Hey dude not a bad site, but a couple of points....

Hitler was a Jew/christian. WWII was a war for christianity.

Einstein was an athiest.

Your US founding fathers intended religion to be sererate from the state, the United States was never meant to be a Christian nation. I beleive some of them were athiests themselves, and the whole war was about the US gaining religious freedom from the UK.

Your second and third statements are true, but I'd say your first and last ones are a little shakey. I don't know that it has been proven that Hitler was Jewish (although I've heard that myself), and it's extremely debatable that WWII was a war for Christianity as opposed to a war for German nationalism (or for Hitler's ego).

I don't know that any of the founding fathers were atheists, although many were certainly deists. And the American civil war was much more about political independence than religious independence.

Go fuck yourself daily.

Sorry, but I'm pressed for time as it is. Seriously.

The Arugment Against Athiets page is pretty funny and pretty embarassing for any Christian who has ever posed about 95% of those arguments. I appreciate the reminder that education and common sense are two vitally important elements every human being should pursue. It is a shame most "Christians" are their own worst enemy.

Unfortunately, when we are talking philosophy and ethics, many people are their own worst enemies. Whether or not they are religious.

I had a conversation with one atheist on this subject and after a number of exchanges she wrote that she had this sudden revelation that we all do what we feel like doing.

What is the ultimate point? Truth ought to be the ultimate objective in our worldview and let the consequences to our public altruism fall where they may. But how does truth win when the ultimate objective is feeling good?

In an earlier email, I think you wrote that your purpose was to try and make the world a better place. Now you write that you derive your ethics from self interest. From googling, I can tell that "self interest" doesn't play very well to the general populace from an ethical or purpose-in-life perspective. But of course, "making the world a better place" is very popular. Is this consistency?

It may be true that people tend to do what they want to do (and use their philosophy to justify it later), but this is not a desirable situation. I certainly don't do many things I'd like to do because my desires conflict with my philosophy.

Now, about my consistency. I say that my purpose is to make the world a better place and that I derive my ethics from self interest. These two statements do not contradict themselves, in that the first is a personal goal and the second is a statement of philosophy. Even so, it is in my best interest to make the world a better place, so the two go together well.

I find it rather interesting. The whole atheist ideas and catholics who make you guilt trip to another human being. I personally don't dwell on such happenings. Religion was never something that ever caught my attention. It's like a trend. It hop scotches everywhere it goes. When it crosses my path, I let it go on right by. I've been to enough funerals (14) to know that we are born, we live, we die. Nothing can change that. And if there's a party in the after life, let it be hell, purgatory, heaven, or becoming one with the universe, so be it. And the amount of funerals is 4 years off of my age. Being 18 years old and having to go through that kind of realization, makes God or Allah not exist. True, miracles happen. Actually, if you ask me, you just got lucky. But no one lives till they're 879 years old.

Do what you will. Live how you want. Believe whatever you want to believe. But, when it comes to shoving religions down peoples throats so hard they puke it back in your face, it's best to leave it be. Why do you think the middle east is so angry. Most of it's religion. They're still playing the "I'm right, you're wrong" crap and blowing eachother up in the name of whatever god or martyr they choose.

I stick to my own world. Let it be believing in some sort of higher power or not. Then again, I am a female scientist. We were made from rocks! Believe that.

If that offended you. Think of how I feel when you walk around saying two people created the entire human race. Now that is messed up. Think about it. We're all somehow related? It's incest I tell you!

I don't want to look at someone and say damn he's cute but then say wait he could be my 1,0000th cousin. NO! That's just complete filth.

Oh, and don't forget about the aliens.

They're watching us.

While I agree with much of what you say, I'm a little less inclined to disinterest in the beliefs of others than you are. I agree that beliefs shouldn't be forced on others, and I agree that people have the right to believe as they will, but I think that everyone with a strong personal moral philosophy (whether religious or not) is in a sense compelled to at least make it available to others, unless they truly believe that all sets of beliefs are equal (which you obviously do not).

Think of it this way -- if you believe other people are ruining their lives with superstition, aren't you, in a sense, morally compelled to make sure that they are aware of alternatives? True, there are good ways and bad ways to go about this, but just letting others suffer for lack of knowledge or intellectual tools seems unethical to me. I would make the same argument for a religious person who believes that atheists are going to hell -- aren't they morally compelled to at least present an alternative?

And speaking of incest -- don't forget that there had to be some of what we would consider inbreeding after Noah's flood, too. By the way, fundamentalist Christians don't shy away from the fact that Adam and Eve's children committed incest. But they don't run around pointing it out, either.

You have quite an interesting site, and as an atheist and an ex-evangelist (indoctrinated from birth), I think you're doing a great job!

But just some passing thoughts...

For some reason the lack of a belief in something you can't see or study is looked down upon. In fact, in this universe, material is all that really matters. That which is not material or part of its properties do not exist. It's funny that a god, especially as powerful as the one described in various holy books would not commend humans in their logic and reason, and perhaps leave clues that he does indeed exists. But as we learn more through science and study, the presence and powers of all so-called gods shrink. Understanding replaces ignorance, logic replaces superstition, and all gods eventually fade away.

I've never been ridiculed for not believing in Zeus, Thor, fairies, nymphs, and unicorns, so why should i be ridiculed for no believing in a Judeo-Islamic-Christian fantasy love-hate god.

I forgot who said it, and although it may never be understood by religious zealots of this age, it has to be said:

"When you understand your reasons for dismissing other's gods, then you can understand why i dismiss yours."

keep up the good work!

Thanks for the nice letter!

That said, I am going to disagree with you (mildly) on a few items.

When you say that the material universe is all that matters, you are correct only insofar as materialism is correct. Your next sentence says that nothing immaterial exists, but I don't think that the nonexistence of the immaterial can be proven. Rather, I would say that there is no proof of the immaterial and therefore it is not relevant -- making much the same argument you do but avoiding asserting an unprovable negative.

I would also disagree with the statement that science and study shrinks the powers and presence of gods. I would say that science and study diminishes (and, at this point, has eliminated) the need for gods. The different between our statements seems to be purely linguistic, however.

I completely agree with your bafflement at why a creator god wouldn't be please with His creations' use of their intellect. A few religious fundamentalists treat reason as if it's a tool of Satan, and that just strikes me as weird.

I read your conversation with the mother of the 15 year old daughter, and I can say as an 18 year old former christian that the quickest way to get your daughter to "turn away from the lord" is to try to repress her free thought and questions about religion.

The thing about questioning is that it can never be wrong: either it turns out that she learns the truth (good) or she gets strengthened in her current beliefs (also good). Either way, attempting to put up a shield is only going to backfire when she begins resenting you not treating her as an individual who can think for self.

I agree with you that questioning seems like the right way to go no matter what side of the discussion you are on. Unfortunately, there are many religious people who would disagree.

Some of them would say that true faith means not questioning, but to me that sounds like a recipe greatly increasing your risk of being drawn into a cult.