I Am An Atheist

2008-02-19T22:18:00.001-08:00

This blog has permanently moved to a new location:

www.iamanatheist.com/blog

Please change those bookmarks -- thanks!

2007-09-16T14:11:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-16T14:09:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-16T13:37:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-16T13:36:00.000-07:00

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

Satin?

2007-09-16T13:32:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-16T13:28:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-16T13:19:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-09-16T13:13:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-09-16T13:10:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-09-16T12:55:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-16T12:53:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-09-13T20:11:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-09-12T22:22:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-09-12T22:18:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-09-12T22:17:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-09-12T22:16:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T22:13:00.000-07:00

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

"God crap"? Sheesh!

2007-09-12T22:12:00.000-07:00

"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.

2007-09-12T22:11:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T22:10:00.001-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T22:08:00.001-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T22:04:00.001-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T21:58:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-09-12T21:56:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T21:51:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-09-12T21:50:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T21:49:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T21:48:00.000-07:00

There is no god.

Get over it.

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

2007-09-12T21:46:00.002-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T21:46:00.001-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T21:33:00.001-07:00

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

2007-09-12T21:25:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T21:24:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T21:21:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T21:20:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T21:18:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T21:15:00.000-07:00

(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>.

2007-09-12T21:12:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T21:11:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T21:09:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T21:06:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T21:04:00.000-07:00

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?

2007-09-12T21:01:00.000-07:00

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).

2007-09-12T20:45:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-09-12T20:44:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T20:42:00.000-07:00

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.

2007-09-12T20:41:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-09-07T11:49:00.001-07:00

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!

2007-09-05T16:01:00.002-07:00

i'm an atheist myself too and was always stumped by the ignorance and sheer stupidity some christians i know displayed. saying how i'm alive is proof of god's existence, my mother raised me catholic until i was about 8 years old, then she said now you're old enough to make up your own mind about religion. and i still respect her very much. even though she is a "believer" herself, she's not a person to try and convert other people. i have a few "believers" in my group of friends and one of them always tries to convince me to join the good side. and actually thinking she can scare me with threats of eternal damnation, i don't believe in it so i'm not scared of it. when you'r dead you're dead, that's it. what also sticks out in my view is that parents of children(or atleast older believers) are always so angry at atheists, i once almost got beaten up by the father of my girlfriend because i said i didn't believe in god. i mean, if you believe in god that's fine, whatever makes you happy, but don't try and punish me for what YOU think is wrong. i don't see any harm in not believing in god.

believing in god would be virtually impossible for me since i want proof before i believe in something. which is then no longer a belief becaus you KNOW it's true. for instance the bible, an entire religion, hundreds of millions of followers, all entirely based on a book. for all we know we'll be believing in harry potter in 2000 years. i'm not denying that jesus never existed, he may have existed, but that he would've had magical god-like powers, i sincerely doubt that.

people without the resolution to investigate things on how they work need an explanation for all the things that they don't understand. that's why i think there's is something like the bible.

this has become quite a long e-mail :P to colse it i would like to say that i find your site hilarious and defininitely can see that there is a great deal of sarcasm as wel as a sincere protest against religion all on it's own. keep up the good work!

I am constantly amazed and appalled by the violent reactions some people have to atheism -- it's a subject that comes up in this blog far too often. There are some atheists who react this way to religion, but (in my experience) not nearly as many.

I agree with you that it would be impossible to believe in God without proof. I've had people ask why I don't "at least try" to believe in God, and I don't even know what that means. How do you "try" to believe something is true (or not)?

I love the subject of the origin of the Bible. It is an interesting and layered book with a complex history. Some of it is very obviously the result of a need for explanatory mythology (Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, etc.), and some is obviously there to justify various laws and traditions. I agree with you that nothing magical is necessary to explain its resistance.

I'm hoping I'm not around for the world based on Harry Potter, though!

2007-09-05T16:01:00.001-07:00

It's good to see that you can come up with defenses to "arguments" for God that actually have no substance to them. I wonder though how you would defend your atheistic position when faced with overwhelming evidence for the existance of God. Not every Christian relies on statements like, "Jesus loves you so you should love him too," and "But the Bible says so..." as "proof" of God's existance. Even as a Christian myself I realize how absurd statements like these are to someone who does not believe in God whatsoever. If you don't believe in God,and thus the Bible as the word of God, I know that you could care less about what the Bible says. However,if you are actually interested in a factual based argument for the existance of God I would be more than happy to have a logical discussion with you. Let me know if you want to take a shot at a real debate. Thanks.

The simple answer is that if I were faced with overwhelming evidence for the existence of God I wouldn't defend my atheistic position. I do not have faith in atheism, so I will no defend it if it can be shown to be wrong.

You are incorrect when you say that I "could care less about what the Bible says." I am, in fact, very interested in the Bible. It is an important cultural and religious document, and I have read it several times.

I am definitely interested in hearing what you have to say about the existence of God. (I'm assuming you mean the God of the Bible -- let me know if you mean something else, like a prime mover.)

2007-09-05T15:59:00.002-07:00

I consider myself agnostic, which i suppose is a rather more impressive way of saying that i sit on the metaphorical fence, as far as the existence of a god goes. At the naive age of sixteen, i was keen to try and pinpoint my position on the issue, and find an official, more specific label for my belief. However i have recently come to the conclusion that this was a foolish endeavour, seeing as my exact views were unlikely to be represented by any such label, and any attempt to find an appropriate label could result in altering my beliefs so that they fit into a neat pigeonhole. Now at the highly enlightened age of seventeen, i am instead keen to form my own opinions and theories without having to identity myself to any sort of organisation. One such theory was formulated whilst Walking home from school, following a heated debate with a local vicar, during which he proclaimed that god is perfect, and I presented evidence to the contrary (not hard) thus giving him the metaphorical rope he needed to tie himself into knots. The theory: That there was a god (or energy. This presence transferred its energies into creating the universe. This presence as a result became less and less as the universe was created, and thus we have the situation today, with no god or 'presence'. And hence the christian idea that god is part of us (at least i think it was a christian idea) Looking back, it was a hastiy drawn up theory, with several holes, but i felt the need to share it with you (maybe i was called by god to share it....? or maybe not.) Ps your Arguments against section is hilarious...and bears a hell of a lot of truths.

Thanks for reading

The idea that God's energies were expended creating the universe is a bit like Deism (which many of America's founding fathers were followers of). I have also read some religious theorists who believe that all religions are just different interpretations of experiences of the divine, and therefore all incorrect although they have divine inspiration. This idea might mesh with your theory as well.

By the way, if you have the time, I'd be interested to hear more about your discussion with the vicar. Namely, what was your evidence that God is not perfect? I'd like to know if you are a good debater or if the vicar was just a bad one <G>.

2007-09-05T15:59:00.001-07:00

i am an telephone

2007-09-05T15:58:00.002-07:00

You know suicide might be a good alternative to harassing people on the internet. maybe you should consider it?

2007-09-05T15:58:00.001-07:00

Hi!

Nice site you got there... It is good to raise questions about life's big questions :) and humor is an excellent way to deal with them.

I read some of your blog posts, and I have to say that you really are courage and strong for going on after all those threats, and not even take it personally... :) Just keep it up.

ps. sorry if I made too many spelling and grammatic errors, but english isn't my native language.

2007-09-05T15:57:00.001-07:00

Hey there, I love your site!!! I hope you're still maintaining it. It cracked me up to no end when I found it one day and I've showed as many people as I can. Most folks laugh (probably because I'm discerning about who I show it to...).

Here's an idea I had as I was reading your informative articles and correspondence: how many of the people who have contributed to the debate on this have lived in a country that was not primarily Christian?

I was raised Christian and then during high school I felt the "calling" and went off the deep end (in hindsight), then in college I was a missionary of the nth degree. I was trying to convert anyone I came into contact with until I had a near-conversion experience: I fell in love. And the object of my affection wasn't Christian. Suddenly things were different, especially the way my Christian friends treated me! I started examining my feelings and thoughts. It was crazy! My friends said I was going to hell, that I wasn't the same person they knew, that Jesus was the only thing that made us friends so we could no longer maintain a relationship. I dropped out of the Christian group, I moved out of my dorm room, I continued to date the non-Christian, and I was in depression and denial! Luckily I graduated soon after that and was able to take a step away from the situation.

Basically, up to this point, I was acting on emotion, as you've pointed out in your site. I was emotional as a Christian and I was emotional in my denial of my faith. You know what I did? I moved to Japan. I went over to teach English and to escape my situation, and I've never made a better move in my life!

While there, I was able to see a nation of people who do good things for each other because they just do, without any hocus pocus about an afterlife (granted, there are societal pressures, but that's in the here and now and it's very tangible). I've also seen people do some pretty shitty things, but that too was calculated and they had to deal with it instead of claiming forgiveness and redemption from a deity. I think I was in the exact right place in my life at exactly the right time for me because I was able to look at things rationally, make educated decisions about my life and my faith. Granted, I was still concerned about going to hell if I didn't believe in Jesus and claim him as my personal savior, but one day all that residual guilt melted away. How? I read a poem one day in a classroom.

It was a Buddhist poem actually, written by a Japanese monk named Mitsuo Aida. One poem, very short, more like art really, not even a haiku, just said: "you see beauty reflected in your beautiful heart" (my translation. It's really: anata no kokoro ga kirei da kara nan demo kirei ni mieru n da na). I had been so bitter up till that point and was projecting that bitterness on the world around me, when all along it was my heart. If I could "clean up" my heart, I could be happy and see the world as a better place. This was my first step to my true conversion experience.

Then I read a book. A beautiful book by a beautiful man: Bertrand Russell. He wrote many books about happiness and thinking and having a full life. The one I read that was so helpful was called "Why I'm not a christian" which is admittedly an inflammatory title. But it was a title of one lecture he gave among this compilation of lectures and vignettes. In it he refuted Christianity in ways that spoke so strongly to me, finally freeing me from my chains of guilt and fear.

After years I was free! Now I could start being mean to people and then regretting it and apologizing for my bad behavior. I could be nice just because I wanted to not because anyone told me I had to. I could appreciate people for who they were and circumstances for what they were instead of constantly trying to "see God" in things and attribute to him the goodness in the world around me.

I've since returned to America (with a Japanese spouse of all things!) where we're happy to be atheists and paying our taxes and living our lives. I'm so thankful for my time out of my comfort zone in a place where I could see people living their lives and paying their taxes -- without a single mention of Christianity.

Incidentally, my spouse says I should tell people I'm now Buddhist since I "married into" that religion. I've thought about it, but it would be more for reactions than anything, especially to get my relatives off my case about not going to church.

I guess my point in all of this is that I think a lot more people need to go to other places and recognize the good in the differences. Everyone does not want to be like the West, everyone does not need to be capitalist or socialist or communist. We can coexist, but we need to first understand and respect the differences in the world.

Since becoming an atheist, I think I have more faith in humanity than I used to when I had faith in a god. Now I look to people to be good and kind in situations that demand social justice, as a teacher I want my students to learn virtues that are universal and not dependent on any one religion. Faith in humanity not in god, that seems to be my new motto.

Thanks for your time and thanks so much for your website! It's fabulous to have "community" among atheists, it's the biggest thing I miss about Christianity. Thank you thank you thank you.

What an excellent letter. I appreciate your sharing your journey with me and my readers.

I think one important point here is that humanity is better thought of as "we" than of "us and them." Your Christian friends caused you needless harm when they made you an outsider, and did no good for their own cause.

I think it's interesting that your spouse suggests you call yourself Buddhist. If you're an atheist, I wouldn't (even though it's technically true) because it could lead people to incorrect conclusions about your beliefs. I can certainly understand wanting to get relatives "off your case," though!

By the way, I am also a great fan of Bertrand Russell. He was my first big atheist-philosophy read and had quite an impact.

2007-09-05T15:56:00.002-07:00

I find it ironic, upon visiting this site for the first time, that a post by a christian upon seeing their child as 'questioning the faith' forced upon them since birth, coming to your site as being what they see as child abuse, when it is clearly child abuse to bring up a child to NOT question, and to put their 'faith' and ideas and brain in the hands of a sky fairy with 'all the answers, don't question why, it is a bad thing to question ..' .. I dunno really what to say, other than religion is the most common form of child abuse occuring in the world today.

If their 'god' was a true god, I don't see how (or why) it would say "I prefer someone to follow a book everyone else does, from fear, and condemn anyone for thinking I might not exist, irrespective of whether they do 'good' or 'bad'". You would think a god would have more respect for someone using their 'god-given brain' to think for themselves and be 'good' on their own merit, than through any fear of an afterlife ...

.. you would think that with an all powerful being, able to see the beginning and the end, and everything that will occur before creation even happens, not only choose to condemn a section of those beings to everlasting damnation, but in fact created evil to start with. ..

I could go on, I'll stop there, good on you for a great site.

I, too, have trouble understanding why God would want unthinking obedience. It strikes me as kind of sad.

2007-09-05T15:56:00.001-07:00

Even though I'm an atheist, i find the IAmAnAtheist.com website a bit offensive. I mean, no one should have the right to say to anyone whether or not he/she is an atheist, or a christian, or a pastafarian. I know it's supposed to be funny but still, it struck a minor chord (ha ha lol, geddit? minor chord?? lol). Also, I disagree with your second atheistic right / responsibility. The word "worship" has more than one meaning, one of which is "To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion" (from thefreedictionary.com - a very good site). So perhaps a little rewording would be nice, yes?

I also want to say, W00t ATHEISM! GO ATHEISTS! ATHEISTS ROCK! I AM AN ATHEIST! Atheism gives me all kinds of perks! Like ... Working on Sundays, and the Ability to Learn EVERYTHING through Experience! MOre FREEDOM! YEEEAAH!!! w00t w00t ... YeeaahH!! And, if I was a weak atheist, I could go closer to 'God" as I experience life and the nature of things. Yup .. I Love being an atheist. I am PROUD to be an atheist! I feel that I even have a special bond with the true nature of things. Whenever I think of myself as an atheist, I smile with satisfaction! And I just wanted to say that because I've never done so before. ^_^

I agree that the site might be minorly offensive if one took it too seriously. However, I feel it's clear enough that it's a joke.

The wording of Right and Responsibility #2 is meant to parallel the second of the 10 Commandments, so I feel I'm kind of stuck with it. I feel that, in context, it's meaning is reasonably clear.

Regarding your final paragraph -- please set it to music and send us an MP3. Thanks!

2007-09-05T15:55:00.002-07:00

The Flying Spagetti Monster, blessed be his noodles, will not be pleased at my documented doubting of him.

2007-09-05T15:55:00.001-07:00

How do we deal with infinity and awareness?

Thank you for this website which helps us persevere in our quest for truth and structure our thoughts about god, the purpose of life and all those things which might lead us to feel totally at a loss...Unless one adheres slavishly to some "revealed" religion

I'd like to contribute to the debate but I must apologize for my English, my first language is French.

In one of the conversations published on this website you state the following: "I don't say that god doesn't exist. I say that I see no compelling reason to believe that god exists. If significant evidence appears that there is a god, I'll change my mind."

It is therefore significant evidence of god's existence that would constitute for you a compelling reason to believe that there is a god. I share this view:- I do not feel I would need conclusive evidence to find a good reason to believe in god, significant evidence would be enough.

Now I'd like to submit to you two largely accepted facts which in my view might constitute that type of evidence which would give you reasons to believe i.e. to think that it would be reasonable to assert that there is a god in view of such significant evidence.

Those two facts are consciousness and infinity. The universe is infinite, or potentially infinite, this is something which science has accepted; it is infinite in time, space and size. And man is so equipped as to be aware not only of his finite existence but also of the infinite nature of the universe he lives in. This in my view explains the human production of deities and religions: men look for a truth and a meaning which transcend their existence because although ridiculously small at the scale of the universe, men have the capacity to grasp its infinite wideness and tremendous forces. Men are therefore able to scrutinize the infinity and interrogate their mind as to what is behind this wonder.

From the above facts 2 hypotheses can be formulated:- 1)Consciousness is an accident of biological evolution, a part and a product of men's physiology; the universe itself is therefore deprived of any awareness it is an empty thing , an infinite emptiness, unaware of its own existence, forces and subtle balance; in fact the existence of the universe took form and meaning only through the accidental apparition, within itself, of men's physiological capacity to perceive it; OR

2) Awareness is an essential component of the universe and men are the children of the universe: men's consciousness and intelligence are a part and product of the intelligence which impregnates the universe. Men's physiology does not produce awareness but is a receptacle of this component of the universe which is awareness; an awareness which exists independently from humankind.

I feel it is reasonable to make a choice between those two hypotheses which logically stem from irrefutable facts and prefer to believe in the second one.

This is an interesting question (although I believe it presents somewhat of a false dichotomy).

My feeling would be that option #2 is uncompelling. I see no reason why awareness and intelligence need be more than the sum of our parts. I also do not see any evidence that the universe itself has awareness or intelligence.

Even so, I could not refute option #2 in that (so far as I can see) it makes no testable predictions. I also imagine that believing it might bring some level of comfort, so I see no harm.

Thanks for writing!

2007-09-05T07:49:00.001-07:00

1. Your blog is a series of sophomoric comments. Are you trying to attract people to atheism or repel them?

2. Your comment about atheism resulting in fewer wars (i.e. killings) than religion is certainly not backed up by the last 100 years of history.

Your coreligionists in the old Soviet Union killed over 15 million people. Your coreligionist Mao Tse Tung's killed millions more. We can add your coreligionists Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler et al.

Your corelgionists are a major driving force for abortions worldwide which average about 22 million a year.

For wars and killings we theists are pikers compared to you guys. Given the Stalinist nature of you guys, I'm sure you've just gotten started.

3. Atheism is illogical. According to your religion, chance and time produce everything.

Chance is probability. Chance is not a force, chance has no power in and of itself. Chance effectively is nothing.

Time is change within the three universal dimensions. It also is nothing within itself.

Therefore, NOTHING produces EVERYTHING. Great religion dude! How inspiring!

4. Our existence means that the eternal exists. Atheists, like yourself therefore have to (if they have the ability to think coherently) believe that the universe is eternal.

The universe we actually observe appears to have a beginning (big bang), be running down (2nd law of thermodynamics), and have been designed for us to exist (numerous physical constants like the strong force, weak force et al).

Your coreligionists, in order to avoid a creator God, which they cannot see, believe

a. In a "multiverse" they cannot see, nor can they ever observe. b. In "dark matter" which supposed- ly constitutes over 80% of all matter, which they have never seen, and which, remarkably if it really does constitute over 80% of all matter, has never been observed in or around the solar system or between the solar system and the galactic center 30,000 light years away. c. In dark energy, which wasn't "known" 10 years ago, but now supposedly constitutes 73% of the universe. d. In evolution as "fact", "fact" "fact", even though observed changes in genetic material over time almost always are detriment- al (consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics)and observed mutation rates in astronomically numerous, short lived micro- organisms preclude Darwinian evolution much above the genus level in any way except by front loading (i.e. Directed Evo!) among complex organisms.

So unlike us superstitious theists, you atheists believe in universes you can't see, matter you can't see, energy you can't see, and miraculous positive creative mutations no one has ever seen either.

I know I'm only a superstitious theist, but I'm skeptical that your religion has any validity.

Ciao baby!

1. Sophomoric comments? I'm going to hope that you are confusing the comments of some of my less thoughtful readers with my own. If not, then I hope you can give me an example of where in my blog I am being "sophomoric".

2. I don't say that atheism results in fewer wars, but I would say that fewer wars have been fought for atheism than for theism. In fact, I can't think of a single war motivated by atheism. Atheists are certainly not all Stalinists. As for Hitler being an atheist -- give me a break.

3. Atheism is (by definition) not a religion. Your statement that atheists believe that "chance and time produce everything" is incorrect and therefore your refutation of that statement would be irrelevant even if it weren't filled with logical fallicies.

4. Both religious and atheist people must believe that eternity exists. You gain nothing from this statement. You are right about the universe having a beginning and having increasing entropy, but you are wrong about it having been apparently designed for us.

a. There are many theories of the universe that do not include a multiverse (as I understand the term).

b.-c. Dark matter, dark energy, and such things are theoretical constructs used to describe the motion of bodies in space and the expansion of the universe. Theists need something to describe these motions as much as atheists do (unless they attribute all motion to God's action). This is still a new area of science, but over the last year it is believed that dark matter has actually been observed. In any case, neither of these are articles of faith among atheists, and it's not a major disaster if they are later proven not to exist.

d. Note the "almost" in your first statement. Your second statement is, if I understand what you're saying, just plain wrong.

Of the four things you close by saying that atheists believe in, it's interesting to note that a great many scientifically minded theists also believe in at least the possibility of three of them.

I hasten to point out to my readers that, despite your letter, I don't think that all religious people are as pompous, self-important, and bigoted as you. And as for your last statement -- I have no religion, so you are correct that my religion has no validity. At least you got that right.

2007-09-05T07:47:00.000-07:00

The most important passage from the Bible that I know of is as follows: "I don't wanna be a pinhead no more" "I don't wanna be a pinhead no more" "I just met a nurse I could really go for" Elasticians 4:11

-----

Although you may be right about the whole being no God thing, I still believe in letting these people have their religions. Some people need things to believe in and many of the organizations do good for the community. I myself have not decided but believe that if there is a God than he would take me being a good person enough and as long as you are a good person I think that is plenty. But some people need a reason and that reason is their GOD. So lay off the Christians, Arabs or whatever and let them be happy in their religion.

I agree that religion is good for some people. I wouldn't tell anyone that they have to give up their religion. All I ask is that they liven an examined life and make sure that their beliefs make sense and do no harm.

2007-09-04T16:16:00.000-07:00

I am an agnostic, for the time being, and trying to convince myself to go atheist. the problem is I was raised Christian (and not just the practice-easter-egg-hunts type of Christian- I went to a Christian school, my dad was an elder, and I held a high place in my youth group...) and am having a hard time "quitting", as it were. My church is still the closest thing I have to an extended family, and my immediate family is still Christian (and not thrilled about my denouncement of God). I live in the Bible belt, where praying before lunch is common, even at school, and being Godless is a bit like not listening to music. My point is, I am immersed in Christianity. Even though I cannot think about God as real, I find myself actively participating in praise and worship, and youth group type activities. My question is should I stop? Can I call myself an atheist, and still like christian rock?

You can be an atheist and enjoy activities with your Christian friends. You can be an atheist and still like Christian rock (for the record, my favorite modern musical is Jesus Christ Superstar if that counts). But, I'd say that as a moral atheist, what you can't do is be deceptive about it. You can respectfully lower your eyes while others pray before a meal, but don't lead a religious prayer.

If there's a group that's exclusively for Christians, you should ideally either not participate or ask for permission to participate (perhaps they will let you participate in the hope that your mind will be changed). But, particularly because you are young and in a difficult position, I wouldn't demand this of you. I would suggest that you answer honestly and politely when asked about your beliefs.

Being the only atheist around stinks big time. I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't. But remember, you may be the only atheist these people know, so you have an opportunity to teach them that there's nothing evil or immoral or in-your-face about atheism. You might also try looking around online for atheist groups, or perhaps even other atheists in your area. Nobody likes being alone.

Best of luck.

2007-09-04T16:15:00.000-07:00

Hey i think the work you do here is astounding and (excuse the language) if so many pompous bastards hate you and blindly insult your beliefs, why do you sit back and welcome it. If i were in your position I most likely would have let my temper get the better of me. Reading a number of comments from concerned parents is quite amusing as I too when questioning my conditioned beliefs was scalded. Eventually it was that torment that lead to me seeing what I belive today that there is in fact no God, though statistically possible i can't believe it because of lack of proof. I would appreciate it very much if (needing to edit this comment if necessary) to post it on your page so that these concerned parents can see with luck that if they want there children to stay in a particular faith they should let them live there life there way, if there child chooses to progress to a better life then so be it . They are hardly able to condemn there own child, if there so devout then they can't judge because of there own faith.(again sorry for the profane language and biased opinion, but as no doubt you know we are all entitled to our own opinion)

The hate mail generally doesn't bother me. I think it says much about the writer and nothing about me.

As for parents, I can understand that a religious parent would honestly fear for the soul of their child. But there are good ways and bad ways of trying to protect that soul.

2007-09-04T16:14:00.002-07:00

I "stumbled" into this page using stumbleupon and was rather amused by the contents despite my Christian beliefs. I appreciate your attempt to knock down Christianity as far as possible, but would like to request that you understand it before commenting upon it. Christianity IS inherently exclusive - nobody is going to argue that with you and no amount of smart-aleck responses on your web page will stop that fact. The nice thing is that it is exclusive to everyone who chooses to be exclusive to it. There are no requirements except existence - all one has to do is join. Christians do not believe that Atheism is wrong for any reason other than that they believe that Christianity is correct. If you wish to debate that, by all means go for it, but I sincerely hope you've read enough books to make a case. You have my e-mail: I wish you the best of luck in evading ignorance. If you know something I don't know I would be glad to discuss it with you.

I'm not attempting to knock down Christianity. Rather, I'm attempting to knock down a certain group of particularly annoying (and, often, willfully ignorant) Christians.

When you say that "Christians do not believe that Atheism is wrong for any reason other than that they believe that Christianity is correct," I think you may be speaking over-broadly. There are many Christians who believe that being a non-Christian theist is better than being an atheist, or who think that atheists can't have morality because they are godless.

You are right that Christianity has an "inclusive exclusive" thing going for it, and some brands of Christianity believe you can get to Heaven even if you are not Christian.

As for having done research, I was brought up Catholic, I've read various translations of the Bible, and I have 100+ books on the Bible and religion in my home library. I'm no expert in religion, but for an atheist I think I know my way around pretty well.

2007-09-04T16:14:00.001-07:00

Hello

I stumbled upon your site and was pleasantly surprised to find out that I actually was what I had assumed myself to be this whole time, a no good stinking atheist.

I would like to point out something to you that you may or may not know about and you can actually apply them to almost all of the "Arguments Against" page. They are called Logical Fallacies. Like I said, maybe you have heard of them, but if you'd like to know more, let me know. Or just Google "Logical Fallacies".

These apply to most of the arguments we get about religious viewpoint.

"You can't prove God doesn't exist, so therefore he does exist" is called the appeal to ignorance. Basically, we do not win arguments by default. There are over 100 Logical Fallacies.

But anyway, perhaps it will help you on your journey through debunking silly claims that Christians will inevitably come up with.

I've read a great deal about logical fallacies over the years, but think they are outside the scope of the non-blog portion of this site. There are plenty of good resources for these on the Web already (such as Wikipedia).

It's amazing how unfamiliar many people are with these -- even the more obvious ones. We'd all do well to become more familiar with them.

2007-09-04T16:13:00.001-07:00

the moral atheist rights and responsibilities is as dogmatic as any religion. If you have made a choice to follow those things then good for you but you have no justification for presenting them as absolute rules or even as a consistent philosophy. such a list relies on absolutism but with no god all morals are relative. to take the classic example: if a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family is this wrong? according to your list it is because -your list implies - stealing is wrong independant of context and he's broken one of the responsibilities. i would argue that in fact such an act to stop the suffering of his children was not only ethically acceptable but if he had the oppurtunity to take the bread and didn't then his inaction would be the morally reprehensible act. Also there seems to be choices that not only ignore ethic's relativity but just reflect your (and societies) prejudices. 'be polite' is an obvious example but also the 'don't cheat on your significant other' - if there's no god then theres nothing innately wrong with cheating except for the bonds of trust you betray. in that case what you mean is 'don't violate bonds of trust' which you already sorta covered with don't lie. again though this is all relative: what if a man is married with young children and the marriage is suffering due to the wife witholding the goods in the bedroom? an unhappy relationship would lead to an unhappy home which would be detrimental to the happiness of both the adults and the children. now what if he can get his jollies elsewhere and so keep harmony in the family with his wife in blissful ignorance not having to fend off unwelcome advances all the time? isnt it a compelling arguement that this is an ethically acceptable - even preferable - route? in this case it is only the getting caught cheating which is wrong please dont take this as an attack on atheism or moral atheism which is where my own theistic beliefs lie, but all dogma rankles with me. the site seems a commendable attempt to underline the stupidness of the idea atheism is undesirable because people can't be moral without god. but perhaps what we should be underlining is the absurdity of the idea we should keep up a lie such as religion, merely for the purpose of social control.

You're making some assumptions here. First, you are missing the point of the list, which is to compare religious and non-religious morality (much of which is the same). And second, you are assuming that the items on the list are literal absolutes, which those familiar with such lists of rules know is not the case (for example, almost nobody thinks that "Thou shall not kill" in the Ten Commandments means you must be a vegetarian).

I disagree that "be polite" reflects societal prejudice or ignores ethical relativity. I don't know of any society in which it is okay not to be polite, and I don't imply that you shouldn't be polite in another culture's context.

But where you really make what I would consider to be a gigantic misstep is in your discussion of not cheating on your significant other. You point out that this is largely covered by "don't lie," and I agree, but that doesn't make it incorrect. As for your example of a man cheating on his wife because she is "withholding the goods in the bedroom" being okay because it leads to a happier marriage, that seems to me to be on incredibly shaky moral grounds (to say the least). To say that "only getting caught" is wrong makes no sense to me because you can't make a moral decision not to get caught, and "but I tried not to get caught" is not, in anyone's book, a good excuse for having an extramarital affair.

Similarly, if a woman were sleeping around because her husband was (ahem) insufficient in some way would you consider that moral? I assume so, but this is just the top of an incredibly slippery slope. It also ignores the fact that by "fooling around" you can involve your spouse in other unwanted issues (such as the potential for diseases and children) without their consent.

If a couple has marital problems, you need to work them out, even if it means agreeing to an open marriage or some such thing. You're not going to convince me that extramarital affairs are done for the good of the family.

2007-09-04T16:12:00.002-07:00

You do a good job of keeping emotions to a minimum here, it gives you more credibility... very nice. I just wanted to shoot a quick comment for you/others to consider:

all existence - current knowledge = spirituality

I would argue: The "spiritual" is just as scientific as physics... in fact it is part of physics. Just because at the moment we aren't capable of seeing it that way doesn't mean it isn't so.

Consider sound: Sounds were considered completely independent from physical forces until the discovery air particle movement in wave form.

Consider prayer: Although I don't know the statitics on successful praying it seems logical to attribute those successes to mental ability changing the environment rather to God's ear. We aren't aware of the forces our minds are capable of at this point... at least not in a measurable/scientific way. Although that might seem a stretch for lots of people.... theistic attribution is just a bit more of one.

The universe is science... spirituality is science.... God is a label for the yet to be understood.... because we will never know everything the label will always be there... "God" will never die.

I agree that, in an explanatory sense, "God" is often used as a synonym for "I don't know." Even so, I wouldn't go as far as you do with the concept since there is a great deal we don't know that could meaningfully be classified as spiritual, and very little classified as spiritual that's really as mysterious as some people believe.

I do think you can get a "spiritual-type" feeling from the wonder of the world all around us, though, and I encourage such feelings.

2007-09-04T16:12:00.001-07:00

First off I'd like to say that I am Ashiest, but one thing that bothers me about your site is that you claim that you will send this information to my mother. Firstly, this bothers me because I strongly support keeping ones faith personal (if my mom is Christian why provoke that? what difference does it make?) and secondly it makes Atheism seem aggressive to newcomers. So I guess my question is why do you chose this approach?

I chose this approach because, frankly, it's ridiculous and therefore might generate conversation. It's also a bit of a parody of those who say that "all you need to do is believe" to be religious. Seriously, if you can freely choose what you believe about deities, that's weird to me.

2007-09-04T16:11:00.002-07:00

First off, brilliant website. Your responses, posts, everything shows that it has work put into it as well as thought, something I feel religion could use. Your idea to post hate mail is very good. They are humorous and show the ignorant side of Christianity, although that is NOT the only side of Christianity there is.

I am currently picking out a religion, Googlism seems to fit the bill just right for me. I would seriously be considered an atheist, but I'm sick of people like those who send you hate mail annoying me about being godless. Hearing, "You're going to hell!" over and over is rather annoying. It saddens me that, like most of the people responding to your site to complain, don't challenge my belief with anything other than "You're gay if you don't believe what I believe." So, I'm going to play devil's advocate (ironic, innit?)

1. The Cosmological Argument Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Since an infinite can't exist, and the universe is supposedly a beginningless series of events (which is an infinite), the universe must have been created by something or one. So, God could have created the universe.

2. The complexity of life. Not so much the beauty.. there are plenty of ugly complex things too. Our DNA strand is so long and so almost perfect. We can't even begin to talk about the brain without getting stuck somewhere, it's that complex. How can we have such complex things without a supreme being make us that way? Note that he could, probably, make us this complex at the snap of a finger, seeing how he could be so superior to us.

3. Miracles & Weird stuff Birth, specifically. The heart just starts beating, why? God could've made it start! And how about death? When we die, we lose a bit of weight. How do you explain that?! Huh!? HUH!!? (Sorry, had to)

4. Belief (honest debate) If all people believe in God, could that make him exist? If everyone believed that the sky was in fact red, then darn it, the sky is red. So, if everyone believed that God was real and existed, wouldn't that make him real? Now, let's shrink this down to one person. If I (for example) believed God was real, truly believed, then wouldn't he be real in my reality, which is all that matters? You can do this with a lot of things. To me, the sky could be red, if I truly believed that, then the sky was red, in my reality. I think you can't really prove that God doesn't exist in anywhere other than your own reality. It is like seeing something. You see it, but no one else does. Something is usually wrong with you, but there is something there, in your reality. I could also believe that 1=2. It wouldn't be true in other people's realities, but in mine, it would. It's a whole matter of perspective and your belief.

Thanks, keep up the good work. Don't let the close minded get to you, though you seem to be far better at that than I am. Enjoy and I look forward to a response, if not, I'll still read the site and laugh my butt off at the hate mail!

Quick answers to your arguments (with lengthier ones available if you deem them necessary).

1. If everything must have a cause then God must have a cause. If God can be uncaused, then the universe can be uncaused.

2. DNA isn't close to perfect -- there's a lot of junk in there. Natural processes are completely capable of making complex things, they just need a lot of time. And our DNA looks more like something thrown together and sifted through over time than it does like something painstakingly designed.

3. The beating of the heart doesn't seem that mysterious to me. It's part of biological development. As for losing a bit of weight at death, is that even true? I'm skeptical.

4. I've always contended that personal revelation is a legitimate proof for the existence of God, but that it is I uncompelling to others. Your argument #4 says essentially this.

And finally, when people say "You're going to Hell" how about answering, "Okay! See you later!"

2007-09-04T16:11:00.001-07:00

you cant say were athiests unless we say it

Can't I? Please?

2007-09-04T16:10:00.000-07:00

Great site - I have been an atheist from quite a young age. When I was a school we had to go to church every day - 10 years of it! But - being open minded I listened and listened for a couple of years and studied the other options available. I came to the conclusion that I had never heard such a load of contradictary, self satisfied unquestioning lunacy from any other area in life. Recently I read a book by the British biologist Richard Dawkins - 'The God Delusion' He is concise and funny about his arguments about 'God' and religion. However what struck me most was his accounts of religious people attacking him for his belief/arguments. I can see here also on this site what can only be described as completely mad rantings against you. And the way they treat their children! If for any other purpose I made my children kneel and mutter utter nonsense even for minutes a day I reckon they would be taken away from me - even the FSM. This is really a form of mass insanity or brain washing! Until now I have been content to leave religious individuals to their delusions - my reasoning - if it makes them happy then leave them to it. But what I see happening in the world is just getting more an more scary, most of it is centered around religion (or religion is used as an excuse). What can I do? What can any of us do! By nature we atheists are reasonable intelligent people - can we make the religious listen?

I wouldn't say that all religious people have delusions (most are, from my perspective, merely incorrect). I do agree, though, that religion is being used as an excuse or motivation for ills that range from annoying to truly horrifying and that something should be done about it.

I think that one of the biggest mistakes the United States made during the cold war was trying to position itself as a religious nation, putting God onto our money and into our slogans. This gives justification to mixing religion with politics, and gives our enemies in the Middle East the excuse to say that we are Christians attacking Islam instead of a nation fighting terrorism.

Mixing religion with politics is never a good idea, particularly when it's a matter of mixing a system that condemns investigation with a system that does not want to be investigated.

We can't get rid of religion, and I'm not even sure that's a worthwhile goal (at least in the short term). But what we can do is a) fight to get religion out of politics, and b) encourage everyone, religious or not, to be reasonable, intelligent people. If we could do that, then I'd say the battle was won.

2007-09-04T16:09:00.002-07:00

Sorry for the spelling mistakes. Its late here. Just wanted to let you know that I love your site. I am agnostic. Because I was raised by my parents and they took me to church. I can't do the whole bible god thing. But its hard to pull away from what my parents and church have taught me. But there is no proof to it at all and it is all faith based. I came to that realization when I was 9. But there is no evidence proving that there is a god. From what I have read on the net there is more evidence for evoluiton than there is god. And my dad told me that if I prayed that god would help me to belive. Well beliving my father I prayed. And guess what nothing happend. I am still an agnostic but I am leaning towards atheist. Again I really like your site. Please keep up the good work and best regards to you.

2007-09-04T16:09:00.001-07:00

intresting website you have set up, the most informational about atheism ive seen so far. Im curious, what made you become an athiest? for me simply running into your site made me realise how silly the idea of a almingty entity is.

The answer to "Why did I become an atheist?" is "Because I thought about religion." That comes off as kind of flip, but it's essentially the truth.

I did have a number of experiences during my journey from Christian to atheist that were very formative, but none of them is "the" reason. I had moments of realization that stand out in particular in my mind, and I used to give these as the reason for my change of thought but no longer do so because of how religious people handled the information.

The fact is that my atheism was not the result of a single incident, but the culmination of years of investigation, research, discussion, and thought. To say any less would feel like belittling the experience.

2007-09-04T16:08:00.000-07:00

Some random thoughts not sure if they are worth posting.

We went to the zoo with the kids again this spring, spent hours marveling at all the incredible animals. I love the zoo. Biology, evolution, eco systems, etc right there in front of your face. I know we shouldn't have the animals in cages, but that's a whole other debate. How can someone be eye-to-eye with a primate and not see it for themselves?

My teenager has started to ask questions, according to a classmate she's going to go to hell because we don't attend church. Kids sure start to emulate their parents early don't they ?! sigh I give her full marks though; she's already developed the confidence to understand quacks that spout that nonsense can't be taken seriously. She doesn't give it a second thought. She's also begun to ask the interesting questions : how did we evolve? , is there a god? , is there a heaven and hell? , is there other life in the universe? . I tell her it's something she will have to decide for herself when she is older. Read about it, use your reason, and question what you read. As a parent, it's tough watch them grapple with this stuff without adding my two cents worth of sarcasm I m doing a good job of keeping my opinions to myself though. My son is already a science guy, I m predicting he will figure it out for himself fairly early.

Thanks for the humorous website, some of the responses you receive are just plain frightening though. I mean, how dare you express an opinion that conflicts with someone's faith ! Isn't it tragic that the postings by those that consider themselves (I assume) to be the most dedicated to their peaceful religion are the most intimidating and violent in nature. I can just feel their hate and disdain for me and my family. It's so nice to know that there are people out there that would literally like to burn/kill me for not sharing their beliefs. Ironically I think I hold myself to a higher moral standard than the fanatics that want to burn me for not believing in their god. I do feel bad for kids that grow up in homes where they are punished for disobeying a god, Jesus, the lord, the bible, etc. It is total insanity. When will people ever be able to get past this delusional thinking? Seems like they are incapable of considering anything that could contradict the myths they ve b een taught in a church. It's going to take generations to get past this.

BTW, what's with all the postings calling you a faggot and stuff ? Is that some kind of supreme insult within religious groups ? It seems juvenile at best to me.

Raising an atheist child in a (mostly) theistic environment can be a challenge. I personally take a bit of a different tact with my offspring than you do. When my child asks about God, Heaven, Santa, or any such thing, I go ahead and say that I don't believe they exist but that some people believe they do (and we shouldn't look down on them for their belief). I also encourage my child to question everything, even me.

I don't tell my child he can make up his mind later because I don't feel that the two sides of the issue are anything close to equal. For me, saying that there is a decision to be made would be implying that there is some kind of controversy, and in my mind there really isn't. If he questions my viewpoint or has other ideas later in life, that's fine.

For example, I tell my child about evolution and don't attempt to balance it with creationism so that he can choose for himself at a later date. We've discussed creationism so he knows it's out there, and he sometimes asks questions about it, but that's it.

I know a lot of atheists who walk the "I'll let them decide" path, and I know some families with mixed-religion parents who do the same thing. I don't want you to think that I'm condemning your parenting methods, but I think it's interesting that we are so different on the subject.

Thanks for writing.

2007-09-04T16:07:00.000-07:00

I noticed your atheistic rights and responsibilities. I don't actually see any rights, but only responsibilities. Anyway, I'm curious why I should obey any of those? Because YOU think I should? What exactly are the long-term consequences if I fail to adhere to all of those responsibilities.

Now you say "Remember, theists may condemn you for living by this code because you are doing it of your own free will instead of because you're afraid that if you don't a supreme being will set you on fire." Who will condemn me for living exactly opposite to this code? Atheists? So what? Theists? So what?

What are the long-term consequences if you don't adhere to the code? People won't like you. Who will condemn you? Society.

If you want to live opposite to this code go ahead, but do it somewhere far away from civilization.

2007-09-04T16:06:00.002-07:00

I have been reading through the comments posted on this site, and I must say, I was rather amused. I agree whole-heartedly with what I have read from you (note that I have not read everything, leaving room for error) and the only thing I see wrong with this site, is the people taking offence. Especially that mother who punished her child, which is sad... knowledge doesn't equate to Godlessness, it just means she accepts there may be alternatives. That 15 year old girl should be commended, not punished.

I wish you all the best, and hope more can learn to laugh about themselves, and more importantly, their beliefs.

I agree that we'd all be better if more people took themselves less seriously.

On a more serious note, I did receive a couple of e-mails (that I am unable to quote here because I've been asked not to) telling me that I shouldn't "stick my nose" into another parent's business. Well, I like my nose where it is, thank you very much <G>

2007-09-04T16:06:00.001-07:00

My first language is Icelandic so I hope this reads ok.

I am an atheist, I don't believe in a god, I have however experienced things that have led me to believe that there may be supernatural (not explained by science) things out there i.e. "spirits" and some form of telepathy.

I don't think any literature exists that explains these things to my liking, At least I haven't found any, and the Bible certainly does not. Science seems sensible to me, and until a system of thought emerges that explains the wonders of the world better I consider myself content with science. Although, I must admit, it does not explain my beforementioned experiences. But perhaps it one day will. Science evolves as more things become known (as in proven by scientific logic) and not because it gives into social pressure as is the case with Christian religion and probably most religion.

I think religion is a force that divides peoples/nations and causes more bad than good. I have no statistics to back that statement up, it is simply my general feeling after 30 years of living. I often think about this issue and therefore like to read websites that discuss atheism and religion. Your website is by far the best such site I have stumbled upon, and your replies the most down-to-earth, polite and respectful I have seen on this topic.

Way to often do atheists while discussing reduce their take on religion to bickering about passages in the Bible and often fall into the trap of becoming overly emotional and arrogant.

You however consistently show respect for your correspondents and reply in a thoughtful and enlightening manner.

I see nothing wrong with using science to investigate what appears to be supernatural or paranormal. Even though I am not convinced such things exist, I think that science has all the tools necessary for investigation and applaud your thinking in that direction.

I think that religion can be very helpful for some people, but that it tends to have negative consequences when it become entangled with government, politics, and other large-scale constructs.

I agree that atheists too often get mired in religion- or Bible-bashing, and will go a step further and say that atheists often make the same logical mistakes that theists do when discussing these subjects. That said, I don't mind bickering about Bible passages and such, and wish I got more e-mail about such things.

Thanks for writing!

2007-09-04T16:05:00.000-07:00

Don't you hate how difficult it is to start e-mails like this? I never know whether to say 'Hey' or 'Hello' or 'Hi'...but all-in-all it doesn't really matter now. I've blown it.

I do have a question, however. Or a few comments. I'm 16 years old and I've been an atheist for as long as I can remember, and I find your website incredibly entertaining and enlightening at the same time. One thing has always struck me as odd when it comes to organized religion: Don't most religious extremists end up going against everything that their religion teaches them? Perhaps I should elaborate...the Ten Commandments. I'm sure you've heard of them. :) One of them, I believe, clearly states 'Thou shalt not kill.' And yet...most of the wars that have sculpted the planet into what it is today have been over the desire for land, or for religious expansion. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but killing someone in the name of God seems like the most hypocritical and ridiculous thing to do. Do you agree? My dad is also an atheist and we have theological discussions on a regular basis, and this point constantly comes up.

In religion's favor, I can understand the huge amount of comfort that one can receive from getting all of their questions answered by faith, and I have nothing against those who choose this way of life. My boyfriend calls himself a 'follower of God and Jesus Christ', and is considering Mormonism for his future religious preference, but he and I have never fallen out from a theological standpoint. We talk, of course, and I ask questions (as we Atheists so enjoy doing) about our individual beliefs, but I hold nothing against him for what he believes. Nor does he to me. I think this is the reason we get along, because neither one of us IMPOSES our belief onto the other.

Which brings me to my next point. (Sorry for the lenthy e-mail. Never sure if I'm going to get an e-mail back from a website, so I tend to cram everything in.) I never, ever get angry with anyone for believing in what they believe in. So why do so many people insist on hating me and telling me I'm going to Hell...calling me a witch and a heretic and a lost, helpless sinner? Wouldn't saying things like that only decrease their chances of converting me? It's the one thing that genuinely angers me about religious extremists...when they try to impose their beliefs on me when I have done everything in my power to refrain from doing so to them. Am I wrong in getting angry here? I dislike doing so, since being laid back is one of the things that endears me to my friends.

In fact, one of my friends at school who was previously a Christian asked me one day if all Atheists were so laid back about life and faith. I answered that being laid back is part of my personality, but not having to worry about where I'm going or what I'm doing and being allowed to live in the moment definitely helps. She had an unfortunately heated discussion about her faith with her mother that night, and now calls herself an Atheist. She was always leaning that way and told me that being shouted at by her mom only made her want to deny her faith even more.

I would greatly appreciate any feedback you have on my comments and questions...I've read the responses that you've sent to other people and I would love to have a conversation with you on these topics. Thank you!

Killing in the name of God only contradicts "thou shall not kill" if the command is taken at literal face value, and the Bible obviously does not do so. The God of the Bible commands killing often and frequently, so the Commandment is obviously not an absolute. But where the lines are is the matter of much discussion.

I'm glad to hear that you don't try and impose your beliefs on others -- particularly on those you care for. One thing I would be interested to know -- why does your boyfriend feel the need to join an organized religion? And what are his criteria for choosing a church? Many people choose religion more for social than theological reasons (they like the community or the ceremony, for example).

Regarding condemnation from some religious people being annoying and counter-productive -- I tend to agree with you, and I can't completely explain it myself. I think it goes hand in hand with some religious people seeing atheism as some kind of a threat or insult. When you say your are an atheist, they may feel like you are condemning their theism (even though you are not).

I wish more atheists were laid back. But I think you should talk more with your friend who started calling herself an atheist after an argument with her mom. There is a big difference between someone for whom atheism is an intellectual destination and someone who is an atheist because they are rejecting religion. The latter can, in some people, be effectively a religious stance. If she says she's "denying her faith," I'd say that isn't a good sign -- she may have unresolved issues.

Thanks for writing!

2007-09-04T16:03:00.004-07:00

Umm.. I've been an atheist for a while. (I like the smaller "a" as opposed to the capped "A".. I'm not real fond of labels) And I outed myself in the local paper. Some in my family have since black-listed me. Now that I've outed myself again.. will I have to put up with even more black-listing? (Please say "No")

Very sorry to hear about the reaction of some in your family. I went through a bit of this myself, where some relatives wanted to know why I had "turned my back on the church" and such things. At least in my case, it took a while before my family understood that I wasn’t rejecting or reacting to or turning my back on anything. I had just come to a different set of beliefs.

Be patient. Keep being a good person. Hopefully, your good nature will shine through and end the blacklisting.

2007-09-04T16:03:00.003-07:00

poop on all those people with no sense of humor. I am mormon. I am what I am ,you are what you are(and funny too.)

Thanks! There are, I'm sure, many religious people out there who keep a sense of humor on this subject. I wish more of them would write to me!

2007-09-04T16:03:00.001-07:00

i am an atheist and i love the site! the arguments in reply to your mail is brillient, however on the arguments page i feel you could have come up with some more useful arguments

like for "You can't see air, but you believe in it."

a good comeback would be the overwheliming evedence that it does exist, EG magnesium burning in air gains in weight, and the fact that you can feel air if you move through it fast enough. and theres also the fact that if you stop breathing, you die...that much mean there is something in air that we need :p

i loved the site and im glad a have some more arguments against god, and the typical religious veiw of the world.

keep up the good work! :)

The arguments page isn't really supposed to be taken seriously. It's more of a "flip answers atheists wish they could give" kind of thing.

2007-09-04T16:02:00.001-07:00

I just want you to know that I don't necessarily consider myself an athiest. But I do like to see what other religions and people point of views are too. I was reading some of the things that the Christians sent to you and the responses that you gave... I thought that they were very good and well thought out... I think that alot of Christians, as well as people from some other religions, don't emphasize thinking on your own enough, and they have become mindless automatons, no matter how much they try to deny it. I think that it is great that you are trying to get people to actually think for themselves instead of just believing what some one else tries to tell them is true!

I say keep dong what you are!

Thanks for the encouragement!

I think that people in general don't consider their own thinking enough, and many religions encourage them not to. I wish that public schools did more to encourage real independent thinking and self examination.

2007-09-04T16:01:00.002-07:00

Actually I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. I feel it is important to draw the distinction because atheism is, itself, a religious belief system; it holds emphatically that there is no god. This is as without foundation as any theistic belief system, since no human being has enough information about the universe to be able to make any concrete judgement, positive or negative, about the existence of any putative cosmic entity.

My own belief system is based on logical extrapolation of the behaviour of living organisms: viz, that there is a high probability of a universal consciousness (which we could call "god" for want of a better name.) My basis for this belief stems from observing that organic chemicals coalesce into cells, cells form organs, organs form organisms, organisms form species, species form biosystems (also known as a "Gaia" to living-planet adherents). Continuing this chain of reasoning, one could see that other planetary biosystems could ultimately interact to form galactic conglomerates, and ultimately one universal, cosmic entity. Our own innate desire to reach the stars (very likely shared by any other intelligent civilisation capabable of perceiving the universe) seems to me to be the driving force towards the coalescence of such an entity.

Thus, my belief system is almost the reverse of most theistic belief systems: that is, the universe appears to be currently in the process of creating, or evolving, a "god".

There is no "faith" in my belief system. If it turns out to be proven incorrect by scientific method, then it gets dumped. This does not mean that I misplace onus of proof, since my belief system is an argument and a hypothesis based on observed facts, not an experimentally demonstrable scientific theory. It is founded solely on extrapolative reasoning, and it places no moral burden on me to follow it.

Morality, to me, is a simple social contract made only with other human beings. My morality is no more or less than this one simple rule: I give back what I get, and I expect back what I give.

I am always open to other belief systems, as long as there is sound logical resoning behind them. I will accept nothing on faith, or just because some book tells me something is so. To accept a belief system, I require:

1) A statement defining the belief system; 2) A reasoned argument establishing a logical case for the existence of the belief system; 3) Observational evidence of the real world that is effectively explained by the belief system; and 4) A demonstrated willingness by adherents of the belief system to revise such parts of it as can be shown to be untenable.

So I am not an atheist. But I'm not a religionist either. I make no claims about the origins of the universe. I only try to fit as much of its vastness into a single human brain as best I can.

An atheist doesn't have to believe there is no god, but can merely not be convinced that there is a god. You sound like you might be that kind of atheist (even if you prefer the term agnostic).

Your "cosmic entity" idea is interesting, although I consider it highly unlikely in that I don't believe your extrapolation follows necessarily.

I think your stated morality is consistent, but a little unfortunate. Only giving back what you get may make it harder to improve the world around you.

I also doubt that you accept nothing on faith. Most of us accept a certain amount of things on faith, and as an atheist I attempt to minimize the number of those things. For example, I take the existence of the universe on faith. However, I won't pretend to speak for you on this subject.

I find your rules for the acceptance of a belief system interesting. Personally, I have two rules that I feel must apply to any acceptable system of thought -- a belief system must not contradict itself, and it must not condemn others who use the same thought processes. Beyond that, it's generally a matter of personal preference and degree of skepticism.

2007-09-04T16:01:00.001-07:00

I was already an atheist when I came across your website using the "Stumble button", but I felt I should drop you a note to encourage you to keep up the good work. I've read some of the hate mail you've received and your responses are well-written and thought out. You make atheism look good!

Sadly, atheism can use the help. For every person making atheism look good, there seem to be a dozen making it look bad.

2007-09-04T16:00:00.002-07:00

I've been struggling with what religion actually is for a while, and stumbling upon this site of yours actually kicked this brain of mine into gear: Deep down, I'm an atheist. I don't know why I didn't see it before, but I'm glad I have. Truth be told, I feel like a tremendous weight has been lifted off my shoulders.

Or maybe that feeling is because I just sat up after three hours of lying on the floor.

Either way, I thank you. Looking forward to reading more of your blog.

2007-09-04T16:00:00.001-07:00

I have to disagree with this guy who says that atheism is not a religion. If religion was simple superstition, as he implies, he might have a point, but it isn't. Believing that there is a god is a religious belief, so why should believing that there is not be different? It's an opinion on the same topic, just a different opinion. If you're the sort that figures you have to be a member of a congregation, or have meetings, to have a religion, well, there is an atheist church, as silly as it sounds. Of course, by that definition, Alcoholics Anonymous is a church, too.

Believing that there is no god might be characterized as a religious belief (if it is statement of faith). However, I don't state that gods do not exist -- I say that I see no reason to believe in gods. That is not a statement of faith. Give me evidence, and I will change my mind.

If I understand correctly, Alcoholics Anonymous requires its participants to believe in a "higher power." That sounds kind of religious to me.

2007-09-04T15:59:00.003-07:00

I was raised in a catholic home. Here in Mexico it is very common that you "must" belong to the "official" religion, which is catholicism. At the age of 16 I started to question the authority of the church, and the established truth that it managed to exploit. Despite my being a part of a catholic family I saw myself questioning and questioning that what they taught me to believe as I grew older. It came gradually and not as a shock. One fine day, I decided that I didn't needed to believe in a god to be happy, or to feel "complete" as they put it. (whatever that means)

My family, fortunately, accepted my atheism without questioning my motives. They taught me to embrace a religion, but they taught me also to think by myself. I know it sounds contradictory, but it is as I put it. Eventually I started to talk a lot about and against the official church and the religion in which I was educated. The only thing they asked of me is to respect the others believes.

I think, and I've told them this over and over, that only people deserves respect, but not their ideas. If all ideas deserve respect, then we should respect even the ideals that people like Hitler lived upon. This short phrase usually helps to end any argument. Sometimes it does not. But the important thing, is that now, and after several arguments over the years, my parents, my brothers and most of my friends start to question some of the very foundation of the religion and the church that they grew attached to. The pope is no longer the infallible messenger from god, and I have seen or heard my parents watching some nonsense about religion on TV and start to say "Aw, come on! that's ridiculous!

It is then, when I think that there is still some hope. That some fine day, maybe, we will eventually have the maturity to disregard the very existence of celestial fathers, and start taking the life and the responsibility that comes along with the territory and that we have the right to. and the obligation to embrace.

You are an excellent example for atheists in religious situations. It is far better to light a candle and help someone read than to try and take away the book.

I think you will find that the long, slow road to freedom from superstition is both the kindest and the most effective. Best of luck, and thank you so much for writing!

2007-09-04T15:59:00.001-07:00

This site is amazing.

I am very amused by the fact that people believe that they can prove that their religion is more valid than any other.

Silly religion.

I think it may be possible to prove that some religions are more valid than some others. But in order to so ground rules have to be established. Good luck with that. <G>

2007-09-04T15:58:00.000-07:00

free will does not exist.

this notion is not an exercise in semantics - rather - it is an exercise in recognizing the real-time limitations of our existence in the spacetime continuum.

logically speaking, because all we have at hand, at any given time, is the present - then any choice presented to us - and any decision made by us - is merely the sum of a collaboration of past events - minus the present. the instant a decision is made, the present re-calibrates itself based upon an updated collaboration of past events, this time including the most recent event. this happens in infinitely rapid succession - with one present ever-springing into the next; all circumstances at hand an unchangeable sum of past circumstances.

if you were thirsty one minute ago but at present time you are drinking water, this does not serve as a function of free will, rather, your present situation is merely a product of past circumstances.

this analogy can be given for any conceivable circumstance. if you 'chose' to go left in a labyrinth, it is not because you 'chose left' - the notion itself loses its meaning the instant you begin going left. the notion of 'going left' simply has to be, because it is. there is no more right. there is only you, going left. the idea behind having 'chosen' left with your free will relies *solely* on the notion that there is another 'you' still waiting to decide which direction to go at the left-right fork in the labyrinth, and yet another 'you' that, in fact, chose to go right. this isn't so.

basic quantum mechanics shows us that all particle-waves go all conceivable paths to a destination. but it is the act of measuring the particle-waves that give them their most probable location. because we as humans are nothing more than rapid-fire measuring machines - we are ever-defining our location simply by being. we can't go 'all conceivable paths to a destination' because, by definition, we can only measure one. therefore, only one exists. the act of measuring 'left' makes the 'choice' of 'right' nonexistent - even at the moment in time where you 'could have' gone right.

everything that's happened since the big bang *has* to have happened because here we are, a sum of all interactions and and circumstances, breathing.

you're reading this. i wrote it. i'll go work construction when i'm finished. you'll do your thing when you're finished. saturn stays in its orbit. the colossal andromeda galaxy effortlessly drifts toward the milky way.

if you consider the term 'free will' to represent the simple notion of 'existing' in the 'present,' well, then, we agree. but don't be fooled by the grand illusion of choice. we're just not that special.

Although we are both determinists, I am going to disagree with a few of your points.

First, this is indeed an exercise in semantics. You are defining free will in a very specific way and your argument relies on that definition.

Second, I think your discussion of quantum effects goes a little astray. Quantum physics does not apply on the macroscopic scale, so it does not apply to whole people in a meaningful way.

Even so, quantum physics does allow for random events, so your statement that "everything that's happened since the big bang has to have happened" is oversimplistic. Also, because of the uncertainty principle and chaos theory, it should be impossible to predict future choices with rigor, so free will may effectively exist even if it does not exist in an absolute sense.

But as a refutation of those who see free will as some kind of proof for the existence of a soul, I think you hit the nail on the head.

2007-09-04T15:57:00.000-07:00

As I m writing this, I' ve been thinking lately about how isolated from the world I feel. I consider myself an atheist while most of my friends believe in God or some other thing. Of them all, the only acquaintance that I talk to that's also an atheist will on one hand deny God in all respects, but then later hate Him for allowing tragic events. I struggle to keep my mouth shut to the contradiction, knowing the Pandora's Box I can open with her contradiction.

I have no one to talk to about things that happen in my life that I can't explain. Is it possible to believe in the unexplained? Surely, while science has answers, it's not infallible; but it can be refined, corrected, made better. I remember in my HS science class my physics teacher said that theories are called theories because they cannot be ever 100% explained, that there could always be that one little thing we haven't discovered. It's a generalization (made worse by myself), I know, but she went on to explain Newton's Laws. They weren't wrong, but they weren't complete either. At relativistic speeds, Newton's Laws aren't quite as applicable anymore. Newton didn't know that during his time, but we do now.

Before I start sound like I have no point, let me start getting to the meat.

Several years ago, I was sitting in the same chair I am now, talking on the phone about God with one of my friend's parents, and very agnostic. I had no idea what I believed in and sat firmly on the fence as I tested the waters. During the conversation, I caught lights floating just off my wall about a foot below my ceiling, which is about 8 feet high. As soon as I looked up, they were gone. My blinds were shut (It was night outside and away from any road. Only a flash light could do that IF my blinds were open), no light reflection (all lights save my computer monitor were off), and my door was shut. This happened four more times since.

Needless to say, the mother proclaimed, It's Him. He's trying to talk to you.

I figured it would be a lot easier to just have a Booming Voice from the Sky. But they say you can't get everything you want.

A year before the first time this happened, I went camping with my uncle in the Berkshires of Massachusetts. He and his friends were drinking and smoking pot just before dawn, so when my uncle said, What's that? with an urgent tone while looking at the sky, I paid him no mind. But when others asked it too, I looked. There was an impeccably bright light crawling at a good speed across the pre-dawn sky.

I knew it wasn't a plane: It had no flashing lights. Unless it had a spotlight continuously on us, it wasn't a chopper. It made no noise. It only moved at a constant speed. It wasn't a shooting star; I ve seen those before. It certainly wasn't a planet becuase it moved. Going back home and back to school, I proudly claimed I ve seen my first UFO (and I didn't say I ve seen aliens ).

After falling off the agnostic fence, I looked back on my life to events of the unexplainable. I started to rationalize, look at them from an older, objective viewpoint. During the clear, winter nights in the suburbs of Boston, I sometimes saw little specks moving across the sky. Telling about these to my physics teacher, she told me they were satellites reflecting the light from the moon or Earth. I never put two and two together (out of sight, out of mind) until two years ago: Perhaps it was the International Space Station. It's bigger than any other satellite, and the pre-dawn hour would allow the station to reflect all of the sun's glory. I had my new discovery, my step up from Newton to Einstein.

The lights above my wall? I feel stupid for having such a narrow mind and not realizing what they were: Much like when you look at the sun, you re left with spots blinding you. I was always looking down at my hands or keyboard when it looked back up to my monitor, and then see them floating above my desk. Even now, just for fun to see them again as I type in the dark, I see them over me.

But still, those are two minor things. Science is greater than that. There are new discoveries every day, and I d assume even more amendments/refinements/corrections to old theories. So now the absolute reason why I am typing this: Is it Atheistic to believe in the unexplained? Yes, I suppose ghosts, or even God, can be encompassed in this question even though I doubt they exist and there may even be proof to completely refute them. But there must be other forces we've yet to discover, put a name to, or even understand.

I don't believe in God, I don't believe in an intelligent being/force, and I can't help but feel like I contradict myself like my friend when I call myself an Atheist. I don't like that and I'd love to share thoughts with anyone kind enough to help guide me on this.

What an incredible letter! Before I respond, please let me thank you copiously for sharing it with me!

I am an atheist (obviously), but I feel that the most wonderful things in existence are those which remain unexplained. The unexplained is a frontier -- it is a door waiting to be opened; a poem waiting to be read. Mysteries big and small are a delight to the mind. Unraveling them is a glorious process. They are not magical, but wonderful.

Some people think there is a conflict between believing in the unknown and atheism. These are people who, like your mother, consider the unexplained to be proof for the inexplicable or the unlikely. I see no contradiction.

When I was a child, I saw a cloud that was striped with the colors of the rainbow instead of white. It was beautiful and mysterious, and I've never seen such a thing since. It took decades for me to find out what I had seen, and I treasured the mystery for all those years. I still treasure the memory, and remember the joy of finally finding a solution.

So call yourself an atheist if it describes your feelings about religion, but don't let the label harm your sense of wonder. And don't listen to those who say it should.

2007-09-04T15:56:00.002-07:00

u ppl r religious fundamentalists and u forcefully convert people to ur new religion.u r no better than theists.

I'm better because I don't really believe it works. <G>

2007-09-04T15:56:00.001-07:00

I just had to send you some sort of comment after reading your site. First off, since the question your probably asking yourself (though if you aren't already thinking about it, then I'm amazed at your moral fiber) is am I an angry Christian sending you hate mail, an atheist, or someone else? I'm going to tell you at the end, so please, don't peek. Now, I'll speak from an 'agnostic' or analytical viewpoint so as to keep everything more...fair.

One of the excellent conceptions that I think you have is that religion is NOT evil, people are...when they hurt others.

One problem with the site is-there are so many conversations that go on forever and are redundant of other conversations and in giant, hard-to-read, text blocks.

Now to the real questions...

Does god exist? From an unbiased (or as unbiased as I can be) viewpoint, god is simply an idea that embodies one of three things. 1-The omnipotent creator of everything. Problem-No solid evidence. If god really exists then why doesn't he just openly talk to everyone? It would make more people realize that goodness is the correct path, and as children basically believe the first thing they're told, if god taught them goodness, the world would be better. 2-The incarnation of the human fear of death. Problem-There are too many explanations that 'alleviate' this fear to believe one is correct, at least logically. 3-An imaginary being of 'ultimate good' used to teach the world to be more moral. Problem-Drop the fakeness. People who think they're being deceived get angry. Then teach the morals without the lies.

If god does exist, will he (or she, it, or they) condemn every non-believer to hell? From an analytical viewpoint, no. In fact, a being of infinite goodness is incapable of rage or dislike/hatred. Especially the omniscient type. God would understand everyone's actions and why each individual believed that these choices were all right. God would forgive a man who hated him and always did, if God has infinite goodness, God cannot possibly hate Satan, because he understands and forgives him.

At this point I've realized that trying to hide my obvious atheism is impossible for someone so well educated and experienced in the subject. Yes, I'm an atheist. Also, if you did cheat and look at the bottom to see my religion (or lack of), the answer wasn't there.

Can someone be truly sure that god does not exist? No...of course not, you can't say that something can't possibly exist without being...oh, say...omniscient. Which is why science and scientists say that you can't ever disprove something (and yes, they do) although they do say you can PROVE things. The point I'm making here is that I don't believe anyone can be correct about 'knowing' there is no god because there's no evidence to prove that he isn't real. There is a distinct LACK OF EVIDENCE. Yeah, there's some there, for example the millions of people who believe he is real. That's sort of evidence, now they could be wrong, but they are there. And a religion is much more likely to be (partially) right if it has followers.

If I don't believe God cannot exist, I believe he probably doesn't, am I agnostic? No. Of course not. And anyone who disagrees with that statement, please, consider this... Is the world flat or round? You'll probably say round, I hope. But, if you haven't been in space and actually seen the round world then you're sort of 'agnostic' about the world being round. Though if you have been in space, what if the roundness thing was a trick of the light? Eh? Oh by the way, by roundness i mean spherical. A flat circle would be round, technically. And to everyone saying that "Science proves the world is round!" What if A.They're wrong (it's happened before, ex.the atomic model) or B.Making it up as a conspiracy. Yes, B is unlikely. But there is a minute chance it's true, so thus, you are agnostic about the spherical nature of the world, and agnostic about gravity, among many other things. If that's your definition of agnosticism then yes, all atheists are ignorant, and as happy as me suggesting that makes them, most 'atheists' are agnostic by that standard. I believe atheism is the belief that the existence of god is, beyond reasonable doubt, false.

Agnostics are like a hung jury, or one that says the defendant is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, yet probably guilty.

Atheists are like a jury with a guilty verdict, they can't be 100% sure the defendant is guilty, but it's beyond reasonable doubt.

I could ramble on for hours, but it's late, and I have a movie to shoot with my friends and a party tomorrow. So I'll finish by saying I greatly admire you for many reasons, and wish that you would contact me via email so we may discuss this further.

You're right about the difficulty with following conversations on this blog and with redundancy. Much of the former is born from my need for an easy-to-maintain format, and I've put together an important conversations area to preserve some of the more difficult-to-follow threads.

Redundancy is going to come up because, to be frank, you tend to hear the same things over and over in this business. I don't want to turn someone away or not reply just because "I've heard that before."

Now to your real questions:

You ask why God wouldn't just talk to everyone, and argue that God would not condemn every non-believer. Both of these rely on an understanding of God's motivations, the nature of infinite goodness, and other really difficult subjects. They are not as cut and dried as they might appear on the surface. For example, you mention that God would understand why people did the things they did, but some religions (e.g., Protestantism) believe that such reasons/excuses for sin are as meaningless to God as acts of charity in terms of salvation. You also seem to be assuming that God would send only those He hates to hell, and I don't know that any Christian religion teaches this.

A little clarification is necessary when you say (rather firmly) that scientists say that you can't ever disprove something. Although I understand your point, the fact is that scientists disprove things -- theories, for example -- all the time. It's part of science. In fact, it might be more correct to say that science says you can never prove things, which is why evolution is still called a theory even though it's one of the best supported theories in science.

You say that a religion is much more likely to be right (at least in part) if it has follows. I would disagree. Truth, at least in this case, is completely disjoint from its popularity.

I also am not a fan of the term agnostic, and many people who use it use it incorrectly. You can be an agnostic atheist, for example.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. (And, by the way, the earth isn't a sphere. Just thought I'd mention it <G>.)

2007-09-04T15:55:00.003-07:00

ahahha loser fags !

2007-09-04T15:55:00.001-07:00

THANK YOU for having common sense! But one question, Are you against Gay people o_O

No, but some of my readers obviously are (case in point above).

2007-09-04T15:54:00.002-07:00

God damn you! (Pun intended) This is like Point counterpoint! You are too intelligent for me. While I will neither vouch for nor against the existence of God, You win. I am not proclaiming the existence of God, I will say that you have outdone me in this battle of wits. I have nothing more to say, no more examples to offer. However, I do think you should find a gender neutral name to put on your website (and perhaps some book recommendations?). That might work.

Signing off for good,

I hope I haven't scared you away from discussion. I certainly don't intend to bludgeon anyone into silence. Your suggestion for a list of good books (pun intended) is an excellent one. I'll think about that.

2007-09-04T15:54:00.001-07:00

=) Wooo atheists! (is one proudly). This is an amazing and hilarious site, and I love all the evil comments you've recieved because people aren't willing to accept that maybe you don't have to have a religion. Major kudos.

I am constantly surprised that some people seem to be personally offended by my lack of religion, as if it's an insult to them. But then aren't they an insult to everyone they don't share a religion with? Apparently not.

2007-09-04T15:53:00.002-07:00

I think it's interesting and ironic that people think they can follow a merciful god, and be threatful, throw their children into a metaphorical bottle, and countless other things that have been for a span of 6 days, and think it will all be better by praying for one, how can they say they are proud Christians, when they go against their own ways?

One of my biggest struggles is to get people of all beliefs to at least be consistent within their own philosophy (the first of my two rules). It seems like that shouldn't be too big a thing to ask, doesn't it?

2007-09-04T15:53:00.001-07:00

Sorry, I'm still a Christian. A Christian who's laughing her ass off however so hopefully that counts for something. :)I should inform you though that the Church of England (my posse) beat you to it. Just by being born in England you become Anglican...No need to even click a mouse.

I like the idea and I hope some believers click through to the Atheistic Rights & Responsibilities to learn that atheists aren't evil kitten eaters.

How depressing to hear that the Church of England got here first! I have installed software on my server so that this Web site takes precedence, however.

2007-09-04T15:52:00.002-07:00

Oh my God! How did you know I was an atheist?

Divine inspiration.