ok.. how about instead of immediatley insulting anyone who believes in god you present reasons why atheism IS a logical choice. Obviously as soon as a non-atheist sees your homepage (oh tooo bad your an atheist now) they would just lose respect for you completely. Your making the religous debate into a 3rd grade HAHA I GOT YOU =P =P =P type thing.

then again what do i know

That's a legitimate criticism. Here's my thinking on the subject.

First, I don't feel like the site is insulting to theists -- at least, it's not intended that way. I think that the concept of becoming an atheist by visiting a Web site is so ridiculous that nobody will think I actually think it works, so it's pretty obviously a joke.

And there's a reason for that joke. I'm betting that some theists who would just click past a page listing reasons to be an atheist will at least take a moment to read more on my site. Maybe they'll see the page showing that many atheists have a morality that's not much different from theirs, or maybe they'll see the list of silly arguments other theists use to try and disprove atheism. Or, even better, perhaps they will find my blog where I respond (usually respectfully) to correspondence from both theists and theists.

Will theists seeing my home page lose respect for me immediately? I suppose some do. I get occasional hate mail, but most of it seems to be reacting to the fact that the site is a bad joke (which it is) or just spewing hate because I'm an atheist. But I also get a lot of mail from thoughtful, intelligent religious people who want to know more about atheism or want to discuss religious philosophy. I'm guessing that the hate-mail-writers wouldn't be convinced by anything I wrote, and I don't mind annoying them if it helps me contact those who are truly curious.

There are already plenty of Web sites out there that have the type of pro-atheism information you suggest. I don't want to be just another one of those, because (frankly) there would be no point. What I have here seems to be working, judging from my hit counts and correspondence, so I'm pretty happy with the way things are. I do appreciate your feedback, though.

Now that I have this blog, I'm going to try and publish little items once and a while that aren't correspondence. I thought I'd start by going through all of the "arguments against atheism" on IAmAnAtheist.com and giving examples of why I really might respond to them (as opposed to the silly responses currently listed).

For atheists, most of this will be old hat, but if you have examples of how you responded to some of these, I'd like to hear them (and about the theist's response). I'm not necessarily looking for incidents in which you "blew someone away" with your great response (although that's fine), but am instead interested in whether you got an honest response, whether the theist had an interesting counter, etc.

For theists, if you have heard an atheist respond to one of these arguments, I'd like to hear about it. I'd particularly be entertained if you heard an atheist respond badly to a pro-theist argument, but anything interesting or thought provoking is fair game.

So, with that in mind, here we go!

The Bible says that atheism is wrong.

Does it say why atheism is wrong?

(or)

I don't agree with the Bible about whether many things are right or wrong. For example, I'd say that some of King David's behavior was wrong, but the Bible doesn't seem to disapprove of it.

If you believe in God and are wrong, then it's no big deal, but if you don't believe in God and are wrong, you'll be punished eternally, so it's not a good idea to be an atheist.

You talk as if the only choices were to believe or disbelieve in the God of your religion. Really, there are many other choices, including the Gods of other religions and the possibility that there is a God but that he isn't what you think he is at all. For example, maybe God loves intellectual honesty more than he loves worship based on fear?

Deep down you really believe in God.

That's pretty insulting. How would you feel if I said that deep down inside you really didn't believe in God? Arguing in this way isn't going to get us anywhere.

You're only saying you're an atheist to rebel against authority.

I don't consider myself a rebel. Whose authority do you think I'm rebelling against?

(or)

I don't feel like I'm rebelling against anything. And it's odd that you would speak out against rebelling against authority, since it seems to me that is what Jesus' followers were doing.

You probably are an atheist because you had a bad experience as a child.

I can't think of any bad experiences I had as a child that had anything to do with religion. Are you religious because of something that happened to you as a child?

There are no atheists in foxholes.

Are you implying that everyone gets religion when under stress? And do you think that people who think they're going to die are thinking clearly?

(or)

I doubt that's true, and in any case I wouldn't go by what people say when they think they're going to die. I'm sure that there are many religious people who, facing death, have doubts. "My God, why have you forsaken me," comes to mind.

If you don't believe in God, you'll go to Hell!

I doubt that. In any case, I think it's just as possible that I'd go to hell by saying that I believe in Jesus just to avoid punishment for sins.

Why are you mad at God?

I'm not. What makes you think I am?

Atheists are Satanic.

Atheists don't believe in Satan, so it makes no sense to say that we are Satanic.

(or)

That's like saying anarchists are friends of big government.

Without God there is no morality.

How do you know what is right or wrong?

(or)

It is perfectly possible to be moral without God, unless you are defining atheism as immorality.

God is perfect, and He couldn't be perfect if He didn't exist, which proves that He exists.

You can't prove that something exists or does not exist with word games.

(or)

That's not a coherent argument. Arguing along those same lines, I could say that Athena is the most beautiful woman, and she wouldn't be the most beautiful if she didn't exist, therefore she exists.

People who follow Jesus are good, so you should follow Jesus.

There are plenty of people who don't follow Jesus and are good, just as there are plenty of people who say they follow Jesus and are bad.

(or)

I can be good without following your religion.

(or)

If I said that Mormons were good, would you become a Mormon?

Jesus was either a liar, a crazy person, or the son of God. He spoke against liars, and his behavior wasn't crazy, so the only remaining possibility is that he was the son of God.

There are other possibilities. For example, he could have been a perfectly nice guy that a lot of stories grew up around, or he might not have existed in the first place.

(or)

Descriptions of Jesus' life are so hard for me to accept at face value, that I wouldn't want to make definite statements about his mental state or behavior.

There were eye witnesses that Jesus worked miracles.

Eye witnesses are sometimes terrible evidence. There are many eye witnesses of UFOs, for example.

(or)

I think that the evidence for those eye witnesses is a bit dubious.

Most people who know about Jesus believe in Him.

That depends on what you mean by "believe." Muslems believe that Jesus was holy but don't worship him.

I know from personal experience that God exists.

That might be a good reason for you to believe in God, but it isn't very compelling to me.

God wants you to believe in him without rational proof.

Why?

(or)

Wouldn't God prefer that I use the brain he gave me?

You say you don't believe that God exists, but the word "God" is meaningless if there is no such thing, so you are admitting that God exists even as you deny his existence.

What do you mean when you say the word "God"?

(or)

You can't prove that something exists with a semantic trick. Speaking about dragons doesn't cause them to exist.

Hitler was an atheist.

I don't worry too much about the philosophical beliefs of crazy people.

(or)

That's irrelevant. If a serial killer said he was a Christian, would you change your religion?

Einstein believed in God. Do you think you're smarter than Einstein?

I'm not sure that's a true statement about Einstein. Even if it is, I don't consider Einstein an authority on religious matters.

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

The founding fathers were mainly deists. They wouldn't agree with your religion, either.

(or)

Actually, I think that if the founding fathers had today's scientific knowledge, they'd probably be atheists.

(or)

Thomas Jefferson didn't even think that Jesus worked miracles. How was he a Christian?

The universe is so complex that someone must have designed it.

I think that a natural explanation is much more likely.

Atheists believe in evolution, but if we teach our children evolution in public school they will believe that they are no better than animals and will grow up immoral.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't prove anything about atheism. Saying that the truth has bad consequences doesn't make it not the truth.

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

How would you define the second law or thermodynamics?

(or)

Do you agree that the second law of thermodynamics is true?

Well, evolution's only a theory.

Everything in science is a theory. That's just part of scientific vocabulary.

(or)

It's also one of the most heavily validated theories in science.

How can you not believe in Jesus Christ when the evidence is overwhelming?

What evidence do you mean?

There's proof that God exists, like the Bible and miracles.

I don't think the Bible is reliable as proof of the existence of God. There are too many mundane ways it could have come into existence.

(or)

What miracles do you mean?

My parents raised me to believe in God. Are you calling my parents liars?

Your parents can be wrong without being liars.

There are so many wonderful things in the world, how can you say there is no God?

I don't say that there is no God, and in any case I think it's pretty wonderful that all of these things came about without divine intervention.

There is so much beauty in the world that only God could have created it.

Would you say the same about ugliness?

(or)

I think we know enough about where things come from that it's not necessary to assume everything was designed by God.

If there is no Heaven, then where do you go when you die?

The same place you were before you were born.

You can't prove God doesn't exist.

That's true, and I don't try to.

You don't know everything.

That's true, and I don't pretend to.

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

I can feel air and I can perform scientific tests to detect it.

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

I believe in an emotion called love. I also think that some beliefs in God are similarly real -- that is, they're just emotions.

God made His image appear in this tortilla!

Random shapes look like faces to us all the time. This doesn't prove anything.

(or)

How do you know that's what God looks like?

You call yourself an atheist but you have faith. Everyone has faith in something.

That's true, but I try and have faith in as few things as possible.

Welcome, everyone, to the IAmAnAtheist blog. For a long time I maintained a "reader correspondence" section on IAmAnAtheist.com where I responded to e-mails I got through the site. Recently, I have become more busy and in an attempt to make my site updates more frequent (and to better separate the humor and discussion parts of my site), I will now share correspondence and other random godless thoughts through this blog.

Blogger is having some kind of mental breakdown, so it took me a week or so to get all my old correspondence moved over here. In the meantime, the blog was live and I got some response, but everything is here now in chronological order for your enjoyment. I think.

I appreciate any comments or questions you might have. Please use the "Contact" link near the top right to send them to me.

sites like this ruin it for true atheists

thanks asshole, this is why the world hates us

I'd be interested to hear why you say this. Could you give me more details?

Perhaps the argument that there is or is not an actual god is somewhat misplaced. God is most often placed in the minds of men as a substitute for the fear and lack of understanding brought on my things we do not understand. It also is a banding of the brotherhood of those too stupid or uncaring to study that of which they know little about or are frightened by. Snakes, poison frogs, earthquakes, fire, and other dangerous natural wonders promoted this original god concept. "It can't hurt me if I worship it".

Whether I am intelligent enough to understand it or not, I am afraid, so I have learned from my ancestors to make the appropriate supplications that I hope will keep the demon black pig from brutally attacking me. Such is the original cry of the worshipers in forest tribes where white man has not brought their special sins of Catholicism or Christanism for others to suffer under.

However you dish it, pan it, seal the vice, or push bad religion, it's all the same. Our group hates your group because you don't like our god. C'mon man... get into the information age. Goddites have been responsible for nearly every war...and for sure the bloodiest ones. Is this your god? Perhaps you chase another beleif? What difference does it make when the head on your wall matches that of the other tribe.

Now, instead of taking the belief road, how about opening your mind and dropping your foolish superstitious beliefs while you look with open eyes for the truth. Truth seekers have no wars because they don't have idols to protect. If you discover a truth, they will be happy to hear it from you so they can evaluate it in private and return to you a small gift, an improvement on your initial hypothesis. No stealing, no demanding, no greed, no desire for power, just a simple but intense search for reality.

Where is their god? Isn't one... Don't need the crutch cause he's got a brain. A difficult thing to develop unless you carefully choose an intelligent atheist wife and raise children so they can learn and don't fear the idiot bead pushers.

Yes, I am absolutely down on religion. It holds us in the dark ages and is 100% folly. Strange how few have the brains and the whavos to admit that religion is little more than a large stupid club of idiots.

Could I invoke a law it would ban all religion. Those caught worshiping a book or a stone or a ghost would have to report for two years of incarceration in an atheist camp where the good folks would politely wash that bullshit from betweeen your ears, open your mind, and teach you to say "What's that?" then how to find out.

Best way to state it is that religion is like a huge red nipple where people who need attachments over understanding can suckle away in public. There you could look as silly as you do in church.

I love to open a church door, walk inside, and facing the preacher, go into my understanding of the five contenders for the job of Jesus, and when completed, ask it that would change anything if Asklepios got the job, or maybe Hercules or the very popular Dionysos. Of course not they say, they would still worship Jesus. Bullshit! I say. Jesus could have finished fourth or fifth in this popularity contest. You wouldn't even know of him--just as you had not considered these others who demonstrated similar miracles. But think? Not these religious guys. They are fine as they are. They know where they stand now and who they hate--also, they got their big dumb gang to cover their back. Thinking is more than hard, it's scary too.

Somehow, they are better off dead and He, he,.he...with their idiot fucking god.

Even if I use my best powers of logic and consider the relative sizes and shapes of solar matter to be little more than more visible atoms of a much greater scale, perhaps we are children of a god...of sorts. This universe might just make the atomic level construction of a small part of our god. Maybe we exist to be a small part of his anal spinctor and our position is to tighten that spinctor so we don't get shit-on. Then we would really be doing our job for god, wouldn't we.

Think about prayer... What a bunch of crock! I once prayed every day for a new Cadillac. Prayed and prayed and prayed--every day, every night, all the living day and half the night for twenty six years steady. And, my belief was strong too. Damn strong. Did god give me a Cadillac? No, I had to drive a broken VW bus. Now you tell me about the power of prayer? Hmmmm? Bunch of crap. I tried and I guarantee that god crap is bullshit for suckers in the second gang. The damn catholics are the first gang--get 'em!

[name deleted]
Proud former methodist minister.

You know, I really hate letters like this. They sound like a rally cry to some atheists, they reaffirm some theists' preconceptions about atheist intolerance, and they don't convince anyone of anything. If your point was to let off some steam, you met it well -- but any larger point got buried in the process.

Let's look at a few things here.

You start off by saying that religion is a substitute for fear and lack of understanding. You then say that it's a mark of people "too stupid or uncaring to study that of which they know little about or are frightened by." So are you saying that if people do not understand modern scientific explanations for the universe they are either stupid or willfully ignorant? That's a pretty broad statement -- particularly since some of these issues (how life began, what set off the big bang, some details of evolution) are still debated by scientists themselves. I wouldn't call someone who doesn't understand how the big bang could have started stupid.

I also wouldn't call someone stupid just because they feared death. Or had a feeling that "there just has to be something out there". These are common emotions, and I'd say it's a bit arrogant to look down on those who can't easily get over them.

And what if someone was, say, a minister and then had a change of heart and became an atheist. Would you say that such a person was stupid but got better and isn't stupid anymore? If so, I think you need to reexamine the definitions of "stupid" and "ignorant."

You say, "Goddites have been responsible for nearly every war...and for sure the bloodiest ones." Well, yes, most of the people involved in war are religious, but then most people are religious. But are you saying that religion has caused most wars? Even in modern times? World War I, Vietnam -- both pretty big and, I think, not terribly religious. Going back through American history, I can't think of a lot of wars that were really about religion. World War II had a gigantic religious element (obviously), but I would argue that if persecution of the Jews hadn't been available, Hitler would have come up with another rallying cry for his insanity. And I don't think the U.S. put Japanese Americans in internment camps because of their religion.

"Truth seekers have no wars because they don't have idols to protect." If I recall correctly, Marx also thought that removing religion would help remove the impetus for greed and violence, but I don't think the Soviet Union invaded a lot of countries in God's name. You sound like you think there are no atheists in prison, and I don't think you'd want to have to defend that point.

"Don't need the crutch cause he's got a brain." Very nice. And you follow that up with, "A difficult thing to develop unless you carefully choose an intelligent atheist wife" -- thanks for implying that whomever you are speaking to is male and that it's the man who does the choosing in a relationship.

Yes, religion can hold back progress. Yes, it can perpetuate ignorance. But saying that it's "100% folly" is, again, overly broad. There are benefits to religion for some people, and I wouldn't call them stupid for valuing ceremony, community, culture, or tradition.

Outlawing religion? Do you really think such a thing would be moral? Is it any more moral than legislating the "correct" religion or requiring that everyone at least have some kind of religion?

After some more bitterness, you end with a complaint that prayer is stupid because you prayed for a Cadillac and didn't get it. Can't you come up with a better argument than that? I doubt that there are a whole lot of religious people who would say with conviction, "anyone who prays for a Cadillac gets one!" It's a complete straw man.

You close with, "The damn catholics are the first gang--get 'em!" What's with singling out Catholics? You mention or refer to them several times. I'd think that you'd want to first go after, say, a religious group that blows innocent people up in God's name. Or maybe one that was trying to get laws passed to insert religion into science classes. Catholics just don't appear near the top of my list of religions that need to be changed ASAP.

To sum up, your letter makes you sound like you have a lot of personal issues with religion and are letting them interfere with your thinking. I don't think you are truly examining the issue from everyone's perspective, but instead appear to be looking down upon those you disagree with from a position of assumed superiority. Frankly, the over-the-top language and ranting does nothing to give me confidence in your intellectual rigor and makes you sound -- I hesitate to even use the word -- stupid.

Sorry about that.

Have you considered renaming your blog Planet Asshole? You really should.

For example, to me it is a matter of faith -- something believed without proof -- that the laws of physics do not change and that my perceptions are (at least in some way) a reflection of reality.

I thought the common definition of "faith" is "belief without evidence," not "belief without proof."

When discussing deities, I think we have to adjust our vocabulary to accommodate those to whom we are having a discussion. Otherwise we could find ourselves in a discussion of corn where I mean maize and someone else means wheat. When a Christian says "God," I assume they mean the Christian god and are saddling themselves with all the attached philosophical baggage. When you say "God," I assume you mean something much more narrowly defined. Being able to make statements about a deistic god doesn't help us when discussing a Christian god.

Well, when it comes to the Christian god, I'm a "strong" atheist. I believe such a god is not logically coherent, and will defend the claim that such a god, like square circles, simply cannot exist.

You say that we "usually try to help people make the distinction between what they imagine and what is real" and you are right. The problem is that feelings of faith are generally closer to raw emotions than they are to obvious delusions. It is possible to argue that Sally doesn't really love Bob because Bob's a jerk, and maybe you could convince Sally that she is just mistaking need for love, but then we get into the mess of trying to define what love is in the first place. The feeling of experiencing God's love or of "knowing" that there just has to be a creator might be the same sort of beast, but I don't know because I don't experience it so I have trouble arguing that others aren't experiencing it.

Ok, but it was my impression that you seemed to place "proof through revelation" as somehow less disputable than, for instance, "proof through burning bush." I just wanted to point out that, if both are entirely natural, both are open to refutation on empirical grounds. Obviously, we cannot observe the brain by the same means as we would a bush, but that is not grounds for immunity, and neither is the level of pervasiveness of a particular delusion. I'm not arguing, incidentally, that people don't truly love god, but I would point out that some people might love Zeus just as much, or Harry Potter.

If we could identify the state of mind that equals feeling God's love, then you are right that we could probably recreate it medically. But this does not prove that feelings of God's love are not caused by God any more than a magician bending spoons proves that Uri Geller is a magician and not a psychic (although it sure would lead me to suspect that). I'd say that a personal revelation of god is indisputable only to the person who experiences it and only in the sense that there is no evidence I can produce that will change their mind. It is not immune to criticism, but such criticism will have no impact on the person who received the revelation. Can this kind of thing be said of mental illnesses as well? Sure.

Ok, let's replace every "god" with "Santa Claus". If I can show someone that Santa was really Dad, I think that person might reconsider their views. It wouldn't even be necessarily obnoxious of me to do so.

I agree that I cannot think of any empirical proof for the existence of a supernatural creator that would be unquestionable. I don't agree that the laws of logic arise from the physical laws, because logic can exist without the physical (as can mathematics).

Here we have a parting of the ways. I do not agree that either logic or mathematics could exist without the physical. This helps explain some of our disagreements.

The deistic god piece is worth looking at. It seems to me that if I can't prove or disprove a god that took a hike right after creation, I also can't prove or disprove one that left a year, or a million years, or a billion years after creation. If god decided his work was done and left in 2004, I would be similarly out of luck. Just a thought.

This is curious, because it seems to me that you hold that a theistic god is provable, I'm guessing by means of miracles or some such, but the deistic god is not. I wonder if you find this as troubling as I do.

Of course, anything related to a deistic god doesn't do us much good today. There aren't a lot of deists around (which is too bad, because I think deism is pretty defensible). Bummer.

Ahhh yes, the notorious cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments. It's gotten to the point that even thinking about them makes me feel unclean.

More good stuff!

Let's start with the definition of "faith." I'd say that faith is "belief without proof," not "belief without evidence," because a great many people who have faith would say that they have evidence for that faith. For example, I have a lot of evidence that the laws of physics are immutable, but I can't prove it.

About you being a "strong" atheist with respect to the Christian God: this is a broad field, because even Christians can't agree on the nature of God. I think you and I technically agree on this, but for different reasons and with different means of expression. In that I have yet to hear a good, coherent, complete definition of God from a Christian, I am not willing to say that "God" (whatever that is) does or does not exist, but the being described by the definitions of God I've heard is either so vaguely defined that I can draw no conclusions or does not exist for the reasons you state.

I do think that "proof through revelation" is less disputable than "proof through burning bush," if only for matters of convenience. More importantly, I think that revelation is more compelling to the individual who experiences it than a burning bush. If there is an all-powerful god and that god wants me to believe, I will believe -- I have no choice. For that matter, if super-advanced aliens want to adjust my brain chemistry so I think I'm a carrot, I'll have to believe that, too. (Perhaps making me a theistic carrot.)

Certainly we can argue against and examine proof through revelation. I just think it's generally pointless because, ultimately, you can't prove there was no supernatural cause. Similarly, Catholics believe that God works through science and directs evolution, and there's no way to disprove that. At best, you can say that God is not a necessary part of the equation.

I agree with you about the Santa Claus replacement. I think there can be value in getting people to consider the possibility that their "revelation" of God's existence might have other explanations. But this neither proves nor disproves the existence of a deity (and, in any case, is pretty low on my list of priorities -- I think getting people to behave well within theism is more important right now than trying to convince people to give up their faith).

I am curious why you would say that logic or mathematics could not exist without the physical. Do you mean that there can be no number "1" without anything to be counted? This may be simply a semantic disagreement.

Deistic gods: a deistic god is not provable because it doesn't do anything anymore. It is possible that a theistic god is provable, because it might chose to do something to prove its existence. Aside from changing my brain chemistry, I don't know what that "something" might be, but I can't say that I'm smart enough to have thought of all the possibilities. Do I find this troubling? Not really. Frustrating at times, maybe. I would much rather be able to find out the truth behind everything, but some things are beyond investigation.

I should also bring up the point that it may be possible to find proof of even a deistic god after death. I doubt it, and I'm not in a hurry to try, but I think it worth mentioning the possibility. Not that it does us any good at the moment.

I sometimes talk about UFOs and alien abductions as a bit of an analog to religion, and in the case of our discussion there are some interesting parallels. If aliens once visited Earth but no longer do so, I can't disprove their visits and there is no good evidence for their visits, but I wouldn't say aliens have never visited our planet. There are literally millions of people who have had a UFO experience of one sort or another, but even though I think the possibility of extraterrestrial life is quite high, I think it likely that all those millions of people are wrong. If aliens do visit us one day, I think we'll find that they are much different from anything current UFO-fans have in mind. My suspicion is that, in the unlikely event that there is a deity, we will find it completely alien to current common beliefs. And that makes discussion of such an entity's properties (including existence) very difficult indeed.