianity," I would contend that many are not Christianity at all, because Christianity - by definition - requires Christ. I do believe that anyone can find Christ on their own - Jeremiah 29:13 reads " 'You will (V)seek Me and find Me when you (W)search for Me with all your heart. '" Thus one can be a Christian without using the term "Christian" - a pygmy in Africa or something - but one cannot have salvation without Christ. No one else was perfect. No one else paid the atonement.

Christianity is not exclusive because it is a religion of death - quite the opposite. Christianity is intrinsically exclusive because to teach anything other than Life - and the true method therein - would be just like a living body not breathing. It is impossible.

I hope this makes sense to you - it took me a long time to figure out. Please, feel free to respond with questions/comments. I really don't want to engage in a debate or even semi-debate. I've found that internet based rivalry produces no good at all. I will try to point you towards resources that I know of - there have been entire books written on these things and the chances of my explaining it better online are very low. Thank you for the mail.

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
- Jesus, John 14:6

At least so far, you don't seem like a "particularly annoying Christian." You come across as intelligent, non-judgmental, and willing to change your mind. It's hard to be annoying when you have all that going for you.

I also believe that truth exists. Where we may differ is that I think what I believe is true only insofar as I have the ability to find the truth.

My understanding is that those who say a non-Christian theist is preferable to an atheist are not talking about salvation or Christianity. Rather, they are talking about morality. The idea is that morality only comes from religion, and therefore someone without religion can't be trusted. I think this opinion is based on ignorance, and I do what I can to show that morality can have sources other than religion.

I understand what you are saying about Christianity and good works. I also understand that there is a bit of a disagreement between Protestants and Catholics (for example) on this issue.

I also understand what you mean when you say that good works are a byproduct of Christianity as opposed to a requirement of it. One problem I have encountered in the past with a few Protestants is that they take this idea to an extreme -- they turn their nose up at good works by non-Protestants because such things are not necessary for salvation, and (in extreme cases) look past their own sins because they are saved. I think -- and I hope you will agree -- that this is also a misunderstanding of Christianity.

I'm happy to honor your request not to debate, because I really don't see anything for us to debate. I appreciate your offer to recommend books on the subject, but I have already read many of them and prefer to have my discussions with individuals at this point.

Thanks again for writing!

Hi

I've read your blog with great interest and not a little admiration. I too am amused by the hate mail, although concerned for the wellbeing of the girl whose mother is going to effectively make her suffer for asking pertinent questions, and those who suffer the same fate but whom we don't know of. I run a general blog (not an advert) and have placed a link to your blog there.

I was brought up in a split family (one atheist, one believer) and turned to Christianity in my late 20's. I studied with the Anglican Church (and by the way, you're not an Anglican just because you were born in England as one flamer has stated!) and gained a licence to practise as a Lay Reader, a sort of preacher able to take funerals, Evensong and the like. However, my post-graduation studies, like yours I believe, drove me further from the faith. I too have a library of Christian books, mainly theological dicussions and expositions, and nine different translations of the Bible.

I have no point to this post other than to congratulate you for not falling in the trap that I often fall into, that of abusing people who share different ideals to mine. Your arguments are reasoned and your presentation calm. I will review my own behaviour as a result.

Which I suppose does raise a point in itself. I have been inspired by a fellow athiest to moderate my behaviour in order to be kinder to people, thus leading a better life, whereas Christianity often brought me into conflict with non-believers as I tried to impose my views upon them.

Ironic eh?

Please keep it all up, and hopefully inspire others to moderate their views at the very least.

Cheers.

If everyone reviewed their own behavior and tried to be kinder to others, the world would be a much better place. Glad to hear you're doing your part!

What if you stumbled on the site? :P ah well, guess im an atheist now...

Sorry but, stumble or not, what's done is done!

Hello. I guess you could say that I am a recovering protestant. I spent most of my childhood going to church and not really believing any of it. Now that I'm off to college, I feel more free to think about my religious doubt, and to research information on both sides of the table, so to speak.

This is all well and good, but I still haven't told my parents. I think that my father will be okay with my decision to forgo any kind of faith, but my mother will no doubt be horribly upset. I love both my parents and I don't want to bring any kind of heartbreak on them, but I simply won't feel comfortable living a lie around them. Our family policy (other than santa and the easter bunny) has always been to value honesty.

So my problem is this: how can I "break it to them" as easily as possible? Also, since my mother will no doubt reject any kind of rational argument and instead suggest I go read my bible, how can I... well, not force her to have a discussion with me, but sort of coerce her to speak rationally with me?

Thank you for any response you can give me.

This is a very difficult question, and there is no one right answer. I'd guess that, in your situation, something gradual might be better than "let's sit down and talk about religion for a minute."

What would you think of sharing some of your philosophical journey with your parents? Bring up your religious doubts, see what kind of response they give. If they can see more of the path you have been walking, they may feel better about where you arrived than they would if you just told them how the story ends. You don't want your parents thinking you made a sudden change, because that may lead them to think that some single thing happened that made you change your mind (like a bad experience or an anti-religion influence at college).

Whatever you do, it's important that your parents know that you have not turned your back on them or on any friends you have from Church, and that you are still the moral, caring boy they raised.

Just FYI, what I have described here is much the tact I took with my parents. They're both atheists now. Obviously, that isn't going to happen in every family, but even before my parents gave up religion, they were comfortable with my philosophical choice because they understood that it was carefully considered.

I hope this has been of some help.

thank you its nice to know that im not alone . i hate that god crap.

"God crap"? Sheesh!

"Congratulations! By visiting this Web site you have announced to the world that you are an atheist! This announcement is permanent and irrevocable"

Congratulations! By making such an arrogant assumption you have permanently and irrevocably renounced any and all right to call me and any other person with religious or spiritual beliefs "deluded" or "misguided" or "full of crap".

"our automated system has already sent notification of your godlessness to both the Library of Congress and your mother. We will mention you to the Pope the next time we see him."

Knock yourself out. My mother doesn't even have an internet connection, and I fail to see how the Library of Congress would see the cultural significance of "this person is an atheist", or considering it worth cataloguing if there is no comprehensive and coherent argument backing this statement up. And I don't think the FBI or the CIA or MI5 or ASIO are going to give a toss either. In addition, the Pope doesn't know me from Adam anyway so while you're telling him I'm an atheist you might as well tell him I'm also a snake charmer. Anyway, you don't even know my name, so what are you going to tell the Library of Congress and the Pope? "This bloke's an atheist. I don't know his name, and he's not gone into detail about what he believes, but we've come to the conclusion that he is an atheist based solely on the fact that he has visited this website"? Good luck.

Do they have jokes where you come from? Just wondering.

I want Richard Dawkins and James Randi love babies.

That is all

Do you mean you want to have their babies, or that you want them to have a baby together? Great -- now I've got a really disturbing (and highly secular) image stuck in my head.

Even though I am slightly intoxicated, I rather enjoyed stumbling onto your site and then to your blog. I think I am an incredibly forgiving athiest and do not really tell the rest of the population how I feel. I must say thanks for giving me more thoughts on my likings of being a godless human being.

You sound like my kind of person (well, aside from the "intoxicated" part <G>)! You also bring up an interesting point -- there are many atheists who do not talk about their lack of religion very much. I think it's perfectly understandable, considering that it's a personal issue and that some people react, um, oddly to atheism.

I'd be interested to hear from any atheists who keep to themselves and would like to share their reasons.

hey there,

great site, it's always nice to see another inteligent athiest out in the wolds of the internet, we're officially the most despised and hated people in america (more then any religion, race, ethnicity, or other identity label. [URL]) so we've gotta stick to together...

One thing I noticed though was a comment you made in one of your replies about Mormons which I've got to disagree with. you said

"I also note that in religions where morality is more actively taught (such as Mormonism), there is more morality and less self-righteousness."

As someone who was raised mormon I've got to say that this is most definitely not the case. Mormon communities are extremely tight-knit and mostsocial transactions involve the church on some level. Virtually everyone I know that has been a member in the past and is no longer in the church experienced extreme ostracization and hostility when they left. It's particularly bad for young people who've grown up in the church and decide to leave, that decision can be met with anything from forced "counseling" with church authorities to physical violence to being thrown out on the street by parents. Lots of no fun. And of course weddings, funerals, etc are all intensely religious experiences for mormons so if you're not a member you won't be invited to the wedding and you'd better come prepared for a serious sermon at a funeral. Mormons take self-righteousness to heights I've never encountered in people of any other creed, they just don't usually do it to non-members in places
where they are not the majority.

And, of course, there is the little fact that the religion is explicitly white supremecist, though they don't publicize that bit as much as they used too. I've written quite a bit about that particular topic on my [URLs]. Truly nasty stuff. I'd be hard pressed to think of a more self-righteous religious doctrine then the believe non-white skin is a curse bestowed by the creator of the universe.

anyway, that's about it for me, just wanted to disabuse you of any illusions you might have had about mormons being more moral or less self-righteous. any statement about a group is fallacious when applied to individuals, of course - there are always exceptions to every generalization - but as a whole I've found mormons to be some of the worst of the worst among rabidly intolerant theists. They just don't appear as bad from the outside because (outside of Utah) they're a minority and not in a position to impose their beliefs the way certain other christian sects are.

I was basing my statement about Mormons on personal experience (my spouse used to be Mormon) and am sorry to say that it appears I was incorrect. It still appears to me that many Mormons behave within the limits of the morality they are taught more so than do people who are not actively taught morality, but you have certainly caused me to question the value of Mormon morality in the first place.

Well Hello There,

Terribly Enjoyable Site!

I Particularly Enjoy The Hate Mail. Something That Many Of Us Have Lived With For Most Of Our Lives, It Brings Back Many Fond Memories Of Arguments Which Could Thinly Be Veiled As Conversations With Co-Workers, Loved Ones, And Nosey People Who Enjoy Listening In On Other People's Conversations. I Must Say Keep Up The Very Good Work On This Site. May There Be Many More People, Who Are As Willing To Hold Mature Conversations Which Are Outside The Bounds Of "92%" of The Population's Indoctorination. I Hope More People Visit This Site and Become, As You Put It, Permanent and Irrevocable Athiests. It Is Allways Nice To See A Site That Provides A New View On Such An Explosive Subject Being Head Lined By Some One Who Is Actually Intelligent. I Hope We Can Hold Many Interesting Conversations In The Future. Please Write Back.

i appreciate the many kind words about my web site! i, too, hope to reach many people with this site (which is read by 1,000+ people every day, by the way). you might be surprised to learn that, although i obviously prefer atheism, i do not feel that eliminating religion is a big priority. i feel that getting people to think about their beliefs and discuss them rationally is far, far more important.

i look forward to conversing with you further.

Hi. I just stumbled upon your site and blog today. I would like to introduce myself (and yes, I am an atheist), and ask you to link to my blog from yours:

milocast.com

I hope you'll read some of my articles and let me know what you think.

I generally don't publish links sent to me, but in your case I'm making an exception. I haven't had time to read your blog thoroughly, but what I saw I liked!

hahahaha. honestly, you're friggin awesome, man. as an athiest myself it makes me delighted to see that you are allowing intellegent conversation to flow between all religious viewing peoples. maybe this world ain't dead afterall.

my mum is a christian and she knows i'm agnostic. but it still doesnt stop her from making me uncomfortable w/ her jesus-talk. i try to confront her about it, but it rarely works.

oh well. i'll take comfort in the fact that i get to choose her retirement home. and that i will be happily married to the women of my dreams in a matter of years.

you. me. coffee sometime, we'll chat it up. it'll be hot.

( dude, totaly jk. i love you though. you win. at life )

WALLAH!

OH AND I HAVE A QUESTION.

would you be a monkey with a tail, knowing that the other monkies would bite it?

...

yeeeah, i would too.

Thanks for the nice note!

Regarding your mother, I would suggest that you do what you can to not let her religious talk get to you. As a Christian, she may be worried that you'll be damned for eternity, so any religious pushiness on her part may just be a sign that she loves and is deeply concerned for you. Unless she's really getting on your nerves, I wouldn't worry about confronting her about it. And even in that case, I'd say the best thing you could probably do is live a life demonstrating that you can be moral, tolerant, and good without religion. Depending on your mother's specific religious beliefs, you might consider asking her if God would condemn you for doing what you think is right.

As for the monkey question -- if I have a tail, I have a tail. That other monkeys hate it doesn't change the truth of the matter.

Just wanted to thank you for your intelligent website about religion (and lack thereof.) I'm an 18 year old Atheist on my way to college next year trying to broaden my world views before I move away next year (Bay Area to Wisconsin is a big change :P) and I figured that there were bound to be intelligent websites about this kind of thing on the internet somewhere. I've had the Atheist/Agnostic section of StumbleUpon checked recently and all of the other pages I've seen are full of angry condemnations about how the other side is wasting their lives believing in false information, always accompanied by strings of insults from both sides in the comments. After getting linked to you "You are now an atheist" page I was afraid I'd ended up at another one. After entering your actual website I was pleasantly surprised to find the first intelligent religious website I'd seen. However, I already understand and agree with almost everything you've said, although you're much more patient than I'm usually able to be, something I'm doing my best to work on. I was wondering if there were any websites that you know of with similar content that argue the opposite viewpoint? I find arguments from the other side to be much more interesting and intellectually stimulating. Once again, I appreciate that you keep this website up and represent atheists in a positive light. Good luck with the website and everything else.

I agree that it's very valuable (and fun!) to read material from a viewpoint other than my own. I would go so far as to say that it's impossible to investigate your own beliefs with rigor without doing this.

There is a lot of good, neutral, information on a wide variety of religions at www.religioustolerance.org. It's a good resource for non-blathering religious info.

For pro-Christian arguments, I have found some good material at www.str.org and www.comereason.org. They both have podcasts as well. Obviously I don't agree with the conclusions of their arguments, but they often emphasize calm discussion and, so far as I've noticed, don't do any name calling.

And don't forget Wikipedia. It's a great place to find summaries of classic arguments for the existence of God (for example).

I hope you find these useful!

I am a little confused. The hate mail that you receive is supposed to be from "saved beings living in God's light." Do you sense the irony in their hostility?

Unfortunately, not often enough.

You've probably already answered this, but what is the best response for the tired argument that atheists can't possibly have any morals?

There are probably plenty of "snappy" answers to a statement like this, but I'll give you a more practical answer instead.

If someone said to me that atheists can't have any morals, I'd respond that I think atheists can be as moral as anyone else and then ask why the speaker disagrees. The response to the question will dictate how the conversation continues. For example:

1) If the speaker answers that all morality comes from God, then I would argue that this is not the case (which it pretty clearly isn't, but that's a whole other subject).

2) If the speaker answers that one cannot be moral without fear of divine punishment, I would ask if the speaker would be immoral if there was no fear of being caught. If the questioner says yes, I'd say that I think that's a pretty sad attitude.

3) If the speaker answers that morality can't be learned without religion, I would explain how I arrived at my morality without any assistance from religion.

There is no god.

Get over it.

You're an in-your-face atheist. Stop it.

Great website, but why don't you have any philosophical arguments against the existance of God, such as Plato's Euphythro Dilemma, J. S. Mill's argument against the First Cause, or any of Bertrand Russell's "Why I'm not a Christian speech"?

I don't have a collection of such things because there are already many Web sites that do a much better job of it than I could ever hope to. I hope to start dialogue, not to end it by point to an authority.

First of all, I thank you profusely for you well-structured and reasoned arguments, along with your (surprisingly) un-confrontational manner. It's a rare thing, and something I don't possess (however much I wish I did).

I'd like to point out a few of things that, as an agnostic, really annoy me, and get me quite riled up.

1) People that insist God does/does not exist. - I thought about this hard a long while ago, and came to a conclusion similar to yours (I think).

That is, I believe nobody can categorically *know* whether a God exists or not. Even if someone were to say 'I had a vision', and they had, in fact, had a vision where 'God' 'spoke' to them, it is logically impossible for them to be certain that it was not simply a hallucination.

And in a similar way, some strong atheists categorically state that God 'cannot' or 'does not' exist. How can they be sure? How can they be certain that God is not just there, not interfering? Although in the process of writing this down, it has occurred to me that perhaps this is simply a by-product of the old 'Can you ever be certain of anything' philosophical debate?

2) People who try to convert you through the 'fear of hellfire' route, then go on claim that the only way to salvation is through true belief.

If they succeed in making you believe in God, (on the grounds that if you didn t, you would burn in the fiery depths of hell for all eternity), then surely you are worshipping out of fear... And if you worship out of fear of the wrath of God, then who/where is this infinitely moral and Good being of which they spoke in the first place?!

3) People who claim that Atheists must be immoral.

Why, oh why do they even bother bringing up this argument? If all atheists are immoral, then surely everything an atheist does is immoral. Then why do we not all go around stealing from people, or laughing at disabled/impoverished people or kicking dogs? It's such a horrendous claim.


Now after all this, I think I should make clearer my beliefs. And yes, as an agnostic, I do have beliefs (or perhaps a better phrase would be 'hopes'). I hope that there is a God, really. But what I hope for more, is that he has nothing to do with this universe, or any religions in it, and is completely and utterly separate. Perhaps then when I met Him, I wouldn t have to ask 'Why do you let so much suffering occur?'. I also hope that he is at least half as reasonable as your average human. At least this way, he would let people into Heaven on the weight of how they have lived their lives, not who they worshipped and how many days a month they went to the church/synagogue/temple/mosque. And on the subject of heaven, I hope hell is reserved for the worst of the worst, i.e., truly evil people (Hitler, rapists, child abusers, etc). And I hope for a heaven, because it would be nice for it not just end at death.

If I am wrong about any of this, then I hope there is no God, because I wouldn't want to be part of a post-life system that wasn't like that, or meet the God behind a system that wasn t fair .

Thanks for running a great site.

Responding to a few of your points:

1) I don't mind people saying that God definitely does/does not exist so long as they have a reasonable reason for doing so. I would mildly disagree with the statement that nobody can categorically know whether God exists unless we are defining "know" to incorporate metaphysical truth. For example, do I know what my father looks like if I can't prove beyond all possible doubt that I'm not adopted? A person may "know" that they saw an angel in a vision, even though the rest of us might consider that person diluded.

As for the atheist side of the coin, I'd say that an atheist can only say that God does not exist insofar as it can be proven that it is not logically possible for such a being to exist. In my case, I don't claim to be able to prove that there are no deities, but I think I can argue effectively that certain descriptions of a deity are logically impossible. There are some people who say there is no God because they are using God specifically in the Judeo-Christian sense. I don't think that's intellectually rigorous.

2) I don't get that, either. I particularly don't see how "if you don't believe this you'll be punished" is any way to convince someone that something is true. Could you believe that all birds are enemy secret agents if not doing so would mean prison time? I couldn't, and if you could, I'd call you crazy.

3) Some people don't understand how you can have morality without fear of punishment. These people make me sad. I disagree that if someone is immoral then everything they do is immoral. In fact, their behavior could be quite moral, if only by accident (or evil design). It's the motivation, not the mechanical behavior, that makes one moral or immoral.

Your statement of personal beliefs really made me think. I tend to dislike "agnostic" as a label (because, in my opinion, it is too often used by atheists who don't want to be called atheists). However, I had never considered the case of a person who cannot prove that there is a god and therefore won't say that such a being exists but who hopes that there is a god. If I understand you correctly and this is what you mean, then I think that's kind of delightful, and I feel that calling yourself agnostic is appropriate. Good for you, and thank you for making me think.

You know? You rock!!!! I'm an atheist but a moral one...

What is your fucking problem? Richard Dawkins is creating his Out program to try and get people to accept atheism, and here is your petty little website arguing AGAINST atheists but you say you are an atheist.

We are at war with the theists! They want to bomb us back int othe dark ages and we can't let that happen. Either you are for us or you are against us. Swim in the same direction or get out of the fucking pool. I can't believe what a butthead moron you are if you don't see how what you are doing is setting atheists back fifty years.

I’m not here to promote atheism; I’m here to promote rational thinking. Rational thinking has lead me to atheism, but it may lead others to other conclusions. So long as they are thinking and behaving in a moral, rational manner, that’s fine with me.

I’m also not here to fight religious people. If there’s a war, it’s not over religion but over unintelligence and bigotry, and unfortunately it often cuts both ways. I certainly applaud efforts to encourage atheists to not hide their nature from their family and friends, but I don’t think Dawkins would want me to hide my philosophical beliefs just to be “one of the team.”

And watch your language. Cursing makes you sound like an idiot.

I have heard the "there is more than one type of atheist" argument before from people who appear desperate to get me into their demographic, but I have yet to hear a compelling argument for it. You are guilty of parsing on a bushian level when you characterize me as an "I see no reason to believe there is a god" atheist. There is another side to that coin, and if we're going to be honest we must also accept simultaneously that I can also be described as an "I see no reason to NOT believe there is a god" theist.

That makes me a theist and and an atheist simultaneously, and in the same universe, to boot. Irreconcilable contradictions like that give me a headache. Until we can resolve that one, I will stick with "C - None of the above".

Actually, I see lots of reasons to believe and not believe in the existence of a god, and taken as whole, both sides are equally compelling.

As Colbert would say, "moving on".

"I don't know" appears to be the most terrifying combination of three words in the English language. People will go to astounding lengths to avoid that little sentence. Instead, we come up with very erudite, deceptive ways of saying it. I think it may have something to do with the fact that most people don't understand the distinction between ignorance and stupidity, between not being aware of a particular fact and not being able to understand a particular fact.

I'm not sure why I ever thought this wasn't ready to send, sorry it took so long. I was probably going to take this into my rant about the irrelevance of the the existence/non-existence of a god. Ultimately, beneficial behavior is the same whether there is or is not a god. Of course that assumes that the god would be something like that posited by the Deists, not the small-minded, irrational god of the Old Testament who appears to like nothing more than working at cross-purposes to itself.

Behavior that is consistent with the nature of the Universe will be beneficial to the actor, regardless of the existence or non-existence of a god. Since the question is beyond the human mind to resolve and the answer is irrelevant, I can't see wasting much energy on it. I'll find out when I'm dead, or not.

So, I see the atheist obsession with clinging to the unprovable notion that there is not a god to be as foolish and as counter to the well being of humanity as the theist obsession to the contrary.

You'll be happy to know that I'm not "desperate to get you into my demographic." I don't consider "there is more than one type of atheist" to be an argument. Rather, it's a matter of definition. Some atheists believe there is no god essentially as a matter of faith, and some atheists don't believe there is a god because they see no evidence for such a being. Some people call these two philosophies strong atheism and weak atheism, but I don't care for those terms.

I don't see how you can be a "I see no reason to believe there is a god" atheist and a "I see no reason to NOT believe there is a god" theist (if that's what you are saying). The two modes of thought are inherently contradictory in that one cannot be simultaneously with and without religion.

"C- None of the above" is also fine for someone who finds arguments for theism and atheism equally compelling. If you are in that camp that's fine, but it makes you a rare fish indeed.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." But for me, because I don't see arguments for theism as even mildly compelling, "I don't know" would not be an appropriate answer when it comes to the question of whether or not there are deities. If someone asks me if a witch has ever magically flown on a broom, I'm going to go ahead and say no even though it's true that I can't prove it's never happened. The odds are just way, way too small.

I find your statement that beneficial behavior is the same whether there is or is not a god interesting. You're right that it really only applies to the god of Deism (or another equally detached deity), but in that case there effectively is no god so I'd say the argument is moot (like arguing that it doesn't matter whether you lie to Uncle Frank just so long as Uncle Frank is either imaginary or dead).

You say, "So, I see the atheist obsession with clinging to the unprovable notion that there is not a god to be as foolish and as counter to the well being of humanity as the theist obsession to the contrary." Then you should be happy that there are atheists like me that don't do that. In fact, I go a step further and say that atheists are much less likely to have a good reason to say that there definitely is no god than theists have of saying there definitely is one. At least that has been my experience.

I was looking at some of the email you receive on your site and post up. Of all the things you get the most though, nothing makes me more of a misanthrope then when people insist on attacking you personally for your beliefs. All you seem to want to do it instill a sense of questioning what we are told. Truth based upon logic as opposed to faith. I often try to have conversations with people of faith, Atheists, and all those that fall in between and a lot of people dodge talking about religion. One of the most open minded conversations I had was with a Catholic, they didn't damn me to hell or anything but they truely had the intent to listen to me as well as answer questions I had about their religion.

The thing that stands out most to me is an answer I got. I do not remember the question I posed to them but the answer was, "I don't know, I guess I never really thought about it." Thinking is one of the great things about being human, why would something so giant as religion just be a thing they do out of habit? Most of the other Atheists I know are really closed minded about their views though, which is a shame. I can't talk to them without getting a "LOL Religion sux." Unfortunatly most of the internet is the same way, just a giant flame war between those that believe, and those that don't.

To close I would like to ask you some questions. I know that you must have dealt with a good share of hateful or ignorant people, from both sides, have you found anyway that would make them more open minded towards each other? For the second questions I just want to hear your response to one of my favorite quotes by a greek philosopher, Epicurus.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

You are right that my big goal is to get people to think about their own beliefs. I don't even mind faith if there is logic behind it (which sounds like an oxymoron, but I don't think it is).

I agree with you when you are puzzled about people not thinking about some of the biggest questions of reality and morality. There are so many people who say they believe in God but then treat God like He's not that big a deal. I mean, I don't understand how a religious person can even consider breaking one of the Ten Commandments when they supposedly think that these rules were handed down by the creator of the universe, a being with the power to torture them forever if they are not deemed worthy.

I also agree that there are too many "flame warriors" and not enough "thought warriors." Atheists who thoughtlessly or rudely bash religion embarrass me to no end. I don't want to be associated with such people. Unfortunately, that's the only kind of atheist a lot of people see, and it makes my job a lot harder.

To answer your first question, the best way I've found to get people to treat each other better is to get them to see things from the other person's perspective. It's difficult and it's time consuming if you want to do it right, but it can work very well. I find that many people -- both atheists and theists -- have no idea how to think outside their own context. This is why you get religious people asking "Why don't you just try believing in God?" and atheists saying "How can you believe in something that makes no sense?"

My response to Epicurus would be, "Let's start by defining all those terms." When it comes to topics like this, I find that many people can discuss them endlessly without really stopping to think if they know what they're talking about. Try asking a theist what "good" means. You might be surprised at the variety of answers you get.

Howdy, I've been an atheist since I was a kid and am enjoying your site.

I'm surprised I haven't come across anything about Humanism, though, what do you think about it?

I'd say that my moral atheism philosophy is largely humanist. The main difference is that my philosophy is the result of a particular thought process, so although the results are generally in keeping with humanism, I wouldn't say that the core philosophy necessarily is.

Hey! Thanks for converting me. Since my convertion i have enjoyed life to its fullest, and i feel totally free. It's so super sweet that i almost puke just by thinking about it! I should link this to the pope, but i don't know his e-mail.

(your name here) :

Just occured to me that I don't know your name, back to basics, my name is Keane, you are? anyway, in no way was my message to you intended to condescend and insult you, and I apologize if it came off that way. Readdressing your points, maybe in a little different order :

1) I did take the time to go through your site, it was under comments where you rebutted to common points of conversation I guess you have heard alot. The responses im assuming (though I apparently assume wrong alot) were not serious and were not intelligent or insightful. I did read some of the blogs, which to your defense was intelligent.

2) Let me rephrase my questions for you: How do you believe the universe was formed? The "Big Bang" theory is most commonly accepted but what do you believe? I know evolution doesn't have to do with the formation of the universe, my points were unclear and jumbled.

3) Rephrasing yet again: Most atheists I have met mainly in person believe in the natural process of evolution. Do you?

4) Id like to focus on one thing at a time, right now I just want to understand what you believe, but my comment on evolution was that yes animals are genetically similar as well as appearance wise, but they have no been 100% DNA linked. I accept the theory of evolution on a more user friendly basis, I believe evolution occurs within species to help them adapt, but not that man evolved from gorilla's.

5) I just want to keep note of this, there are some real "theological" topics we could discuss, but thats for later.

6) Yes, I simplified it down alot, but then again thats what you get for not paying attention in highschool biology. Would you like to clarify for me from your point of view on this?

7) The bible comment was a joke, I guess somethings are only funny to the writer. Anyway I'm saying that the big bang producing over time a suitable place to live is coincidence (correct me if im wrong) and that the chances of that production are very slim.

8) The tilt of the earth's axis comment was to show the incredible odds of chance creating earth. The tilt of the earth is always the same, something like 23.5 but the earth changes in relation to the sun, not its axis. Again thats highschool biology for me.

I'm surprised by the fact that you responded in kind and I thank you for that. Most people on the internet now-a-days like to come back with insults. My comments to you were not arguements or for that matter challenges, they were comments and questions in which I wanted to understand your point of view on the formation of the universe, God and evolution. We could sit here and debate evolution forever to no result; its still a theory and one that hasn't been proven. So no, the purpose of my letter was not to challenge you with one liner arguements but to understand where you are coming from. Again I do apologize if my letter offended you, that was no its purpose what so ever. "The gross ignorance that they reflect," my kindergarten teacher used to say, "never judge a book by its cover", maybe that will apply here and you will realize im not as ignorant as you have assumed.

carpe aeternitas

1) You're right that the responses page is not meant to be intelligent or insightful. It's a joke.

2) Some version of the Big Bang seems to make the most sense, based on our current knowledge.

3) Evolution also makes sense to me. We still have a lot to learn about the details, though.

4) I'm not sure what you mean when you say that animals "have not been 100% DNA linked." We've found quite a bit of similarity in the DNA of humans and chimps, for example. It sounds to me like you believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution. Would that be correct?

6) I think we have a lot more options to explore before we have to resort to invoking the supernatural. To me, the supernatural should be a last resort.

7) The Big Bang producing a place like Earth is, in a sense, a coincidence and mathematically unlikely. It is possible that the chances of the Big Bang resulting in at least one place were life could form may be very high, though. I don't think we know enough at this point to answer the question.

I'm happy to discuss topics like these at great length, whether or not we solve anything.

As an aside, statements like "evolution is a theory that hasn't been proven" bug me a bit. Scientific theories, pretty much by definition, are never proven, but evolution is one of the best-substantiated theories we have.

Glad to hear you aren't as ignorant as I assumed <G>.

Hello again, and sorry it took so long to respond. I finally have a little bit of free time and would like to begin stating my case for you. I figured that a good place to start would be with the Intelligent Design vs. Naturalism debate. Please note though, that before I begin, I am not trying to say I can outrightly prove the existance of God, or completely disprove macro-evolution. If I could, I'd be famous. Realistically, in purely scientific forms (which is what the basis of this debate should be laid on) both Intelligent design and naturalism are theories. I've been irritated enough by people claiming that evolution is fact, and just as irritated by supposed theologists claiming that they have complete, 100% un-deniable proof of the existance of God. My goal here is to provide evidence based on fact, to present a logical case, then have you make the most rational decision based on it. Anyway, lets begin.

The Intelligent Design "philosophy" basically states that we (scientific community) has been able to trace the history of the universe back to the beginning of time to when it was made. Most people have a very generalized idea of this as the "Big Bang." In 1916, Albert Einstein first uncovered the concept of the expanding universe from calculations derived from his Theory of General Relativity. Actually, for him this was a big problem. The popular scientific viewpoint of the day was that the universe was eternal- had existed forever and will continue to exist forever. The problem Einstein had, was that if General Relativity was true and the universe was expanding, it implied that the universe had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, first of all, the "eternal universe" theory could not be correct, and second of all, it meant that it had to be made. Einstein disliked this concept so much, that he actually deliberately sabotaged his equation, adding what was known as a cosmological constant, which altered the outcome to what he wanted it to be, as opposed to what it was. In 1919, cosmologist Arthur Eddington (a theological skeptic himself) conducted an experiment during a solar eclipse, and reached the same conclusion Einstein had about General Relativity- The universe was indeed expanding. Like Einstein, Eddington wasn't happy with the implications of the expanding universe either, and was even quoted as saying, "I should like to find a genuine loophole [around General Relativity]." In 1922, Alexander Friedmann (a mathematician) had uncovered Einsteins deliberate error he had placed in his equions for GR (general relativity). And in 1927, Edwin Hubble actually first observed the universe expanding (via telescope of course). In 1929, Einstein (using Hubble's telescope) also witnessed the expansion of the universe, and admitted his error in deliberately and falsely changing the outcome of his Theory of General Relativity. Today, the Theory of GR has been proven accurate to 5 decimal places.

Now comes the fun part. Why does the expanding universe matter? Well, the scientific law of Causality states that everything that has a beginning (has come to be) has a cause (and in case you don't know, a scientific law is called a law b/c it is known to be true in all cases. Period. No exceptions). Thus, since the universe is expanding and therefore must have a beginning to it, we can deduct:

1- Everything that has a beginning (has come to be) must have a cause (Law of Causality)

2-The universe has a beginning

3- Therefore, the universe must have had a cause.

Now, some people may argue that the expanding universe doesn't mean it had a beginning, and up until the Theory of GR, atheists were perfectly comfortable with the "Eternal Universe" theory, as that would imply that the universe never needed to begin, and thus did not need anything to make it begin (to cause it). Unfortunately for atheists, scientists can now prove beyond reasonable doubt that the universe did have a beginning (A.k.a The Big Bang). There are 5 major supportive peices of scientific evidence for the big bang:

First, is the second law of thermodynamics (the study of matter and energy), which states that everything in the universe as we know it (including the universe itself) is running out of usable energy. Essentially that means that eventually the universe will run out of gas (like a car). So why does that mean the universe had a beginning? The answer is the first law of Thermodynamics, which states that the total amount of eneergy in the universe is constant. Now, if theres a constant amount of energy ( No matter how huge that constant amount might be) that can be used (usefully), that means that it would be impossible for the universe to be eternal- if there is a limited amount of fuel, it would be impossible for it to run forever, so to speak. Another hugely important thing the second law of thermodynamics (also known as the law of Entropy) brings to the table, is that over time, nature brings disorder. Everything wears down over time. Even our bodies, as we get older, lose more energy and become more disordered (thus, we cannot live forever). The fact that there is still usable energy in the universe, and that the universe still has order to it, tells us that the only way it could not violate the laws of thermodynamics, would be that it did indeed begin at some point, and is not eternal.

The second large peice of scientific evidence for the Big Bang theory, is the expansion of the universe. As mentioned earlier, Edwin Hubble was the first person to actually be able to watch the expansion of the universe via his telescope. The expansion if very important, as it provided scientists a way to calculate how fast it is expanding, and among many other things, matematically calculate where the expansion started, how long ago it happened, and the size of which everything exploded out of. Several different sources I've read from indicate that calculations determine that the initial point that the Big Bang occured from was nearly infinitely small. Also, it has been concluded (look it up if you don't believe me) that the Big Bang brought all matter, dimension and even time into existance. Before the big bang, there was literally nothing. Not even time existed. This brings up an interesting dilema for arguing atheists. If nothing had existed before the big bang, where did the big bang come from? As I mentioned before about the law of Causality, anything that happens needs a cause. So what caused the Big Bang? This is a huge problem for atheists, as they can find no rational explaination for it. Self-proclaimed atheist and scientist Peter Atkins once proposed during a scientific/theological debate that perhaps the big bang was caused by a swirling dust of mathematical points that recombined over and over again until finally, by trial and error (and pure luck of course) happened to create the outcome of the big bang. Unfortunately for him, before the big bang, matter, mathematics, time, and the laws of physics as we know them did not exist, thus it was impossible for that to happen. This is where theology, from a scientific standpoint, makes more sense. If the universe must have had a cause, and there was nothing at all the cause it, how did it come to be? The notion that an all-powerful, all-intelligent, eternal God that has existed before time itself (keeping in mind that time didnt exist until the big bang occured) actually created the universe out of nothing makes more sense than anything else. (Interestingly enough, the original Hebrew verb 'bara' used in Genesis 1:1 of the Bible literally translates "Created out of nothing" which matches exactly the theory of God causing the Big bang. This same verb was used 7 times throughout the Old Testament of the Bible to describe how God created the universe out of literally nothing. Also note that there are 11 verses by 5 different authors of the OT, that state God is literally stretching out the heavens, which is also consistent with the notion of the expanding universe). Some people may argue that even if God did cause the big bang, what caused (created) God. Unfortunately, the law of causality doesnt really apply to God, as the law states that all things that have a beginning (COME TO BE) need a cause. As stated by the Bible, God never came to be. God has always existed. He is eternal, the alpha and omega. If God never "came to be" (as the Bible states) the law of causality doesn't apply to him. No beginning = no cause. The eternal God, who created our laws of time and physics (and thus, is also not subject to them) is actually the most rational explaination for the cause of the Big Bang.

Our third major scientific peice of data supporting the Big Bang is what is called "Cosmic Background Radiation." Basically, knowing what scientists already did about the universe (its expansion, age, etc) they were able to determine that if everything in existance had essentially exploded out of a nearly inifitely small point, there would be signs of it via heat energy. Think of a bomb; When they detonate, they generate a huge amount of heat. Same concept here. Actually, Cosmic Background Radiation was first discovered by accident in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson (which ended up winning them Nobel Prizes). The CBR they detected was literally the afterglow of the initial heat from the Big Bang. (Due to the absolute immense size of the universe, everything, including light and heat, takes a great deal of time to travel from one place to another. Although this gets very complicated, its also very fascinating. Essentially, its actually possible to see into the past in the universe b/c of the amount of time it takes for light to reach us from another point in space). This was huge, b/c as early as 2 decades earlier, scientists had calculated that, if the big bang did occur, they would be able to detect such radiation. This basically laid to rest any still-existing theories on the universe being eternal, as and eternal universe would have no explaination for the heat (no cause), and b/c the heat detected had exactly the same wavelengths and pattern that scientists predicted they would based on the Big Bang theory.

The fourth peice of evidence rides on the third one. With the knowledge now of cosmic background radiation, astrophysicists theorized that in able to form galaxies, slight ripples and variations in CBR would be necessary (had to do with the gravitational attraction of matter). In 1989, NASA launched a $200 million dollar satellite called the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) to find signs of this CBR fluctuations. In 1992, the results were released and very good (even referred to as the Holy Grail of cosmology). The COBE not only detected the ripples in CBR, but scientists found that the measured CBR fluctuations were nearly identical to their predictions. The kind of accuracy that doesnt come from luck. Being able to calculate something that precisely is a very good indication that your theory is correct. The findings also dictated that the explosion and expansion of the universe is so finely tweaked, as to matter to congregate to form galaxies, but not so much that universe would collapse back on itself. One slight variation one way or another, and life as we know it would not exist. This finding was so important, Stephen Hawking called it "The most important discovery of the century, if not of all time," and George Smoot (leader of the COBE expedition) referred to the ripples as "Fingerprints of the maker."

Finally, the fifth supporting peice of evidence for the Big Bang is Einsteinds Theory of General Relativity. From this, it was found that time, space and matter are all interdependent- you cannot have one without the other. Because of the theory of GR, scientists were able to calculate the universe's expansion, the CBR, and even the very exact ripples in CBR necessary for galaxy formation.

With the overwhelming amount of data in support of the Big Bang theory, other theories for the universe (I.e the universe is eternal, and the rebounding universe, which i didnt talk about) were basically disregarded by nearly every credible scientist. That isnt to say that every scientist in the world believes the big bang, but some people will believe whatever they want, dispite evidence and support. As i discussed earlier, the Big Bang is hugely important to theology, as when it comes to how everything in existance as we know it was created out of nothing, aethiestic science has no answers. Even before we talk about Darwinsim and evolution, aethiests have no explaination for how everything came into existance in the first place. In this case, the idea of God is actually not so absurd. To be realistic, to this day, any type theory for how the universe came to be, outside the creator, takes more faith to believe in than the premise of a God that created it all. Basically the choices are random, naturalistic causes (despite the fact that before the big bang, laws of physics, nature, matter, and even time itself did not exist) or that a supremely intelligent being created everything we know today, from absolutely nothing whatsoever (confirming the Bible's claim. Also, on that note, according to several different sources I've read from, the Bible by far gives a more accurate account for the original creation than any other 'holy' scripture)

Anyway, I know that was a great deal to read, so despite having a lot more evidence to give you (over many other topics), I'll stop for now. I'm honestly not trying to bore you (obviously I love this kind of stuff, despite not being a scientist of any sort myself) but rather, want to provide you with information you probably haven't heard yet. Also, I just touched the tip of the iceberg. The majority of the info I gave you came from two great books, "The Creator and the Cosmos" by Dr. Hugh Ross, and "I dont' have enough faith to be an atheist" by Norman L Geisler and Frank Turek. Both of these books I feel provide a great deal of information on the subject matter, and several others. I need to go for now, but I hope I do hear back from you (even if it is with challenges or questions) and I definitely have more info to share with ya. Thanks for reading, talk to you soon. Take care.

To start, you mention being irritated by people who claim that evolution is a fact when it is a theory. I think you'll find that, although evolution must be called a theory for reasons of scientific vocabulary, most knowledgeable scientists consider it to be a fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, does not appear to be falsifiable (at least not in any version of it I've encountered), and is therefore not even a scientific theory.

I believe you may be incorrect in your characterizations of Einstein's reasons for introducing a cosmological constant. As I understand it, he introduced it because gravity needed to be countered if the universe was to be in a steady state (as opposed to contracting), and gave up the constant when it was shown the universe was expanding. He was not worried that, if the universe had a beginning it would imply that the universe "had to be made." In fact, I can't think of anything in General Relativity that would lead to an expanding universe if there were no cosmological constant.

You might want to double check Eddington's quote about finding a loophole. I believe he was talking about the Big Bang, not General Relativity.

I also think Einstein's insertion of the constant shouldn't be characterized as a "deliberate error" or "falsely changing the outcome" of his theory. Rather, it was introduced to make his equations mesh with (what was then) observed fact, and when observations proved it unnecessary, Einstein admitted he made a "blunder." That's just the progress of science. (You also don't mention that some current theories of cosmology have reintroduced the constant.)

I am not familiar with a scientific law of causality as you describe it. I know that, in relativistic terms, any effect must be within the light cone of its cause. Is this what you are referring to? If not, then would you consider virtual particle pairs to have a cause? If you would, then I think we're good to go.

I think your discussion of thermodynamics has a few lumps in it as well. For example, the second law of thermodynamics does not imply that we lose energy as we get older. Our bodies are not closed systems so the second law does not apply. This is not a significant point, however.

You make a major mistake, I think, when you say, "Also, it has been concluded (look it up if you don't believe me) that the Big Bang brought all matter, dimension and even time into existence. Before the big bang, there was literally nothing. Not even time existed." I believe a more correct statement would be that "nothing in the observable universe existed before the Big Bang." I don't see how we can make any statements about what existed before the Big Bang since there is no way to get information from before the event. For all we know, the Big Bank took place in some unfortunate person's living room.

"What caused the Big Bang" isn't as big a problem for atheists as you might expect. Physics has a number of possible solutions. It is certainly a problem that is still being worked on, however.

Before we continue, let's step back a moment and look at how you are arguing. You keep repeating that scientists say nothing came before the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing that could have caused it. Even if your statement was correct (and I contend that it is not), why are you so sure that these scientists are right when they say there was nothing before the Big Bang? The simplest solution to the whole dilemma is that anyone who says nothing -- not time, not matter, not energy, but nothing -- existed before the Big Bang is just plain wrong. I'd say that the likelihood of this statement being incorrect is much higher than the likelihood of a universe-creating being existing, wouldn't you?

Back to your argument. I'm going to skip over the Bible citations, because they are really not relevant to the point (since we're not discussing the accuracy of scripture at the moment). You say that the law of causality does not apply to God because he never came to be. Well, there are at least two alternatives to God in this situation: 1) an uncaused universe -- for example, one in which there is an infinite series of Big Bang-type events, and 2) the Big Bang is an exception to the law of causality. Either of these, to me, is more likely than the existence of a universe-creating being. I also have to ask, if we can apply the concept of never having been created to something, isn't it simpler to apply it to reality (which we know exists) than to God (which we have not yet proven exists)?

You continue to spend a lot of time giving evidence that the Big Bang occurred. This gives me the impression that you think the Big Bang is some kind of problem for atheists. Actually, I can't think of a single atheist I've met or spoken to who does not believe that the Big Bang occurred. The only people I've met who disbelieve in the Big Bang were young-earth creationists, and they certainly don't need to be convinced that God exists. Just thought I'd mention it because you're expending quite a bit of energy on something that I'm not likely to disagree with.

You say that, "when it comes to how everything in existence as we know it was created out of nothing, atheistic science has no answers." This is just plain not true. Stephen Hawking has been quoted more than once saying that physics does not require God (although he also -- correctly -- points out that physics does not preclude God), and there are many theories of how the universe may have come to be that do not require God.

I appreciate your taking the time to write. The Cosmological argument isn't anything I haven't come across before, but it is entertaining to discuss and I liked hearing your version of it. I look forward to your next letter.

is it just me or does religion seem to contradict its self? for example my friend recently told me that his pastor and pastors daughter were in a car accident and seemingly he forgot I was atheist and asked me to put them in my prayers. just for the sake of argument i asked him why god would punish two people who serve him so loyaly. he replied that it was all part of gods plan. so if there is a predetrmined plan that cannot be changed why would prayers help anything at all. just seeing if im the only one with that doesnt get that.

I've heard lots of explanations, but frankly it doesn't make sense to me, either. Perhaps one of my religious readers will chime in with an explanation.

I feel that the non-acceptance of atheism is primarily human laziness to confront uncertainty, ambiguity, &c. So it becomes a miracle when a person survives a disaster and other victims received no miracle. It is nice and tidy, requiring no bothersome exploration of 'Why?'. You concentrate on the wonderment of the 'miracle' to deny the hideous unfairness of life. Atheists contemplate this inexplicable happening but religionists let themselves off the hook saying it's god's will or some other trite expression.

Someone once said the sign of neurosis is an otherwise smart person behaving stupidly. It is both parallel and cogent to religious inanities.

I take what might be less critical view of the situation. I think many people prefer religion to atheism because they prefer having answers to being comfortable with not always knowing. Atheists have to accept the fact that sometimes things just happen -- babies die; jerks win the lottery -- for no purpose. Some people just can't do that.

For this reason, I disagree when you say religious people don't need a "Why". They already have one.

I also would not equate religion with neurosis as you do. It seems unnecessarily inflammatory.

you should put some multimedia sounds when people stumble upon this website to go along with announcement of their conversion , say trumpets being sounds for eg; or thunderclaps or sound of rapture (not sure I spelt it correctly not very knowledgeable in that) hilarious keep it up!

I thought about doing such a thing, but then decided against freaking out people who were viewing the site at work.

Dear I Am An:

Thank you for your thoughtful and even-handed response. Perhaps you would like to read this and run it on your site.

[Thoughtful essay follows]

Unfortunately, I have a policy of not publishing essays (or links to essays) on my blog or site (for a variety of reasons, one of which is I get so many of them and they are very time consuming to respond to).

I will, however, break my rule a tiny bit and quote a few sentences. One of the points in your essay seemed to be that we shouldn't worry about God destroying the universe, "Because, after all, how can a Creator of beautiful works of art (us and this planet, the solar system and the universe) also be a destroyer of his own beautiful works of art? It isn't freaking logical. Who among us destroys our work, especially our artwork and craftsmanship, in whatever we do, when we have painstakingly and lovingly created it?"

To which I answer, perhaps God is a Buddhist?

I noticed in your atheist rights and responsibilities, you list "Don't be greedy". I would argue that being greedy is not morally incorrect. In fact, I would argue that greed is a natural and society improving human process.

Laissez-faire capitalism is a system in which individuals produce goods and services that they trade with one another based on mutual consent, not on the use of force or fraud.

Ayn Rand emphasized that businessmen at their best will first and foremost love their work and the challenge of creating products and services that earn them profits. If that's greed, it s to be praised! Rand also singled out for condemnation businessmen who seek money by any means, including fraud, or government handouts and special favors. If that s greed, it's to be damned!

This passage (to me) clearly states why greed is good. There is both a moral and immoral way to use greed to be "successfully" in life.

One may be greedy and wish to have as much money as possible. In achieving this, he creates a life saving device which will never break, wear out and costs only a few dollars. Everyone buys one and the man reaches his goal.

Conversely, another man may be greedy and wish to have as much money as possible. In achieving this, he defrauds his customers into giving their bank account information and steals as much money as possible. He achieves his goal as well.

While achieving the same outcome, the means by which they were achieved is vastly different. Most people would call the first man a hero and the second, a crook, though both were greedy.

My point is that if we all lived morally (who's morals is another argument) greed could be seen as a natural and society improving human process. An atheistic society does not have to reject greed as evil (Rands philosophy is clearly atheistic while honoring greed), but, more simply, it should reject the moral systems in which greed is used immorally.

**For simplicities sake (it is now 4:30am), portions of my passage where copy/pasted from [freerepublic.com URL]

In the context of my Rights and Responsibilities page, I consider greed to be striving for personal gain without consideration of moral consequences. Running a rival out of business by selling a better product is fine. Running a rival out of business by spreading malicious rumors is not.

By the way, I'm posting your note to my blog with a bit of hesitation. As a great believer in copyright preservation, it worries me that parts of your message might have been copied from a source to which you do not have rights. However, I can't tell where your text ends and the copied text begins and I consider your message worth sharing, so I'm going ahead and putting it up. (But, to those readers whose notes I've skipped because they were not original, don't take this as setting a precedent).

Hello, My mum and I were 'stumbling' and saw this and read a few blogs, she gave you "props" as she calls it (she tries to be cool) and thinks that this is a very "niffty" site. About this whole "You are now an atheist" thing, can I tell my priest this? I truly dislike him and cause his to puff up and turn beat red about weekly. And I thought to ask your permission before telling him I was condemn to hell, by the internet (he hates computers and there devilish ways. So if you could send me an answer?

Feel free to pass the fact of your unwilling conversion along to your priest. While you're at it, invite him to write to me with his thoughts.

Oh, and props to your mom. I think she's nifty, too!

May I suggest that you add Professor Richard Dawkins to your Web pages. Especially his latest publication"The God delusion". This covers so much and to me answers all the objections, if read with an open mind

I don't always completely agree with Dawkins, but I do think he has done many good things for atheism. If I add a list of recommended reading to the site, I'll certainly include his work.

Hello again, nice to hear from you. First of all, I apologize for my stereotype of you as an atheist not caring about what the Bible says. Admittedly, I was surprised to hear you have read it several times (which, if true, is more than I've read the entire Bible), but my comment was referring more towards the typical Christian rebuttal towards atheism by quoting scripture. I just realize how useless it is to counter someones argument with a quote from something they don't consider to hold any validity. To be honest with you, it is a pet peeve of mine with other Christians. An atheist does not really care if Christ loves them, as they do not believe in him as the Son of God in the first place. Anyway, forgive me for my assumption about youre interest in the Bible. Apparently I was wrong.

This being said though, if you don't mind, I am very interested in your viewpoint on God in general (and yes, I mean the God of the bible. As a Christian, it would be absurd for me to argue for the existance of any other). I realize that may seem a silly question to ask an atheist, but at the same time, youre response about caring for what the Bible has to say definitely threw me a bit. If you dont mind, I'm just curious about what you make of everything.

Anyway though, Im very much looking foreward to discussing some evidence and such with you and possibly showing something you've never considered before. Actually though, I was writing to let you know that I'm actually quite busy these days (career, planning a wedding, etc...) and although I'm excited about talking to you, I may be somewhat slow in my responses. I just don't want you to think I blew you off. Meanwhile, I do need to go, but will be in touch with you soon hopefully about my logical debates for Jesus Christ and the God of the Bible. Thanks for your time, I'll email you again.

I think that it is perfectly valid to quote the Bible -- even to a non-believer -- in the right context. For example, if you are trying to show me what a Christian believes, then quoting the Bible makes perfect sense. As a small show of my interest in things Biblical, you might want to visit one of my older Web sites, www.gospelsinparallel.com.

Regarding God, my opinion is that most people don't really have a good, working definition of Him. For example, they will say things like "God is good" but are unable to say what that means in a rigorous way. That makes it difficult to discuss the topic. As for God as depicted in the Bible, His behavior (particularly in the Old Testament) is difficult for me to reconcile with how most religious people describe him. In the New Testament, Jesus is easier to understand, although I question the example he sets at some times (such as when he curses the fig tree).

I look forward to hearing from you again, particularly if you have any arguments that I have not encountered before. Don't worry about taking your time -- as frequent readers of this blog know, I'm often very slow to respond myself.

Hey,

I would like to congratulate you on a great blog. I was amazed at some of the responses you've had.

I'd like to say thanks for creating this site. I'm sure pastafarians all over the world would love to be apart of it.

Keep it real, Sojio

Hmmm... "IAmAPastafarian.com"... Not a bad idea!

Hey there, nice site you've got here.

I've read a lot of the comments you've received and I have some questions to ask you.

1. You seem like one of the small percentage of atheists that are really ready to attack a Christian on sight. I may be wrong, but let me ask you this. Why do some atheists have to be so elitist about their beliefs? Wouldn't it be more prudent to consider religious ideals rather then simply attack a ravage it? Let me clarify; I, like you, was raised Roman Catholic, the only difference is that I embrace my beliefs. Nothing against you, if Atheism makes you happy, then more power to you.
Let me clarify one more thing, I do not in an context consider Christianity and Catholicism the same religion. What's the point of being strung in with a religion that detests you? Anyway back on topic. Theism beliefs, and even I shall admit this, seem asinine. But how much more sense does a "random expansion" of todays universe sound? In my opinion not much better then the idea of God. Natural Selection (evolution) isn't a very fitting idea for our creation as well. What of the large unknown hole in it? The missing link? Or the fact that we seems to know the exact shape and size of our "ancestors" simply by have in ones possession a jawbone of an ancient human. I'm just saying the theory of evolution is as far-fetched as religion, and I find, personally, that a creator would be more accurate.

2. What is with bashing Catholics and Christians 90% of the time? I mean there are 100+ beliefs out there, and not once have I seen an atheist try to debug those. Take the Wiccan religion for example. They're beliefs deny ANY rational belief in modern physics, that even we embrace. Or what about Jediism? Yes, that IS a religion. Maybe more or less a set of beliefs; but one cannot deny the fact of this being seriously flawed. I'm not saying our are any better, but still. Or how about the Islamic religion? Elitist and deadly, they kill over their beliefs. and I'm pretty sure that Catholics have come farther then the Crusades and the tenuous pact we had with the Protestants during the witch trials. I'm just throwing the fact out there, that atheist attack Catholic/Christians, and a sometimes Hebrew beliefs, more then others.

3. This is the last question for now. But how can atheist be so proud of what they believe in when they are such a vast minority? Really, I mean no offense, science has come a long way and is very helpful. But Atheism makes up roughly 1.5% of the earths population. (Normally it's stated 2.5%, but that figure includes Agnostics.) I'm just stating my personal opinion, that is atheism were convincing people, that that number would be higher. That number has remained constant for 30 years now, and no change is in sight. Mainly do to the theory that most atheists covert to a religion after the age of 60.

Thank you reading my comment, and I hope to hear back from you soon. Thank you.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have!

1. I'm not an "attack religion on sight" atheist. I also don't much care for philosophical or religious idealists of any kind. I agree that considering religious ideals and ways of thinking is more important than trying to "win" an argument through rhetorical attack. An aside -- I'm not atheist because it makes me happy; I'm atheist largely because I have no choice in the matter.

What do you mean when you say you don't consider Catholicism and Christianity to be the same religion? Isn't that like saying you don't consider the sun a star?

I don't agree that religious beliefs seem asinine (at least not all of them). Some make perfect sense within their context. As for evolution, I don't think "the missing link" and extrapolation from partial fossils are really a problem, and I consider any explanation that fits within the laws of science to be more likely than one that requires the supernatural. But I will say you are confusing me at this point. Didn't you say that you have embraced Roman Catholicism? If so, then why do you have a problem with evolution when the Pope doesn't?

2. I don't intend to "bash" any religion. I will, however, give my opinion of religious issues presented to me, and the vast majority of people who approach me on this subject are Christians. Now about Jediism being a religion -- are there really any people who seriously practice it (as opposed to just putting it down on British survey forms)? Just curious.

3. You ask how atheists can be proud of their beliefs when there are so few of them. Well, I'm proud to be me, and there's only one of me. If you want to look at numbers, I'm in an even smaller minority than you indicated. There are many atheists out there that I wish the word "atheist" was not associated with. But then again, there are many religious people who I would like to have at my side when we are counted. I don't consider a rising number of atheists to be a victory condition in my campaign for better thinking.

You say, "most atheists covert to a religion after the age of 60." Can you tell me where you got this statistic? I am not familiar with it. In any case, I don't feel it has any impact on the validity of my beliefs -- for example, if more people near death use alternative medicine, that does not make mainstream medicine any less effective.

Thanks for writing!