₦airaland Forum

toba:
u may be considered a spammer very soon cos the way u proliferate threads on NL and merely posting statements made by people that have been considered evangelical atheists. u have been posting dawkins and co without forming your own opinion. enough said. lol


I want to ask u a question. can u please define evangelism for me from at least 3 different sources? pls do me that favour and pls be objective

Having posted this exact thing on two threads at the same time, I wonder who the spammer is. Anyway, I replied you here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-768033.0.html

That is all.

toba:
u may be considered a spammer very soon cos the way u proliferate threads on NL and merely posting statements made by people that have been considered evangelical atheists. u have been posting dawkins and co without forming your own opinion. enough said. lol

Thank you for your concern. I do not believe I am spamming though. This is a forum and we are all free to post here. There is nothing in the rules that says I have to form an opinion about anything I post. After reading some of the debates in the religious section, it has become apparent that many theists do not really understand atheism. They seek to label it a religion as a way of dealing with it.
I believe I have refuted your position here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.0.html though you still hold your opinion.
You call Dawkins and co evangelical evangelists just because some misguided folks say so. That is not proof. To avoid transferring our discussion here, please refer to the above link.

I want to ask u a question. can u please define dogma for me from at least 3 different sources? pls do me that favour and pls be objective

Not on this thread. Open a fresh one (its not spamming trust me). You can as well define it yourself I'm sure.

Lastly, somethings I agree with wholly, some partially and some not at all.

If you have an issue with anything posted, bring it up and lets contribute to knowledge.
That is all.

He who has eyes, let him read.

@Toba
Enjoy your lunch Sir.

The Problem with Atheism

Sam Harris

(This is an edited transcript of a talk given at the Atheist Alliance conference in Washington D.C. on September 28th, 2007)

To begin, I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge just how strange it is that a meeting like this is even necessary. The year is 2007, and we have all taken time out of our busy lives, and many of us have traveled considerable distance, so that we can strategize about how best to live in a world in which most people believe in an imaginary God. America is now a nation of 300 million people, wielding more influence than any people in human history, and yet this influence is being steadily corrupted, and is surely waning, because 240 million of these people apparently believe that Jesus will return someday and orchestrate the end of the world with his magic powers.

Of course, we may well wonder whether as many people believe these things as say they do. I know that Christopher [Hitchens] and Richard [Dawkins] are rather optimistic that our opinion polls are out of register with what people actually believe in the privacy of their own minds. But there is no question that most of our neighbors reliably profess that they believe these things, and such professions themselves have had a disastrous affect on our political discourse, on our public policy, on the teaching of science, and on our reputation in the world. And even if only a third or a quarter of our neighbors believe what most profess, it seems to me that we still have a problem worth worrying about.

Now, it is not often that I find myself in a room full of people who are more or less guaranteed to agree with me on the subject of religion. In thinking about what I could say to you all tonight, it seemed to me that I have a choice between throwing red meat to the lions of atheism or moving the conversation into areas where we actually might not agree. I’ve decided, at some risk to your mood, to take the second approach and to say a few things that might prove controversial in this context.

Given the absence of evidence for God, and the stupidity and suffering that still thrives under the mantle of religion, declaring oneself an “atheist” would seem the only appropriate response. And it is the stance that many of us have proudly and publicly adopted. Tonight, I’d like to try to make the case, that our use of this label is a mistake—and a mistake of some consequence.

My concern with the use of the term “atheism” is both philosophical and strategic. I’m speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn’t even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

If the comparison with astrology seems too facile, consider the problem of racism. Racism was about as intractable a social problem as we have ever had in this country. We are talking about deeply held convictions. I’m sure you have all seen the photos of lynchings in the first half of the 20th century—where seemingly whole towns in the South, thousands of men, women and children—bankers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, church elders, newspaper editors, policemen, even the occasional Senator and Congressman—turned out as though for a carnival to watch some young man or woman be tortured to death and then strung up on a tree or lamppost for all to see.

Seeing the pictures of these people in their Sunday best, having arranged themselves for a postcard photo under a dangling, and lacerated, and often partially cremated person, is one thing, but realize that these genteel people, who were otherwise quite normal, we must presume—though unfailing religious—often took souvenirs of the body home to show their friends—teeth, ears, fingers, knee caps, internal organs—and sometimes displayed them at their places of business.

Of course, I’m not saying that racism is no longer a problem in this country, but anyone who thinks that the problem is as bad as it ever was has simply forgotten, or has never learned, how bad, in fact, it was.

So, we can now ask, how have people of good will and common sense gone about combating racism? There was a civil rights movement, of course. The KKK was gradually battered to the fringes of society. There have been important and, I think, irrevocable changes in the way we talk about race—our major newspapers no longer publish flagrantly racist articles and editorials as they did less than a century ago—but, ask yourself, how many people have had to identify themselves as “non-racists” to participate in this process? Is there a “non-racist alliance” somewhere for me to join?

Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

Another problem is that in accepting a label, particularly the label of “atheist,” it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture. We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms. I’m not saying that meetings like this aren’t important. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think it was important. But I am saying that as a matter of philosophy we are guilty of confusion, and as a matter of strategy, we have walked into a trap. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet.

While it is an honor to find myself continually assailed with Dan [Dennett], Richard [Dawkins], and Christopher [Hitchens] as though we were a single person with four heads, this whole notion of the “new atheists” or “militant atheists” has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm’s length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them. And while our books have gotten a fair amount of notice, I think this whole conversation about the conflict between faith and reason, and religion and science, has been, and will continue to be, successfully marginalized under the banner of atheism.

So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

Now, it just so happens that religion has more than its fair share of bad ideas. And it remains the only system of thought, where the process of maintaining bad ideas in perpetual immunity from criticism is considered a sacred act. This is the act of faith. And I remain convinced that religious faith is one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised. So we will, inevitably, continue to criticize religious thinking. But we should not define ourselves and name ourselves in opposition to such thinking.

So what does this all mean in practical terms, apart from Margaret Downey having to change her letterhead? Well, rather than declare ourselves “atheists” in opposition to all religion, I think we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honesty—and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefs—not with religion in general. There is no religion in general.

The problem is that the concept of atheism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on people’s beliefs about God and remaining even-handed in our treatment of religion. But we shouldn’t be fixated, and we shouldn’t be even-handed. In fact, we should be quick to point out the differences among religions, for two reasons:

First, these differences make all religions look contingent, and therefore silly. Consider the unique features of Mormonism, which may have some relevance in the next Presidential election. Mormonism, it seems to me, is—objectively—just a little more idiotic than Christianity is. It has to be: because it is Christianity plus some very stupid ideas. For instance, the Mormons think Jesus is going to return to earth and administer his Thousand years of Peace, at least part of the time, from the state of Missouri. Why does this make Mormonism less likely to be true than Christianity? Because whatever probability you assign to Jesus’ coming back, you have to assign a lesser probability to his coming back and keeping a summer home in Jackson County, Missouri. If Mitt Romney wants to be the next President of the United States, he should be made to feel the burden of our incredulity. We can make common cause with our Christian brothers and sisters on this point. Just what does the man believe? The world should know. And it is almost guaranteed to be embarrassing even to most people who believe in the biblical God.

The second reason to be attentive to the differences among the world’s religions is that these differences are actually a matter of life and death. There are very few of us who lie awake at night worrying about the Amish. This is not an accident. While I have no doubt that the Amish are mistreating their children, by not educating them adequately, they are not likely to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings. But consider how we, as atheists, tend to talk about Islam. Christians often complain that atheists, and the secular world generally, balance every criticism of Muslim extremism with a mention of Christian extremism. The usual approach is to say that they have their jihadists, and we have people who kill abortion doctors. Our Christian neighbors, even the craziest of them, are right to be outraged by this pretense of even-handedness, because the truth is that Islam is quite a bit scarier and more culpable for needless human misery, than Christianity has been for a very, very long time. And the world must wake up to this fact. Muslims themselves must wake up to this fact. And they can.

You might remember that Thomas Friedman recently wrote an op-ed from Iraq, reporting that some Sunni militias are now fighting jihadists alongside American troops. When Friedman asked one Sunni militant why he was doing this, he said that he had recently watched a member of al-Qaeda decapitate an 8-year-old girl. This persuaded him that the American Crusader forces were the lesser of two evils.

Okay, so even some Sunni militants can discern the boundary between ordinary crazy Islam, and the utterly crazy, once it is drawn in the spilled blood of little girls. This is a basis for hope, of sorts. But we have to be honest—unremittingly honest—about what is on the other side of that line. This is what we and the rest of the civilized, and the semi-civilized world, are up against: utter religious lunacy and barbarism in the name of Islam—with, I’m unhappy to say, some mainstream theology to back it up.

To be even-handed when talking about the problem of Islam is to misconstrue the problem. The refrain, “all religions have their extremists,” is bullshit—and it is putting the West to sleep. All religions don’t have these extremists. Some religions have never had these extremists. And in the Muslim world, support for extremism is not extreme in the sense of being rare. A recent poll showed that about a third of young British Muslims want to live under sharia law and believe that apostates should be killed for leaving the faith. These are British Muslims. Sixty-eight percent of British Muslims feel that their neighbors who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted, and seventy-eight percent think that the Danish cartoonists should be brought to justice. These people don’t have a clue about what constitutes a civil society. Reports of this kind coming out of the Muslim communities living in the West should worry us, before anything else about religion worries us.

Atheism is too blunt an instrument to use at moments like this. It’s as though we have a landscape of human ignorance and bewilderment—with peaks and valleys and local attractors—and the concept of atheism causes us to fixate one part of this landscape, the part related to theistic religion, and then just flattens it. Because to be consistent as atheists we must oppose, or seem to oppose, all faith claims equally. This is a waste of precious time and energy, and it squanders the trust of people who would otherwise agree with us on specific issues.

I’m not at all suggesting that we leave people’s core religious beliefs, or faith itself, unscathed—I’m still the kind of person who writes articles with rather sweeping titles like “Science must destroy religion”—but it seems to me that we should never lose sight of useful and important distinctions.

Another problem with calling ourselves “atheists” is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism. We’ve all heard these arguments, and we are going to keep hearing them as long as we insist upon calling ourselves “atheists. Arguments like: atheists can’t prove that God doesn’t exist; atheists are claiming to know there is no God, and this is the most arrogant claim of all. As Rick Warren put it, when he and I debated for Newsweek—a reasonable man like himself “doesn’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” The idea that the universe could arise without a creator is, on his account, the most extravagant faith claim of all.

Of course, as an argument for the truth of any specific religious doctrine, this is a travesty. And we all know what to do in this situation: We have Russell’s teapot, and thousands of dead gods, and now a flying spaghetti monster, the nonexistence of which also cannot be proven, and yet belief in these things is acknowledged to be ridiculous by everyone. The problem is, we have to keep having this same argument, over and over again, and the argument is being generated to a significant degree, if not entirely, over our use of the term “atheism.”

So too with the “greatest crimes of the 20th century” argument. How many times are we going to have to counter the charge that Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot represent the endgame of atheism? I’ve got news for you, this meme is not going away. I argued against it in The End of Faith, and it was immediately thrown back at me in reviews of the book as though I had never mentioned it. So I tackled it again in the afterword to the paperback edition of The End of Faith; but this had no effect whatsoever; so at the risk of boring everyone, I brought it up again in Letter to a Christian Nation; and Richard did the same in The God Delusion; and Christopher took a mighty swing at it in God is Not Great. I can assure you that this bogus argument will be with us for as long as people label themselves “atheists.” And it really convinces religious people. It convinces moderates and liberals. It even convinces the occasional atheist.

Why should we fall into this trap? Why should we stand obediently in the space provided, in the space carved out by the conceptual scheme of theistic religion? It’s as though, before the debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it.

Instead of doing this, consider what would happen if we simply used words like “reason” and “evidence.” What is the argument against reason? It’s true that a few people will bite the bullet here and argue that reason is itself a problem, that the Enlightenment was a failed project, etc. But the truth is that there are very few people, even among religious fundamentalists, who will happily admit to being enemies of reason. In fact, fundamentalists tend to think they are champions of reason and that they have very good reasons for believing in God. Nobody wants to believe things on bad evidence. The desire to know what is actually going on in world is very difficult to argue with. In so far as we represent that desire, we become difficult to argue with. And this desire is not reducible to an interest group. It’s not a club or an affiliation, and I think trying to make it one diminishes its power.

The last problem with atheism I’d like to talk about relates to the some of the experiences that lie at the core of many religious traditions, though perhaps not all, and which are testified to, with greater or lesser clarity in the world’s “spiritual” and “mystical” literature.
Those of you who have read The End of Faith, know that I don’t entirely line up with Dan, Richard, and Christopher in my treatment of these things. So I think I should take a little time to discuss this. While I always use terms like “spiritual” and “mystical” in scare quotes, and take some pains to denude them of metaphysics, the email I receive from my brothers and sisters in arms suggests that many of you find my interest in these topics problematic.

First, let me describe the general phenomenon I’m referring to. Here’s what happens, in the generic case: a person, in whatever culture he finds himself, begins to notice that life is difficult. He observes that even in the best of times—no one close to him has died, he’s healthy, there are no hostile armies massing in the distance, the fridge is stocked with beer, the weather is just so—even when things are as good as they can be, he notices that at the level of his moment to moment experience, at the level of his attention, he is perpetually on the move, seeking happiness and finding only temporary relief from his search.

We’ve all noticed this. We seek pleasant sights, and sounds, and tastes, and sensations, and attitudes. We satisfy our intellectual curiosities, and our desire for friendship and romance. We become connoisseurs of art and music and film—but our pleasures are, by their very nature, fleeting. And we can do nothing more than merely reiterate them as often as we are able.

If we enjoy some great professional success, our feelings of accomplishment remain vivid and intoxicating for about an hour, or maybe a day, but then people will begin to ask us “So, what are you going to do next? Don’t you have anything else in the pipeline?” Steve Jobs releases the IPhone, and I’m sure it wasn’t twenty minutes before someone asked, “when are you going to make this thing smaller?” Notice that very few people at this juncture, no matter what they’ve accomplished, say, “I’m done. I’ve met all my goals. Now I’m just going to stay here eat ice cream until I die in front of you.”

Even when everything has gone as well as it can go, the search for happiness continues, the effort required to keep doubt and dissatisfaction and boredom at bay continues, moment to moment. If nothing else, the reality of death and the experience of losing loved ones punctures even the most gratifying and well-ordered life.

In this context, certain people have traditionally wondered whether a deeper form of well-being exists. Is there, in other words, a form of happiness that is not contingent upon our merely reiterating our pleasures and successes and avoiding our pains. Is there a form of happiness that is not dependent upon having one’s favorite food always available to be placed on one’s tongue or having all one’s friends and loved ones within arm’s reach, or having good books to read, or having something to look forward to on the weekend? Is it possible to be utterly happy before anything happens, before one’s desires get gratified, in spite of life’s inevitable difficulties, in the very midst of physical pain, old age, disease, and death?

This question, I think, lies at the periphery of everyone’s consciousness. We are all, in some sense, living our answer to it—and many of us are living as though the answer is “no.” No, there is nothing more profound that repeating one’s pleasures and avoiding one’s pains; there is nothing more profound that seeking satisfaction, both sensory and intellectual. Many of us seem think that all we can do is just keep our foot on the gas until we run out of road.

But certain people, for whatever reason, are led to suspect that there is more to human experience than this. In fact, many of them are led to suspect this by religion—by the claims of people like the Buddha or Jesus or some other celebrated religious figures. And such a person may begin to practice various disciplines of attention—often called “meditation” or “contemplation”—as a means of examining his moment to moment experience closely enough to see if a deeper basis of well-being is there to be found.

Such a person might even hole himself up in a cave, or in a monastery, for months or years at a time to facilitate this process. Why would somebody do this? Well, it amounts to a very simple experiment. Here’s the logic of it: if there is a form of psychological well-being that isn’t contingent upon merely repeating one’s pleasures, then this happiness should be available even when all the obvious sources of pleasure and satisfaction have been removed. If it exists at all, this happiness should be available to a person who has renounced all her material possessions, and declined to marry her high school sweetheart, and gone off to a cave or to some other spot that would seem profoundly uncongenial to the satisfaction of ordinary desires and aspirations.

One clue as to how daunting most people would find such a project is the fact that solitary confinement—which is essentially what we are talking about—is considered a punishment even inside a prison. Even when cooped up with homicidal maniacs and rapists, most people still prefer the company of others to spending any significant amount of time alone in a box.

And yet, for thousands of years, contemplatives have claimed to find extraordinary depths of psychological well-being while spending vast stretches of time in total isolation. It seems to me that, as rational people, whether we call ourselves “atheists” or not, we have a choice to make in how we view this whole enterprise. Either the contemplative literature is a mere catalogue of religious delusion, deliberate fraud, and psychopathology, or people have been having interesting and even normative experiences under the name of “spirituality” and “mysticism” for millennia.

Now let me just assert, on the basis of my own study and experience, that there is no question in my mind that people have improved their emotional lives, and their self-understanding, and their ethical intuitions, and have even had important insights about the nature of subjectivity itself through a variety of traditional practices like meditation.

Leaving aside all the metaphysics and mythology and mumbo jumbo, what contemplatives and mystics over the millennia claim to have discovered is that there is an alternative to merely living at the mercy of the next neurotic thought that comes careening into consciousness. There is an alternative to being continuously spellbound by the conversation we are having with ourselves.

Most us think that if a person is walking down the street talking to himself—that is, not able to censor himself in front of other people—he’s probably mentally ill. But if we talk to ourselves all day long silently—thinking, thinking, thinking, rehearsing prior conversations, thinking about what we said, what we didn’t say, what we should have said, jabbering on to ourselves about what we hope is going to happen, what just happened, what almost happened, what should have happened, what may yet happen—but we just know enough to just keep this conversation private, this is perfectly normal. This is perfectly compatible with sanity. Well, this is not what the experience of millions of contemplatives suggests.

Of course, I am by no means denying the importance of thinking. There is no question that linguistic thought is indispensable for us. It is, in large part, what makes us human. It is the fabric of almost all culture and every social relationship. Needless to say, it is the basis of all science. And it is surely responsible for much rudimentary cognition—for integrating beliefs, planning, explicit learning, moral reasoning, and many other mental capacities. Even talking to oneself out loud may occasionally serve a useful function.

From the point of view of our contemplative traditions, however—to boil them all down to a cartoon version, that ignores the rather esoteric disputes among them—our habitual identification with discursive thought, our failure moment to moment to recognize thoughts as thoughts, is a primary source of human suffering. And when a person breaks this spell, an extraordinary kind of relief is available.

But the problem with a contemplative claim of this sort is that you can’t borrow someone else’s contemplative tools to test it. The problem is that to test such a claim—indeed, to even appreciate how distracted we tend to be in the first place, we have to build our own contemplative tools. Imagine where astronomy would be if everyone had to build his own telescope before he could even begin to see if astronomy was a legitimate enterprise. It wouldn’t make the sky any less worthy of investigation, but it would make it immensely more difficult for us to establish astronomy as a science.

To judge the empirical claims of contemplatives, you have to build your own telescope. Judging their metaphysical claims is another matter: many of these can be dismissed as bad science or bad philosophy by merely thinking about them. But to judge whether certain experiences are possible—and if possible, desirable—we have to be able to use our attention in the requisite ways. We have to be able to break our identification with discursive thought, if only for a few moments. This can take a tremendous amount of work. And it is not work that our culture knows much about.

One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc.

As someone who has made his own modest efforts in this area, let me assure you, that when a person goes into solitude and trains himself in meditation for 15 or 18 hours a day, for months or years at a time, in silence, doing nothing else—not talking, not reading, not writing—just making a sustained moment to moment effort to merely observe the contents of consciousness and to not get lost in thought, he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts at introspection. And these experiences have a lot to say about the plasticity of the human mind and about the possibilities of human happiness.

So, apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I’d like to point out that, as atheists, our neglect of this area of human experience puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them, and we, as atheists, ignore such phenomena, almost in principle, because of their religious associations—and yet these experiences often constitute the most important and transformative moments in a person’s life. Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents.

My concern is that atheism can easily become the position of not being interested in certain possibilities in principle. I don’t know if our universe is, as JBS Haldane said, “not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.” But I am sure that it is stranger than we, as “atheists,” tend to represent while advocating atheism. As “atheists” we give others, and even ourselves, the sense that we are well on our way toward purging the universe of mystery. As advocates of reason, we know that mystery is going to be with us for a very long time. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that mystery is ineradicable from our circumstance, because however much we know, it seems like there will always be brute facts that we cannot account for but which we must rely upon to explain everything else. [/b]This may be a problem for epistemology but it is not a problem for human life and for human solidarity. [b]It does not rob our lives of meaning. And it is not a barrier to human happiness.

We are faced, however, with the challenge of communicating this view to others. We are faced with the monumental task of persuading a myth-infatuated world that love and curiosity are sufficient, and that we need not console or frighten ourselves or our children with Iron Age fairy tales. I don’t think there is a more important intellectual struggle to win; it has to be fought from a hundred sides, all at once, and continuously; but it seems to me that there is no reason for us to fight in well-ordered ranks, like the red coats of Atheism.

Finally, I think it’s useful to envision what victory will look like. Again, the analogy with racism seems instructive to me. What will victory against racism look like, should that happy day ever dawn? It certainly won’t be a world in which a majority of people profess that they are “nonracist.” Most likely, it will be a world in which the very concept of separate races has lost its meaning.

We will have won this war of ideas against religion when atheism is scarcely intelligible as a concept. We will simply find ourselves in a world in which people cease to praise one another for pretending to know things they do not know. This is certainly a future worth fighting for. It may be the only future compatible with our long-term survival as a species. But the only path between now and then, that I can see, is for us to be rigorously honest in the present. It seems to me that intellectual honesty is now, and will always be, deeper and more durable, and more easily spread, than “atheism.”

The Problem with Atheism

Sam Harris

(This is an edited transcript of a talk given at the Atheist Alliance conference in Washington D.C. on September 28th, 2007)

To begin, I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge just how strange it is that a meeting like this is even necessary. The year is 2007, and we have all taken time out of our busy lives, and many of us have traveled considerable distance, so that we can strategize about how best to live in a world in which most people believe in an imaginary God. America is now a nation of 300 million people, wielding more influence than any people in human history, and yet this influence is being steadily corrupted, and is surely waning, because 240 million of these people apparently believe that Jesus will return someday and orchestrate the end of the world with his magic powers.

Of course, we may well wonder whether as many people believe these things as say they do. I know that Christopher [Hitchens] and Richard [Dawkins] are rather optimistic that our opinion polls are out of register with what people actually believe in the privacy of their own minds. But there is no question that most of our neighbors reliably profess that they believe these things, and such professions themselves have had a disastrous affect on our political discourse, on our public policy, on the teaching of science, and on our reputation in the world. And even if only a third or a quarter of our neighbors believe what most profess, it seems to me that we still have a problem worth worrying about.

Now, it is not often that I find myself in a room full of people who are more or less guaranteed to agree with me on the subject of religion. In thinking about what I could say to you all tonight, it seemed to me that I have a choice between throwing red meat to the lions of atheism or moving the conversation into areas where we actually might not agree. I’ve decided, at some risk to your mood, to take the second approach and to say a few things that might prove controversial in this context.

Given the absence of evidence for God, and the stupidity and suffering that still thrives under the mantle of religion, declaring oneself an “atheist” would seem the only appropriate response. And it is the stance that many of us have proudly and publicly adopted. Tonight, I’d like to try to make the case, that our use of this label is a mistake—and a mistake of some consequence.

My concern with the use of the term “atheism” is both philosophical and strategic. I’m speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn’t even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

If the comparison with astrology seems too facile, consider the problem of racism. Racism was about as intractable a social problem as we have ever had in this country. We are talking about deeply held convictions. I’m sure you have all seen the photos of lynchings in the first half of the 20th century—where seemingly whole towns in the South, thousands of men, women and children—bankers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, church elders, newspaper editors, policemen, even the occasional Senator and Congressman—turned out as though for a carnival to watch some young man or woman be tortured to death and then strung up on a tree or lamppost for all to see.

Seeing the pictures of these people in their Sunday best, having arranged themselves for a postcard photo under a dangling, and lacerated, and often partially cremated person, is one thing, but realize that these genteel people, who were otherwise quite normal, we must presume—though unfailing religious—often took souvenirs of the body home to show their friends—teeth, ears, fingers, knee caps, internal organs—and sometimes displayed them at their places of business.

Of course, I’m not saying that racism is no longer a problem in this country, but anyone who thinks that the problem is as bad as it ever was has simply forgotten, or has never learned, how bad, in fact, it was.

So, we can now ask, how have people of good will and common sense gone about combating racism? There was a civil rights movement, of course. The KKK was gradually battered to the fringes of society. There have been important and, I think, irrevocable changes in the way we talk about race—our major newspapers no longer publish flagrantly racist articles and editorials as they did less than a century ago—but, ask yourself, how many people have had to identify themselves as “non-racists” to participate in this process? Is there a “non-racist alliance” somewhere for me to join?

Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

Another problem is that in accepting a label, particularly the label of “atheist,” it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture. We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms. I’m not saying that meetings like this aren’t important. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think it was important. But I am saying that as a matter of philosophy we are guilty of confusion, and as a matter of strategy, we have walked into a trap. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet.

While it is an honor to find myself continually assailed with Dan [Dennett], Richard [Dawkins], and Christopher [Hitchens] as though we were a single person with four heads, this whole notion of the “new atheists” or “militant atheists” has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm’s length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them. And while our books have gotten a fair amount of notice, I think this whole conversation about the conflict between faith and reason, and religion and science, has been, and will continue to be, successfully marginalized under the banner of atheism.

So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

Now, it just so happens that religion has more than its fair share of bad ideas. And it remains the only system of thought, where the process of maintaining bad ideas in perpetual immunity from criticism is considered a sacred act. This is the act of faith. And I remain convinced that religious faith is one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised. So we will, inevitably, continue to criticize religious thinking. But we should not define ourselves and name ourselves in opposition to such thinking.

So what does this all mean in practical terms, apart from Margaret Downey having to change her letterhead? Well, rather than declare ourselves “atheists” in opposition to all religion, I think we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honesty—and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefs—not with religion in general. There is no religion in general.

The problem is that the concept of atheism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on people’s beliefs about God and remaining even-handed in our treatment of religion. But we shouldn’t be fixated, and we shouldn’t be even-handed. In fact, we should be quick to point out the differences among religions, for two reasons:

First, these differences make all religions look contingent, and therefore silly. Consider the unique features of Mormonism, which may have some relevance in the next Presidential election. Mormonism, it seems to me, is—objectively—just a little more idiotic than Christianity is. It has to be: because it is Christianity plus some very stupid ideas. For instance, the Mormons think Jesus is going to return to earth and administer his Thousand years of Peace, at least part of the time, from the state of Missouri. Why does this make Mormonism less likely to be true than Christianity? Because whatever probability you assign to Jesus’ coming back, you have to assign a lesser probability to his coming back and keeping a summer home in Jackson County, Missouri. If Mitt Romney wants to be the next President of the United States, he should be made to feel the burden of our incredulity. We can make common cause with our Christian brothers and sisters on this point. Just what does the man believe? The world should know. And it is almost guaranteed to be embarrassing even to most people who believe in the biblical God.

The second reason to be attentive to the differences among the world’s religions is that these differences are actually a matter of life and death. There are very few of us who lie awake at night worrying about the Amish. This is not an accident. While I have no doubt that the Amish are mistreating their children, by not educating them adequately, they are not likely to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings. But consider how we, as atheists, tend to talk about Islam. Christians often complain that atheists, and the secular world generally, balance every criticism of Muslim extremism with a mention of Christian extremism. The usual approach is to say that they have their jihadists, and we have people who kill abortion doctors. Our Christian neighbors, even the craziest of them, are right to be outraged by this pretense of even-handedness, because the truth is that Islam is quite a bit scarier and more culpable for needless human misery, than Christianity has been for a very, very long time. And the world must wake up to this fact. Muslims themselves must wake up to this fact. And they can.

You might remember that Thomas Friedman recently wrote an op-ed from Iraq, reporting that some Sunni militias are now fighting jihadists alongside American troops. When Friedman asked one Sunni militant why he was doing this, he said that he had recently watched a member of al-Qaeda decapitate an 8-year-old girl. This persuaded him that the American Crusader forces were the lesser of two evils.

Okay, so even some Sunni militants can discern the boundary between ordinary crazy Islam, and the utterly crazy, once it is drawn in the spilled blood of little girls. This is a basis for hope, of sorts. But we have to be honest—unremittingly honest—about what is on the other side of that line. This is what we and the rest of the civilized, and the semi-civilized world, are up against: utter religious lunacy and barbarism in the name of Islam—with, I’m unhappy to say, some mainstream theology to back it up.

To be even-handed when talking about the problem of Islam is to misconstrue the problem. The refrain, “all religions have their extremists,” is bullshit—and it is putting the West to sleep. All religions don’t have these extremists. Some religions have never had these extremists. And in the Muslim world, support for extremism is not extreme in the sense of being rare. A recent poll showed that about a third of young British Muslims want to live under sharia law and believe that apostates should be killed for leaving the faith. These are British Muslims. Sixty-eight percent of British Muslims feel that their neighbors who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted, and seventy-eight percent think that the Danish cartoonists should be brought to justice. These people don’t have a clue about what constitutes a civil society. Reports of this kind coming out of the Muslim communities living in the West should worry us, before anything else about religion worries us.

Atheism is too blunt an instrument to use at moments like this. It’s as though we have a landscape of human ignorance and bewilderment—with peaks and valleys and local attractors—and the concept of atheism causes us to fixate one part of this landscape, the part related to theistic religion, and then just flattens it. Because to be consistent as atheists we must oppose, or seem to oppose, all faith claims equally. This is a waste of precious time and energy, and it squanders the trust of people who would otherwise agree with us on specific issues.

I’m not at all suggesting that we leave people’s core religious beliefs, or faith itself, unscathed—I’m still the kind of person who writes articles with rather sweeping titles like “Science must destroy religion”—but it seems to me that we should never lose sight of useful and important distinctions.

Another problem with calling ourselves “atheists” is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism. We’ve all heard these arguments, and we are going to keep hearing them as long as we insist upon calling ourselves “atheists. Arguments like: atheists can’t prove that God doesn’t exist; atheists are claiming to know there is no God, and this is the most arrogant claim of all. As Rick Warren put it, when he and I debated for Newsweek—a reasonable man like himself “doesn’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” The idea that the universe could arise without a creator is, on his account, the most extravagant faith claim of all.

Of course, as an argument for the truth of any specific religious doctrine, this is a travesty. And we all know what to do in this situation: We have Russell’s teapot, and thousands of dead gods, and now a flying spaghetti monster, the nonexistence of which also cannot be proven, and yet belief in these things is acknowledged to be ridiculous by everyone. The problem is, we have to keep having this same argument, over and over again, and the argument is being generated to a significant degree, if not entirely, over our use of the term “atheism.”

So too with the “greatest crimes of the 20th century” argument. How many times are we going to have to counter the charge that Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot represent the endgame of atheism? I’ve got news for you, this meme is not going away. I argued against it in The End of Faith, and it was immediately thrown back at me in reviews of the book as though I had never mentioned it. So I tackled it again in the afterword to the paperback edition of The End of Faith; but this had no effect whatsoever; so at the risk of boring everyone, I brought it up again in Letter to a Christian Nation; and Richard did the same in The God Delusion; and Christopher took a mighty swing at it in God is Not Great. I can assure you that this bogus argument will be with us for as long as people label themselves “atheists.” And it really convinces religious people. It convinces moderates and liberals. It even convinces the occasional atheist.

Why should we fall into this trap? Why should we stand obediently in the space provided, in the space carved out by the conceptual scheme of theistic religion? It’s as though, before the debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it.

Instead of doing this, consider what would happen if we simply used words like “reason” and “evidence.” What is the argument against reason? It’s true that a few people will bite the bullet here and argue that reason is itself a problem, that the Enlightenment was a failed project, etc. But the truth is that there are very few people, even among religious fundamentalists, who will happily admit to being enemies of reason. In fact, fundamentalists tend to think they are champions of reason and that they have very good reasons for believing in God. Nobody wants to believe things on bad evidence. The desire to know what is actually going on in world is very difficult to argue with. In so far as we represent that desire, we become difficult to argue with. And this desire is not reducible to an interest group. It’s not a club or an affiliation, and I think trying to make it one diminishes its power.

The last problem with atheism I’d like to talk about relates to the some of the experiences that lie at the core of many religious traditions, though perhaps not all, and which are testified to, with greater or lesser clarity in the world’s “spiritual” and “mystical” literature.
Those of you who have read The End of Faith, know that I don’t entirely line up with Dan, Richard, and Christopher in my treatment of these things. So I think I should take a little time to discuss this. While I always use terms like “spiritual” and “mystical” in scare quotes, and take some pains to denude them of metaphysics, the email I receive from my brothers and sisters in arms suggests that many of you find my interest in these topics problematic.

First, let me describe the general phenomenon I’m referring to. Here’s what happens, in the generic case: a person, in whatever culture he finds himself, begins to notice that life is difficult. He observes that even in the best of times—no one close to him has died, he’s healthy, there are no hostile armies massing in the distance, the fridge is stocked with beer, the weather is just so—even when things are as good as they can be, he notices that at the level of his moment to moment experience, at the level of his attention, he is perpetually on the move, seeking happiness and finding only temporary relief from his search.

We’ve all noticed this. We seek pleasant sights, and sounds, and tastes, and sensations, and attitudes. We satisfy our intellectual curiosities, and our desire for friendship and romance. We become connoisseurs of art and music and film—but our pleasures are, by their very nature, fleeting. And we can do nothing more than merely reiterate them as often as we are able.

If we enjoy some great professional success, our feelings of accomplishment remain vivid and intoxicating for about an hour, or maybe a day, but then people will begin to ask us “So, what are you going to do next? Don’t you have anything else in the pipeline?” Steve Jobs releases the IPhone, and I’m sure it wasn’t twenty minutes before someone asked, “when are you going to make this thing smaller?” Notice that very few people at this juncture, no matter what they’ve accomplished, say, “I’m done. I’ve met all my goals. Now I’m just going to stay here eat ice cream until I die in front of you.”

Even when everything has gone as well as it can go, the search for happiness continues, the effort required to keep doubt and dissatisfaction and boredom at bay continues, moment to moment. If nothing else, the reality of death and the experience of losing loved ones punctures even the most gratifying and well-ordered life.

In this context, certain people have traditionally wondered whether a deeper form of well-being exists. Is there, in other words, a form of happiness that is not contingent upon our merely reiterating our pleasures and successes and avoiding our pains. Is there a form of happiness that is not dependent upon having one’s favorite food always available to be placed on one’s tongue or having all one’s friends and loved ones within arm’s reach, or having good books to read, or having something to look forward to on the weekend? Is it possible to be utterly happy before anything happens, before one’s desires get gratified, in spite of life’s inevitable difficulties, in the very midst of physical pain, old age, disease, and death?

This question, I think, lies at the periphery of everyone’s consciousness. We are all, in some sense, living our answer to it—and many of us are living as though the answer is “no.” No, there is nothing more profound that repeating one’s pleasures and avoiding one’s pains; there is nothing more profound that seeking satisfaction, both sensory and intellectual. Many of us seem think that all we can do is just keep our foot on the gas until we run out of road.

But certain people, for whatever reason, are led to suspect that there is more to human experience than this. In fact, many of them are led to suspect this by religion—by the claims of people like the Buddha or Jesus or some other celebrated religious figures. And such a person may begin to practice various disciplines of attention—often called “meditation” or “contemplation”—as a means of examining his moment to moment experience closely enough to see if a deeper basis of well-being is there to be found.

Such a person might even hole himself up in a cave, or in a monastery, for months or years at a time to facilitate this process. Why would somebody do this? Well, it amounts to a very simple experiment. Here’s the logic of it: if there is a form of psychological well-being that isn’t contingent upon merely repeating one’s pleasures, then this happiness should be available even when all the obvious sources of pleasure and satisfaction have been removed. If it exists at all, this happiness should be available to a person who has renounced all her material possessions, and declined to marry her high school sweetheart, and gone off to a cave or to some other spot that would seem profoundly uncongenial to the satisfaction of ordinary desires and aspirations.

One clue as to how daunting most people would find such a project is the fact that solitary confinement—which is essentially what we are talking about—is considered a punishment even inside a prison. Even when cooped up with homicidal maniacs and rapists, most people still prefer the company of others to spending any significant amount of time alone in a box.

And yet, for thousands of years, contemplatives have claimed to find extraordinary depths of psychological well-being while spending vast stretches of time in total isolation. It seems to me that, as rational people, whether we call ourselves “atheists” or not, we have a choice to make in how we view this whole enterprise. Either the contemplative literature is a mere catalogue of religious delusion, deliberate fraud, and psychopathology, or people have been having interesting and even normative experiences under the name of “spirituality” and “mysticism” for millennia.

Now let me just assert, on the basis of my own study and experience, that there is no question in my mind that people have improved their emotional lives, and their self-understanding, and their ethical intuitions, and have even had important insights about the nature of subjectivity itself through a variety of traditional practices like meditation.

Leaving aside all the metaphysics and mythology and mumbo jumbo, what contemplatives and mystics over the millennia claim to have discovered is that there is an alternative to merely living at the mercy of the next neurotic thought that comes careening into consciousness. There is an alternative to being continuously spellbound by the conversation we are having with ourselves.

Most us think that if a person is walking down the street talking to himself—that is, not able to censor himself in front of other people—he’s probably mentally ill. But if we talk to ourselves all day long silently—thinking, thinking, thinking, rehearsing prior conversations, thinking about what we said, what we didn’t say, what we should have said, jabbering on to ourselves about what we hope is going to happen, what just happened, what almost happened, what should have happened, what may yet happen—but we just know enough to just keep this conversation private, this is perfectly normal. This is perfectly compatible with sanity. Well, this is not what the experience of millions of contemplatives suggests.

Of course, I am by no means denying the importance of thinking. There is no question that linguistic thought is indispensable for us. It is, in large part, what makes us human. It is the fabric of almost all culture and every social relationship. Needless to say, it is the basis of all science. And it is surely responsible for much rudimentary cognition—for integrating beliefs, planning, explicit learning, moral reasoning, and many other mental capacities. Even talking to oneself out loud may occasionally serve a useful function.

From the point of view of our contemplative traditions, however—to boil them all down to a cartoon version, that ignores the rather esoteric disputes among them—our habitual identification with discursive thought, our failure moment to moment to recognize thoughts as thoughts, is a primary source of human suffering. And when a person breaks this spell, an extraordinary kind of relief is available.

But the problem with a contemplative claim of this sort is that you can’t borrow someone else’s contemplative tools to test it. The problem is that to test such a claim—indeed, to even appreciate how distracted we tend to be in the first place, we have to build our own contemplative tools. Imagine where astronomy would be if everyone had to build his own telescope before he could even begin to see if astronomy was a legitimate enterprise. It wouldn’t make the sky any less worthy of investigation, but it would make it immensely more difficult for us to establish astronomy as a science.

To judge the empirical claims of contemplatives, you have to build your own telescope. Judging their metaphysical claims is another matter: many of these can be dismissed as bad science or bad philosophy by merely thinking about them. But to judge whether certain experiences are possible—and if possible, desirable—we have to be able to use our attention in the requisite ways. We have to be able to break our identification with discursive thought, if only for a few moments. This can take a tremendous amount of work. And it is not work that our culture knows much about.

One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc.

As someone who has made his own modest efforts in this area, let me assure you, that when a person goes into solitude and trains himself in meditation for 15 or 18 hours a day, for months or years at a time, in silence, doing nothing else—not talking, not reading, not writing—just making a sustained moment to moment effort to merely observe the contents of consciousness and to not get lost in thought, he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts at introspection. And these experiences have a lot to say about the plasticity of the human mind and about the possibilities of human happiness.

So, apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I’d like to point out that, as atheists, our neglect of this area of human experience puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them, and we, as atheists, ignore such phenomena, almost in principle, because of their religious associations—and yet these experiences often constitute the most important and transformative moments in a person’s life. Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents.

My concern is that atheism can easily become the position of not being interested in certain possibilities in principle. I don’t know if our universe is, as JBS Haldane said, “not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.” But I am sure that it is stranger than we, as “atheists,” tend to represent while advocating atheism. As “atheists” we give others, and even ourselves, the sense that we are well on our way toward purging the universe of mystery. As advocates of reason, we know that mystery is going to be with us for a very long time. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that mystery is ineradicable from our circumstance, because however much we know, it seems like there will always be brute facts that we cannot account for but which we must rely upon to explain everything else. [/b]This may be a problem for epistemology but it is not a problem for human life and for human solidarity. [b]It does not rob our lives of meaning. And it is not a barrier to human happiness.

We are faced, however, with the challenge of communicating this view to others. We are faced with the monumental task of persuading a myth-infatuated world that love and curiosity are sufficient, and that we need not console or frighten ourselves or our children with Iron Age fairy tales. I don’t think there is a more important intellectual struggle to win; it has to be fought from a hundred sides, all at once, and continuously; but it seems to me that there is no reason for us to fight in well-ordered ranks, like the red coats of Atheism.

Finally, I think it’s useful to envision what victory will look like. Again, the analogy with racism seems instructive to me. What will victory against racism look like, should that happy day ever dawn? It certainly won’t be a world in which a majority of people profess that they are “nonracist.” Most likely, it will be a world in which the very concept of separate races has lost its meaning.

We will have won this war of ideas against religion when atheism is scarcely intelligible as a concept. We will simply find ourselves in a world in which people cease to praise one another for pretending to know things they do not know. This is certainly a future worth fighting for. It may be the only future compatible with our long-term survival as a species. But the only path between now and then, that I can see, is for us to be rigorously honest in the present. It seems to me that intellectual honesty is now, and will always be, deeper and more durable, and more easily spread, than “atheism.”

globexl:
@jayriginal:

Thank you for educating and enriching us with all this knowledge. I sincerely hope that Toba has got all his questions on athiesm answered. There is nothing more to be said.
If his motive is to learn, then you have given him much from which to learn, but if his motive is simply to discredict people who do not share his belief in his god, then once again, it would clearly demonstrate the convoluted logic of the abrahamic religiong, vis-a-vis: Intolerance in this life in exchange for paradise in the next life.

Thank you Sir. There really isnt much more to be said. I'll just address a few points of his once more without necessarily debating him I think thats all I'll say on this topic.

toba:
Wiki has always been there and remember throughout my discussion with u here, there wasnt any need for me to go consult wiki cos the views expressed herein are from self acclaimed atheists and not from what wiki has said. werent they?

I  dont think the above is a fair statement. I did not cite only from wikipedia, I cited from other sources as well including an online dictionary. I added the wiki source to give it weight. Surely you should understand that.

Its very easy for me to have gone to wiki like u have resorted to and lift definitions. I chose not to cos i want u and other open minded atheists to see and learn other world views from fellow atheists.

You pick and choose with your bible and the internet. Some of your sources were from your fellow christians. I posted material from Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al effectively rebutting your position. What you are doing is ignoring what the men have to say about themselves and adopting the view that their antagonists take. That Sir, is not how to learn. If you follow the links, you will see the page numbers to their books in which they stated their stances. Did you read the scale Dawkins uses, from 1 to 7, where 1 is a strong theist (like you) and 7 is the other extreme ? If you did, did you notice that Dawkins classified himself as a 6 ?

I could have gone to wiki my self but hell no, lets see things from other source and up till now from the fore going im sure u cant find any of my links or post from wiki as u have done.

Then you go on to quote from wiki which is fine, but you didnt post the link. Are we hiding something Sir ? Further in the article we find

Origin

According to the Christian Bible, during his last days on earth Jesus commanded his eleven disciples (the apostles) as follows:

    Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

    — Matthew 28:19,20 NIV

Other translations render the phrase “make disciples of all nations” in the above quotation as “teach all nations”. Jesus is also quoted in the Gospel of Mark saying

    Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature"

    — Mark 16:15 KJV

These are two main passages of the New Testament from God that are interpreted by some (mainly Evangelical Christians) to command everyone who believes in Christ to preach the gospel. Taken in context, the command is to the eleven, who in turn are taught to obey "everything [jesus] commanded them" including this preaching and teaching of the gospel - "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10:14 KJV)

and yet a little further down from the same link

Evangelism is not always received positively. People who are not interested in converting to Christianity may find such interventions by religious preachers and their respective movements to be patronizing and bothersome.　Saint Stephen was one of the first evangelists to be killed by people who rejected his words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism

DING DING DING DING.

My brother if not that some of your fellow atheists knows me on NL as a no nonsense person, i can bet with u that some of them cold have showed up on this thread to simply do what u accuse the christians of doing.

I'm really scared now too Sir. I can see why they are scared of you.

I must really SMDH and also LOL after reading the quote. people can say anything at one point and then change at the other, isnt it true? that hes making a point doesnt mean he would agree to be called a theist not so? Of course hes also one of the ring leader of the so called new atheism not so? OMG this is pathetic.

Well Sir, calling Harris confused because what he says about himself is at variance with the views of his antagonists is the real tragedy here. I'll help you out and post an article on the problem with atheists, by Sam Harris himself. It should be interesting to hear your views on the article.

Pls dont make me LOL more than i already did. Its very convenient to post a source that claims Dawkins and co are something else, whilst i also do same. Pls lets change to something else Abeg

There is a difference Sir. You posted arguably biased references. References from people who are antagonistic to atheists. I posted primary sources Sir. Surely you understand this. These are references authored by the men in question. I have the books in question, I can send them to anybody who wants them. Just drop your email, thats all. The credibility of my sources cannot be disputed. That is all.

May be if what i posted were something antagonizing the christian God which  have said in certain terms is a non entity, probably u wouldnt have made the above statement. Dont u think so?
May be if u opened your mind and shifted a bit from the stereotyped and biased view u have about the subject, we could have gone a long way with this discourse. apparently u didnt and u cant. Said enough already

Im relatively new on Nairaland and you dont know me, but take my word for it, I have played Devils advocate severally (and sometimes on behalf of certain christians who couldnt defend themselves). As someone who enjoys an intellectually stimulating debate, I am capable of taking a side that I dont necessarily believe in, as long as I understand the points. You should try it sometime.
I said

Infact
Apparently anything on the internet must be true. Here Sir.

and your response was

same also applies to u. More than half of the content in this single post were lifted from the internet and posted here. Check your self before u talk

Thats funny because your OP came with links to "prove" the categorization of atheists. Funny because you used urban dictionary" as an authority.
Then in response to some critics you said

u may be right though. but im sure u still have some data available on your internet access. why dont u just consult one of the numerous search engines to disprove my claim?

Funny because in my first response to you, inspite of the above, I did not use a single internet reference. I engaged you purely on logical grounds. Funny because I still did not deem it fit to use a single internet reference in my second or third posts inspite of the fact that you were lifting from the web consistently.
Its funny because even in my fourth post, I did not lift from a single internet reference. Its funny because you called me lazy and made denigrating references to my profession.
Funny because you screamed

GO AND ASK GOOGLE IF THERE'S NOTHING LIKE EVANGELICAL ATHEISM

and you posted a picture of doubtful origin as if to validate your claims.
It really wasnt necessary for me to look for online references, but it seemed as if that would be the only way to get you to "see" so I did.
Funny because it took me till page two and I think my sixth post, to finally use internet references. The effect must have been devastating on you, or else considering the foregoing, how can you turn around and say something like

same also applies to u. More than half of the content in this single post were lifted from the internet and posted here. Check your self before u talk

Do you have amnesia Sir ?

No im very certain about what im saying on EVANGELICAL ATHEISM

Well, I cant help you then. At least now you know what an anti theist is.

U ve done me a favour, i work up early to respond to u hence i will be in church early today to play the Keyboard for the congregation as i've always done for over two decades now

I play the guitar and a little keyboard. Will you invite me to play in your church ?

We have failed to see things from others' view and then chose to cling on to our sides. Never mind probably in a not too distant future, we may agree someday.

That is possible.

U ve done me a favour

So have you Sir. Many times I did not see the need to respond as it was clear to me the direction this was headed in. I would try and try again, hoping for you to see the light. I dont necessarily come to debates hoping to force my position on people. I usually come, hoping for people to "understand" my position. With understanding, there is usually tolerance. What you may term "attacks" on christianity may be explained by the proverbial goat that has been pushed to the wall.
On this thread, I took sometime out to emphasize that some of the things I was saying referred to me in particular. I said emphatically, that the only common factor with atheists is that they lack a belief in a deity.
However, when you forced me to source for online references, look what I found !

I'm not the type to read and accept, I'm the type to read and ponder. If it sits well with me, then fine. If not, fine as well. I would suggest that you consider this approach. While it may not work when it comes to your religion (or else you will end up like me), nothing stops you from having an open mind to anything else.
As promised, I will leave you with a talk by Sam Harris "The Problem With Atheism".
[quote][/quote]

An Introduction to Atheism (1997)

mathew

Foreword

This article attempts to provide a general [/b]introduction to atheism. Whilst I have tried to be as neutral as possible regarding contentious issues, you should always remember that [b]this document represents only one viewpoint. I would encourage you to read widely and draw your own conclusions; some relevant books are listed in a companion document: Atheist Resources.

To provide a sense of cohesion and progression, I have presented this article as an imaginary conversation between an atheist and a theist. All the questions asked by the imaginary theist are questions which have been cropped up repeatedly on the Usenet newsgroup alt.atheism since that newsgroup was first created. Some other frequently asked questions are answered in a companion document: Atheist Arguments.

Please note that this article is arguably slanted towards answering questions posed from a Christian viewpoint. This is because the FAQ files reflect questions which have actually been asked, and it is predominantly Christians who proselytize on alt.atheism.

So when I talk of religion, I am talking primarily about religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which involve some sort of superhuman divine being. Much of the discussion will apply to other religions, but some of it may not. (See Definition of a "cult."
"What is atheism?"

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism."

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate,

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple skepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists." There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the nonexistence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as not believing God exists?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism.

"What is agnosticism then?"

The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an "agnostic" as someone who disclaimed both ("strong" atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not know for sure whether God exists. Some agnostics believe that we can never know.

In recent years, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those who simply believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.

To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on a belief that we cannot know whether God exists be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the belief that we merely do not know yet be qualified as "empirical agnosticism."

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism," and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism."

Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning that it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.

"What about the term 'freethinker'? What does that mean?"

A freethinker is one who thinks freely--one who is prepared to consider any possibility, and who determines which ideas are right or wrong by bringing reason to bear, according to a consistent set of rules such as the scientific method.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has a "nontract" on what it means to be a freethinker, at: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/freethinker.php.

"So what is the philosophical justification or basis for atheism?"

There are many philosophical justifications for atheism. To find out why a particular person chooses to be an atheist, it's best to ask her.

Many atheists feel that the idea of God as presented by the major religions is essentially self-contradictory, and that it is logically impossible that such a God could exist. Others are atheists through skepticism, because they see no evidence that God exists.

There are a number of books which lay out a philosophical justification for atheism, such as Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification and Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God. A few such books are in the document listing Atheist Media.

Of course, some people are atheists without having any particular logical argument to back up their atheism. For some, it is simply the most comfortable, common sense position to take.

"But isn't it impossible to prove the nonexistence of something?"

There are many counterexamples to such a statement. For example, it is quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with well-defined objects obeying well-defined rules. Whether Gods or universes are similarly well-defined is a matter for debate.

However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the nonexistence of God. If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counterexample.

If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing might be found, to show that it isn't there. Such an exhaustive search is often impractical or impossible. There is no such problem with largest primes, because we can prove that they don't exist.

Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule most of the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.

To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to prove that he doesn't exist anywhere. So the skeptical atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.

Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of God exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover varieties of God described by followers of various religions. So whilst it may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a particular religious book does not exist. It may even be possible to prove that no God described by any present-day religion exists.

In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is very close to believing that no God exists. However, it is sufficiently different that counterarguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind of God are not really applicable.

"But what if God is essentially nondetectable?"

If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction must have some physical manifestation. Hence his interaction with our universe must be in principle detectable.

If God is essentially nondetectable, it must therefore be the case that he does not interact with our universe in any way. Many atheists would argue that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no importance whether he exists or not. A thing which cannot even be detected in principle does not logically exist.

Of course, it could be that God is detectable in principle, and that we merely cannot detect him in practice. However, if the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the Israelites. Surely he should still be detectable today? Why has the situation changed?

Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically verifiable, physical way. I might potentially receive some revelation, some direct experience of God. An experience like that would be incommunicable, and not subject to scientific verification--but it would nevertheless be as compelling as any evidence can be.

But whether by direct revelation or by observation, it must surely be possible to perceive some effect caused by God's presence; otherwise, how can I distinguish him from all the other things that don't exist?

"God is unique. He is the supreme being, the creator of the universe. He must by definition exist."

Things do not exist merely because they have been defined to do so. We know a lot about the definition of Santa Claus--what he looks like, what he does, where he lives, what his reindeer are called, and so on. But that still doesn't mean that Santa exists.

"Then what if I managed to logically prove that God exists?"

Firstly, before you begin your proof, you must come up with a clear and precise definition of exactly what you mean by "God." A logical proof requires a clear definition of that which you are trying to prove.

"But everyone knows what is meant by 'God'!"

Different religions have very different ideas of what 'God' is like; they even disagree about basic issues such as how many gods there are, whether they're male or female, and so on. An atheist's idea of what people mean by the word 'God' may be very different from your own views.

"OK, so if I define what I mean by 'God,' and then logically prove he exists, will that be enough for you?"

Even after centuries of effort, nobody has come up with a watertight logical proof of the existence of God. In spite of this, however, people often feel that they can logically prove that God exists.

Unfortunately, reality is not decided by logic. Even if you could rigorously prove that God exists, it wouldn't actually get you very far. It could be that your logical rules do not always preserve truth--that your system of logic is flawed. It could be that your premises are wrong. It could even be that reality is not logically consistent. In the end, the only way to find out what is really going on is to observe it. Logic can merely give you an idea where or how to look; and most logical arguments about God don't even perform that task.

Logic is a useful tool for analyzing data and inferring what is going on; but if logic and reality disagree, reality wins.

"Then it seems to me that nothing will ever convince you that God exists."

A clear definition of 'God,' plus some objective and compelling supporting evidence, would be enough to convince many atheists.

The evidence must be objective, though; anecdotal evidence of other people's religious experiences isn't good enough. And strong, compelling evidence is required, because the existence of God is an extraordinary claim--and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but isn't it still a religious belief?"

One of the most common pastimes in philosophical discussion is "the redefinition game." The cynical view of this game is as follows:

Person A begins by making a contentious statement. When person B points out that it can't be true, person A gradually redefines the words he used in the statement until he arrives at something person B is prepared to accept. He then records the statement, along with the fact that person B has agreed to it, and continues. Eventually A uses the statement as an "agreed fact," but uses his original definitions of all the words in it rather than the obscure redefinitions originally needed to get B to agree to it. Rather than be seen to be apparently inconsistent, B will tend to play along.

The point of this digression is that the answer to the question "Isn't atheism a religious belief?" depends crucially upon what is meant by "religious." "Religion" is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman controlling power--especially in some sort of God--and by faith and worship.

(It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not "religion" according to such a definition.)

Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the definition of "religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of human behavior suddenly becoming classed as "religious" as well--such as science, politics, and watching TV.

"OK, maybe it's not a religion in the strict sense of the word. But surely belief in atheism (or science) is still just an act of faith, like religion is?"


Firstly, it's not entirely clear that skeptical atheism is something one actually believes in.

Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience. Most atheists try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to questioning if experience throws them into doubt.

Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers (or at least, all observers in inertial frames). These are the sort of core assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas are called "acts of faith," then almost everything we know must be said to be based on acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.

Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something. According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of faith. Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as religious followers when claiming that something is "certain." This is not a general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to state with certainty that the universe exists.

Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof. Skeptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as skeptical atheism has no beliefs. Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.

"If atheism is not religious, surely it's antireligious?"

It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or "against," "friend" or "enemy." The truth is not so clear-cut.

Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism; in that sense, it can be said to be "antireligion." However, when religious believers speak of atheists being "antireligious" they usually mean that the atheists have some sort of antipathy or hatred towards theists.

This categorization of atheists as hostile towards religion is quite unfair. Atheist attitudes towards theists in fact cover a broad spectrum.

Most atheists take a "live and let live" attitude. Unless questioned, they will not usually mention their atheism, except perhaps to close friends. Of course, this may be in part because atheism is not "socially acceptable" in many countries.

A few atheists are quite antireligious, and may even try to "convert" others when possible. Historically, such antireligious atheists have made little impact on society outside the Eastern Bloc countries.

(To digress slightly: the Soviet Union was originally dedicated to separation of church and state, just like the USA. Soviet citizens were legally free to worship as they wished. The institution of "state atheism" came about when Stalin took control of the Soviet Union and tried to destroy the churches in order to gain complete power over the population.)

Some atheists are quite vocal about their beliefs, but only where they see religion encroaching on matters which are not its business--for example, the government of the USA. Such individuals are usually concerned that church and state should remain separate.

"But if you don't allow religion to have a say in the running of the state, surely that's the same as state atheism?"

The principle of the separation of church and state is that the state shall not legislate concerning matters of religious belief. In particular, it means not only that the state cannot promote one religion at the expense of another, but also that it cannot promote any belief which is religious in nature.

Religions can still have a say in discussion of purely secular matters. For example, religious believers have historically been responsible for encouraging many political reforms. Even today, many organizations campaigning for an increase in spending on foreign aid are founded as religious campaigns. So long as they campaign concerning secular matters, and so long as they do not discriminate on religious grounds, most atheists are quite happy to see them have their say.

"What about prayer in schools? If there's no God, why do you care if people pray?"

Because people who do pray are voters and lawmakers, and tend to do things that those who don't pray can't just ignore. Also, Christian prayer in schools is intimidating to non-Christians, even if they are told that they need not join in. It is particularly bad if the prayer is led by a teacher, or otherwise officially endorsed.

The diversity of religious and nonreligious belief means that it is impossible to formulate a meaningful prayer that will be acceptable to all those present at any public event.

This is one reason why the public school system in the USA is not permitted to endorse particular religious beliefs through official prayer time in schools. Children are, of course, quite free to pray as they wish in their free time; there is no question of trying to prevent prayer from happening in schools.

"You mentioned Christians who campaign for increased foreign aid. What about atheists? Why aren't there any atheist charities or hospitals? Don't atheists object to the religious charities?"

There are many charities without religious purpose that atheists can contribute to. Some atheists contribute to religious charities as well, for the sake of the practical good they do. Some atheists even do voluntary work for charities founded on a theistic basis.

Most atheists seem to feel that atheism isn't worth shouting about in connection with charity. To them, atheism is just a simple, obvious everyday matter, and so is charity. Many feel that it's somewhat cheap, not to say self-righteous, to use simple charity as an excuse to plug a particular set of religious beliefs.

To "weak" atheists, building a hospital to say "I do not believe in God" is a rather strange idea; it's rather like holding a party to say "Today is not my birthday." Why the fuss? Atheism is rarely evangelistic.

"You said atheism isn't antireligious. But is it perhaps a backlash against one's upbringing, a way of rebelling?"

Perhaps it is, for some. But many people have parents who do not attempt to force any religious (or atheist) ideas upon them, and many of those people choose to call themselves atheists.

It's also doubtless the case that some religious people chose religion as a backlash against an atheist upbringing, as a way of being different. On the other hand, many people choose religion as a way of conforming to the expectations of others.

On the whole, we can't conclude much about whether atheism or religion are backlash or conformism; although in general, people have a tendency to go along with a group rather than act or think independently.

"How do atheists differ from religious people?"

They don't believe in God. That's all there is to it.

Atheists may listen to heavy metal--backwards, even--or they may prefer a Verdi Requiem, even if they know the words. They may wear Hawaiian shirts, they may dress all in black, they may even wear orange robes. (Many Buddhists lack a belief in any sort of God.) Some atheists even carry a copy of the Bible around--for arguing against, of course!

Whoever you are, the chances are you have met several atheists without realizing it. Atheists are usually unexceptional in behavior and appearance.

"Unexceptional? But aren't atheists less moral than religious people?"

That depends. If you define morality as obedience to God, then of course atheists are less moral as they don't obey any God. But usually when one talks of morality, one talks of what is acceptable ("right" and unacceptable ("wrong" behavior within society.

Humans are social animals, and to be maximally successful they must cooperate with each other. This is a good enough reason to discourage most atheists from "antisocial" or "immoral" behavior, purely for the purposes of self-preservation.

Many atheists behave in a "moral" or "compassionate" way simply because they feel a natural tendency to empathize with other humans. So why do they care what happens to others? They don't know, they simply are that way.

Naturally, there are some people who behave "immorally" and try to use atheism to justify their actions. However, there are equally many people who behave "immorally" and then try to use religious beliefs to justify their actions. For example:

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, But for that very reason, I was shown mercy so that in me, Jesus Christ might display His unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever."

The above quote is from a statement made to the court on February 17th 1992 by Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It seems that for every atheist mass-murderer, there is a religious mass-murderer. But what of more trivial morality?

A survey conducted by the Roper Organization found that behavior deteriorated after "born again" experiences. While only 4% of respondents said they had driven intoxicated before being "born again," 12% had done so after conversion. Similarly, 5% had used illegal drugs before conversion, 9% after. Two percent admitted to engaging in illicit sex before salvation; 5% after. [Freethought Today, September 1991, p. 12.]

So it seems that at best, religion does not have a monopoly on moral behavior.

Of course, a great many people are converted to (and from) Christianity during adolescence and their early twenties. This is also the time at which people begin to drink and become sexually active. It could be that the above figures merely indicate that Christianity has no effect on moral behavior, or insufficient effect to result in an overall fall in immoral behavior.

"Is there such a thing as atheist morality?"

If you mean "Is there such a thing as morality for atheists?" then the answer is yes, as explained above. Many atheists have ideas about morality [/b]which are at least as strong as those held by religious people. See "More research concerning atheist morality."

If you mean "[b]Does atheism have a characteristic moral code?" then the answer is no. [/b]Atheism by itself does not imply anything much about how a person will behave. [b]Most atheists follow many of the same "moral rules" as theists, but for different reasons. Atheists view morality as something created by humans, according to the way humans feel the world 'ought' to work, rather than seeing it as a set of rules decreed by a supernatural being.

"Then aren't atheists just theists who are denying God?"

A study by the Freedom From Religion Foundation found that over 90% of the atheists who responded became atheists because religion did not work for them. They had found that religious beliefs were fundamentally incompatible with what they observed around them.

Atheists are not unbelievers through ignorance or denial; they are unbelievers through choice. The vast majority of them have spent time studying one or more religions, sometimes in very great depth. They have made a careful and considered decision to reject religious beliefs.

This decision may, of course, be an inevitable consequence of that individual's personality. For a naturally skeptical person, the choice of atheism is often the only one that makes sense, and hence the only choice that person can honestly make.

The word "deny" can be used to mean "fail to accept the truth of." In that sense only, atheists deny the existence of God. They are not "in denial," willfully ignoring evidence; nor do they necessarily positively assert the nonexistence of God.

"But surely discussing God in this way is a tacit admission that he exists?"

Not at all. People talk about Santa Claus every Christmas; that doesn't mean he climbs down the chimney and leaves us all presents. Players of fantasy games discuss all kinds of strange creatures, from orcs and goblins to titans and minotaurs. They don't exist either.

"But don't atheists want to believe in God?"

Atheists live their lives as though there is nobody watching over them. Many of them have no desire to be watched over, no matter how good-natured the "Big Brother" figure might be.

Some atheists would like to be able to believe in God--but so what? Should one believe things merely because one wants them to be true? The risks of such an approach should be obvious. Atheists often decide that wanting to believe something is not enough; there must be evidence for the belief. See "The Revelation Game."

"But of course atheists see no evidence for the existence of God--they are unwilling in their souls to see!"

Many, if not most atheists were previously religious. As has been explained above, the vast majority have seriously considered the possibility that God exists. Many atheists have spent time in prayer trying to reach God.

Of course, it is true that some atheists lack an open mind; but assuming that all atheists are biased and insincere is offensive and closed-minded. Comments such as "Of course God is there, you just aren't looking properly" are likely to be viewed as patronizing.

Certainly, if you wish to engage in philosophical debate with atheists it is vital that you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are being sincere if they say that they have searched for God. If you are not willing to believe that they are basically telling the truth, debate is futile.

"Isn't the whole of life completely pointless to an atheist?"

Perhaps it is to some, but still, many atheists live a purposeful life. They decide what they think gives meaning to life, and they pursue those goals. They try to make their lives count, not by wishing for eternal life, but by having an influence on other people who will live on. For example, an atheist may dedicate his life to political reform, in the hope of leaving his mark on history.

It is a natural human tendency to look for "meaning" or "purpose" in random events. However, it is by no means obvious that "life" is the sort of thing that has a "meaning."

To put it another way, not everything which looks like a question is actually a sensible thing to ask. Some atheists believe that asking "What is the meaning of life?" is as silly as asking "What is the meaning of a cup of coffee?." They believe that life has no purpose or meaning, it just is.

Also, if some sort of mystical external force is required to give one's existence a "meaning," surely that makes any hypothetical god's existence meaningless?

"So how do atheists find comfort in time of danger?"

There are many ways of obtaining comfort:

* Your family and friends
* Pets
* Food and drink
* Music, television, literature, arts and entertainment
* Sports or exercise
* Meditation
* Psychotherapy
* Drugs
* Work

That may sound like rather an empty and vulnerable way to face danger, but so what? Should individuals believe in things because they are comforting, or should they face reality no matter how harsh it might be?

In the end, it's a decision for the individual concerned. Most atheists are unable to believe something they would not otherwise believe merely because it makes them feel comfortable. They put truth before comfort, and consider that if searching for truth sometimes makes them feel unhappy, that's just hard luck. Often truth hurts.

"Don't atheists worry that they might suddenly be shown to be wrong?"

The short answer is "No, do you?"

Many atheists have been atheists for years. They have encountered many arguments and much supposed evidence for the existence of God, but they have found all of it to be invalid or inconclusive.

Thousands of years of religious belief haven't resulted in any good proof of the existence of God. Atheists therefore tend to feel that they are unlikely to be proved wrong in the immediate future, and they stop worrying about it.

"So why should theists question their beliefs? Don't the same arguments apply?"

No, because the beliefs being questioned are not similar. Weak atheism is the skeptical "default position" to take; it asserts nothing. Strong atheism is a negative belief. Theism is a very strong positive belief.

Atheists sometimes also argue that theists should question their beliefs because of the very real harm they can cause--not just to the believers, but to everyone else.

"What sort of harm?"

Religion represents a huge financial and work burden on mankind. It's not just a matter of religious believers wasting their money on church buildings; think of all the time and effort spent building churches, praying, and so on. Imagine how that effort could be better spent.

Many theists believe in miracle healing. There have been plenty of instances of ill people being "healed" by a priest, ceasing to take the medicines prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result. Some theists have died because they have refused blood transfusions on religious grounds.

It is arguable that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control--and condoms in particular--is increasing the problem of overpopulation in many third-world countries and contributing to the spread of AIDS worldwide.

Religious believers have been known to murder their children rather than allow their children to become atheists or marry someone of a different religion. Religious leaders have been known to justify murder on the grounds of blasphemy.

There have been many religious wars. Even if we accept the argument that religion was not the true cause of those wars, it was still used as an effective justification for them.

"Those weren't real believers. They just claimed to be believers as some sort of excuse."

This is rather like the No True Scotsman fallacy.

What makes a real believer? There are so many One True Religions it's hard to tell. Look at Christianity: there are many competing groups, all convinced that they are the only true Christians. Sometimes they even fight and kill each other. How is an atheist supposed to decide who's a real Christian and who isn't, when even the major Christian churches like the Catholic Church and the Church of England can't decide amongst themselves?

In the end, most atheists take a pragmatic view, and decide that anyone who calls himself a Christian, and uses Christian belief or dogma to justify his actions, should be considered a Christian. Maybe some of those Christians are just perverting Christian teaching for their own ends--but surely if the Bible can be so readily used to support un-Christian acts it can't be much of a moral code? If the Bible is the word of God, why couldn't he have made it less easy to misinterpret? And how do you know that your beliefs aren't a perversion of what your God intended?

If there is no single unambiguous interpretation of the Bible, then why should an atheist take one interpretation over another just on your say-so? Sorry, but if someone claims that he believes in Jesus and that he murdered others because Jesus and the Bible told him to do so, we must call him a Christian.

"Obviously those extreme sorts of beliefs should be questioned. But since nobody has ever proved that God does not exist, it must be very unlikely that more basic religious beliefs, shared by all faiths, are nonsense."

The commonality of many basic religious beliefs is hardly surprising, if you take the view that religion is a product of society. From that viewpoint, religions have borrowed ideas which contribute to a stable society--such as respect for authority figures, a prohibition against murder, and so on.

In addition, many common religious themes have been passed on to later religions. For example, it has been suggested that the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament actually have their roots in Hammurabi's code.

The claim that because something hasn't been proved false, it's less likely to be nonsense, does not hold. As was pointed out earlier in this dialogue, positive assertions concerning the existence of entities are inherently much harder to disprove than negative ones. Nobody has ever proved that unicorns don't exist, and there are many stories about them, but that doesn't make it unlikely that they are myths.

It is therefore much more valid to hold a negative assertion by default than it is to hold a positive assertion by default. Of course, "weak" atheists may argue that asserting nothing is better still.

"Well, if atheism's so great, why are there so many theists?"

Unfortunately, the popularity of a belief has little to do with how "correct" it is, or whether it "works"; consider how many people believe in astrology, graphology, and other pseudosciences.

Many atheists feel that it is simply a human weakness to want to believe in gods. Certainly in many primitive human societies, religion allows the people to deal with phenomena that they do not adequately understand.

Of course, there's more to religion than that. In the industrialized world, we find people believing in religious explanations of phenomena even when there are perfectly adequate natural explanations. Religion may have started as a means of attempting to explain the world, but nowadays it serves other purposes as well. For instance, for many people religion fulfills a social function, providing a sense of community and belonging.
"But so many cultures have developed religions. Surely that must say something?"

Not really. Most religions are only superficially similar; for example, it's worth remembering that religions such as Buddhism and Taoism lack any sort of concept of God in the Christian sense. In short, there is no consensus amongst religions as to what God actually is. Hence one of the problems you must face if you wish to discuss God with an atheist, is that of defining exactly what you mean by the word.

Also, most religions are quick to denounce competing religions, so it's rather odd to use one religion to try and justify another.

"What about all the famous scientists and philosophers who have concluded that God exists?"

Firstly, note that surveys typically find that around 40% of scientists believe in god; so believers are in the minority. (The most recent survey was by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, was carried out in 1996, and was reported in the journal "Nature."

For every scientist or philosopher who believes in a god, there is one who does not. Besides, as has already been pointed out, the truth of a belief is not determined by how many people believe it. Also, it is important to realize that atheists do not view famous scientists or philosophers in the same way that theists view their religious leaders.

A famous scientist is only human; she may be an expert in some fields, but when she talks about other matters her words carry no special weight. Many respected scientists have made themselves look foolish by speaking on subjects which lie outside their fields of expertise.

Also, note that even famous scientists' views are treated with skepticism by the scientific community. Acknowledged experts in a particular field must still provide evidence for their theories; science relies on reproducible, independently confirmed results. New theories which are incompatible with a large body of existing scientific knowledge will be subject to especially close scrutiny; but if the work is sound and the experimental data reproducible, the new theories will displace the old.

For instance, both special relativity and quantum mechanics were highly controversial, and required that a lot of existing scientific theory be thrown out. Yet both were relatively quickly accepted after extensive experiments proved their correctness. Pseudoscientific theories such as creationism are rejected not because they are controversial, but because they simply do not stand up to basic scientific scrutiny. (For further information, see the FAQs for http://www.talkorigins.org/.)

The Constructing a Logical Argument document has more to say about scientific verification and proof by authority.

"So are you really saying that widespread belief in religion indicates nothing?"

Not entirely. It certainly indicates that the religion in question has properties which have helped it to spread so far.

The theory of memetics talks of "memes"--sets of ideas which can propagate themselves between human minds, by analogy with genes. Some atheists view religions as sets of particularly successful parasitic memes, which spread by encouraging their hosts to convert others. Some memes avoid destruction by discouraging believers from questioning doctrine, or by using peer pressure to keep one-time believers from admitting that they were mistaken. Some religious memes even encourage their hosts to destroy hosts controlled by other memes.

Of course, in the memetic view there is no particular virtue associated with successful propagation of a meme. Religion is not a good thing because of the number of people who believe it, any more than a disease is a good thing because of the number of people who have caught it.

The memetic approach has little to say about the truth of the information in the memes, however.

"Even if religion is not entirely true, at least it puts across important messages. What are the fundamental messages of atheism?"

There are many important ideas atheists promote. The following are just a few of them; don't be surprised to see ideas which are also present in some religions.

* There is more to moral behavior than mindlessly following rules.
* Be especially skeptical of positive claims.
* If you want your life to have some sort of meaning, it's up to you to find it.
* Search for what is true, even if it makes you uncomfortable.
* Make the most of your life, as it's probably the only one you'll have.
* It's no good relying on some external power to change you; you must change yourself.
* Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good.
* If you must assume something, assume something easy to test.
* Don't believe things just because you want them to be true.

And finally (and most importantly):

* All beliefs should be open to question.

Thanks for taking the time to read this document.

An Introduction to Atheism (1997)

mathew

Foreword

This article attempts to provide a general [/b]introduction to atheism. Whilst I have tried to be as neutral as possible regarding contentious issues, you should always remember that [b]this document represents only one viewpoint. I would encourage you to read widely and draw your own conclusions; some relevant books are listed in a companion document: Atheist Resources.

To provide a sense of cohesion and progression, I have presented this article as an imaginary conversation between an atheist and a theist. All the questions asked by the imaginary theist are questions which have been cropped up repeatedly on the Usenet newsgroup alt.atheism since that newsgroup was first created. Some other frequently asked questions are answered in a companion document: Atheist Arguments.

Please note that this article is arguably slanted towards answering questions posed from a Christian viewpoint. This is because the FAQ files reflect questions which have actually been asked, and it is predominantly Christians who proselytize on alt.atheism.

So when I talk of religion, I am talking primarily about religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which involve some sort of superhuman divine being. Much of the discussion will apply to other religions, but some of it may not. (See Definition of a "cult."
"What is atheism?"

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism."

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate,

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple skepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists." There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the nonexistence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as not believing God exists?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism.

"What is agnosticism then?"

The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an "agnostic" as someone who disclaimed both ("strong" atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not know for sure whether God exists. Some agnostics believe that we can never know.

In recent years, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those who simply believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.

To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on a belief that we cannot know whether God exists be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the belief that we merely do not know yet be qualified as "empirical agnosticism."

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism," and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism."

Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning that it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.

"What about the term 'freethinker'? What does that mean?"

A freethinker is one who thinks freely--one who is prepared to consider any possibility, and who determines which ideas are right or wrong by bringing reason to bear, according to a consistent set of rules such as the scientific method.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has a "nontract" on what it means to be a freethinker, at: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/freethinker.php.

"So what is the philosophical justification or basis for atheism?"

There are many philosophical justifications for atheism. To find out why a particular person chooses to be an atheist, it's best to ask her.

Many atheists feel that the idea of God as presented by the major religions is essentially self-contradictory, and that it is logically impossible that such a God could exist. Others are atheists through skepticism, because they see no evidence that God exists.

There are a number of books which lay out a philosophical justification for atheism, such as Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification and Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God. A few such books are in the document listing Atheist Media.

Of course, some people are atheists without having any particular logical argument to back up their atheism. For some, it is simply the most comfortable, common sense position to take.

"But isn't it impossible to prove the nonexistence of something?"

There are many counterexamples to such a statement. For example, it is quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with well-defined objects obeying well-defined rules. Whether Gods or universes are similarly well-defined is a matter for debate.

However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the nonexistence of God. If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counterexample.

If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing might be found, to show that it isn't there. Such an exhaustive search is often impractical or impossible. There is no such problem with largest primes, because we can prove that they don't exist.

Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule most of the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.

To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to prove that he doesn't exist anywhere. So the skeptical atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.

Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of God exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover varieties of God described by followers of various religions. So whilst it may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a particular religious book does not exist. It may even be possible to prove that no God described by any present-day religion exists.

In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is very close to believing that no God exists. However, it is sufficiently different that counterarguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind of God are not really applicable.

"But what if God is essentially nondetectable?"

If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction must have some physical manifestation. Hence his interaction with our universe must be in principle detectable.

If God is essentially nondetectable, it must therefore be the case that he does not interact with our universe in any way. Many atheists would argue that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no importance whether he exists or not. A thing which cannot even be detected in principle does not logically exist.

Of course, it could be that God is detectable in principle, and that we merely cannot detect him in practice. However, if the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the Israelites. Surely he should still be detectable today? Why has the situation changed?

Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically verifiable, physical way. I might potentially receive some revelation, some direct experience of God. An experience like that would be incommunicable, and not subject to scientific verification--but it would nevertheless be as compelling as any evidence can be.

But whether by direct revelation or by observation, it must surely be possible to perceive some effect caused by God's presence; otherwise, how can I distinguish him from all the other things that don't exist?

"God is unique. He is the supreme being, the creator of the universe. He must by definition exist."

Things do not exist merely because they have been defined to do so. We know a lot about the definition of Santa Claus--what he looks like, what he does, where he lives, what his reindeer are called, and so on. But that still doesn't mean that Santa exists.

"Then what if I managed to logically prove that God exists?"

Firstly, before you begin your proof, you must come up with a clear and precise definition of exactly what you mean by "God." A logical proof requires a clear definition of that which you are trying to prove.

"But everyone knows what is meant by 'God'!"

Different religions have very different ideas of what 'God' is like; they even disagree about basic issues such as how many gods there are, whether they're male or female, and so on. An atheist's idea of what people mean by the word 'God' may be very different from your own views.

"OK, so if I define what I mean by 'God,' and then logically prove he exists, will that be enough for you?"

Even after centuries of effort, nobody has come up with a watertight logical proof of the existence of God. In spite of this, however, people often feel that they can logically prove that God exists.

Unfortunately, reality is not decided by logic. Even if you could rigorously prove that God exists, it wouldn't actually get you very far. It could be that your logical rules do not always preserve truth--that your system of logic is flawed. It could be that your premises are wrong. It could even be that reality is not logically consistent. In the end, the only way to find out what is really going on is to observe it. Logic can merely give you an idea where or how to look; and most logical arguments about God don't even perform that task.

Logic is a useful tool for analyzing data and inferring what is going on; but if logic and reality disagree, reality wins.

"Then it seems to me that nothing will ever convince you that God exists."

A clear definition of 'God,' plus some objective and compelling supporting evidence, would be enough to convince many atheists.

The evidence must be objective, though; anecdotal evidence of other people's religious experiences isn't good enough. And strong, compelling evidence is required, because the existence of God is an extraordinary claim--and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but isn't it still a religious belief?"

One of the most common pastimes in philosophical discussion is "the redefinition game." The cynical view of this game is as follows:

Person A begins by making a contentious statement. When person B points out that it can't be true, person A gradually redefines the words he used in the statement until he arrives at something person B is prepared to accept. He then records the statement, along with the fact that person B has agreed to it, and continues. Eventually A uses the statement as an "agreed fact," but uses his original definitions of all the words in it rather than the obscure redefinitions originally needed to get B to agree to it. Rather than be seen to be apparently inconsistent, B will tend to play along.

The point of this digression is that the answer to the question "Isn't atheism a religious belief?" depends crucially upon what is meant by "religious." "Religion" is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman controlling power--especially in some sort of God--and by faith and worship.

(It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not "religion" according to such a definition.)

Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the definition of "religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of human behavior suddenly becoming classed as "religious" as well--such as science, politics, and watching TV.

"OK, maybe it's not a religion in the strict sense of the word. But surely belief in atheism (or science) is still just an act of faith, like religion is?"


Firstly, it's not entirely clear that skeptical atheism is something one actually believes in.

Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience. Most atheists try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to questioning if experience throws them into doubt.

Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers (or at least, all observers in inertial frames). These are the sort of core assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas are called "acts of faith," then almost everything we know must be said to be based on acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.

Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something. According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of faith. Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as religious followers when claiming that something is "certain." This is not a general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to state with certainty that the universe exists.

Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof. Skeptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as skeptical atheism has no beliefs. Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.

"If atheism is not religious, surely it's antireligious?"

It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or "against," "friend" or "enemy." The truth is not so clear-cut.

Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism; in that sense, it can be said to be "antireligion." However, when religious believers speak of atheists being "antireligious" they usually mean that the atheists have some sort of antipathy or hatred towards theists.

This categorization of atheists as hostile towards religion is quite unfair. Atheist attitudes towards theists in fact cover a broad spectrum.

Most atheists take a "live and let live" attitude. Unless questioned, they will not usually mention their atheism, except perhaps to close friends. Of course, this may be in part because atheism is not "socially acceptable" in many countries.

A few atheists are quite antireligious, and may even try to "convert" others when possible. Historically, such antireligious atheists have made little impact on society outside the Eastern Bloc countries.

(To digress slightly: the Soviet Union was originally dedicated to separation of church and state, just like the USA. Soviet citizens were legally free to worship as they wished. The institution of "state atheism" came about when Stalin took control of the Soviet Union and tried to destroy the churches in order to gain complete power over the population.)

Some atheists are quite vocal about their beliefs, but only where they see religion encroaching on matters which are not its business--for example, the government of the USA. Such individuals are usually concerned that church and state should remain separate.

"But if you don't allow religion to have a say in the running of the state, surely that's the same as state atheism?"

The principle of the separation of church and state is that the state shall not legislate concerning matters of religious belief. In particular, it means not only that the state cannot promote one religion at the expense of another, but also that it cannot promote any belief which is religious in nature.

Religions can still have a say in discussion of purely secular matters. For example, religious believers have historically been responsible for encouraging many political reforms. Even today, many organizations campaigning for an increase in spending on foreign aid are founded as religious campaigns. So long as they campaign concerning secular matters, and so long as they do not discriminate on religious grounds, most atheists are quite happy to see them have their say.

"What about prayer in schools? If there's no God, why do you care if people pray?"

Because people who do pray are voters and lawmakers, and tend to do things that those who don't pray can't just ignore. Also, Christian prayer in schools is intimidating to non-Christians, even if they are told that they need not join in. It is particularly bad if the prayer is led by a teacher, or otherwise officially endorsed.

The diversity of religious and nonreligious belief means that it is impossible to formulate a meaningful prayer that will be acceptable to all those present at any public event.

This is one reason why the public school system in the USA is not permitted to endorse particular religious beliefs through official prayer time in schools. Children are, of course, quite free to pray as they wish in their free time; there is no question of trying to prevent prayer from happening in schools.

"You mentioned Christians who campaign for increased foreign aid. What about atheists? Why aren't there any atheist charities or hospitals? Don't atheists object to the religious charities?"

There are many charities without religious purpose that atheists can contribute to. Some atheists contribute to religious charities as well, for the sake of the practical good they do. Some atheists even do voluntary work for charities founded on a theistic basis.

Most atheists seem to feel that atheism isn't worth shouting about in connection with charity. To them, atheism is just a simple, obvious everyday matter, and so is charity. Many feel that it's somewhat cheap, not to say self-righteous, to use simple charity as an excuse to plug a particular set of religious beliefs.

To "weak" atheists, building a hospital to say "I do not believe in God" is a rather strange idea; it's rather like holding a party to say "Today is not my birthday." Why the fuss? Atheism is rarely evangelistic.

"You said atheism isn't antireligious. But is it perhaps a backlash against one's upbringing, a way of rebelling?"

Perhaps it is, for some. But many people have parents who do not attempt to force any religious (or atheist) ideas upon them, and many of those people choose to call themselves atheists.

It's also doubtless the case that some religious people chose religion as a backlash against an atheist upbringing, as a way of being different. On the other hand, many people choose religion as a way of conforming to the expectations of others.

On the whole, we can't conclude much about whether atheism or religion are backlash or conformism; although in general, people have a tendency to go along with a group rather than act or think independently.

"How do atheists differ from religious people?"

They don't believe in God. That's all there is to it.

Atheists may listen to heavy metal--backwards, even--or they may prefer a Verdi Requiem, even if they know the words. They may wear Hawaiian shirts, they may dress all in black, they may even wear orange robes. (Many Buddhists lack a belief in any sort of God.) Some atheists even carry a copy of the Bible around--for arguing against, of course!

Whoever you are, the chances are you have met several atheists without realizing it. Atheists are usually unexceptional in behavior and appearance.

"Unexceptional? But aren't atheists less moral than religious people?"

That depends. If you define morality as obedience to God, then of course atheists are less moral as they don't obey any God. But usually when one talks of morality, one talks of what is acceptable ("right" and unacceptable ("wrong" behavior within society.

Humans are social animals, and to be maximally successful they must cooperate with each other. This is a good enough reason to discourage most atheists from "antisocial" or "immoral" behavior, purely for the purposes of self-preservation.

Many atheists behave in a "moral" or "compassionate" way simply because they feel a natural tendency to empathize with other humans. So why do they care what happens to others? They don't know, they simply are that way.

Naturally, there are some people who behave "immorally" and try to use atheism to justify their actions. However, there are equally many people who behave "immorally" and then try to use religious beliefs to justify their actions. For example:

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, But for that very reason, I was shown mercy so that in me, Jesus Christ might display His unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever."

The above quote is from a statement made to the court on February 17th 1992 by Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It seems that for every atheist mass-murderer, there is a religious mass-murderer. But what of more trivial morality?

A survey conducted by the Roper Organization found that behavior deteriorated after "born again" experiences. While only 4% of respondents said they had driven intoxicated before being "born again," 12% had done so after conversion. Similarly, 5% had used illegal drugs before conversion, 9% after. Two percent admitted to engaging in illicit sex before salvation; 5% after. [Freethought Today, September 1991, p. 12.]

So it seems that at best, religion does not have a monopoly on moral behavior.

Of course, a great many people are converted to (and from) Christianity during adolescence and their early twenties. This is also the time at which people begin to drink and become sexually active. It could be that the above figures merely indicate that Christianity has no effect on moral behavior, or insufficient effect to result in an overall fall in immoral behavior.

"Is there such a thing as atheist morality?"

If you mean "Is there such a thing as morality for atheists?" then the answer is yes, as explained above. Many atheists have ideas about morality [/b]which are at least as strong as those held by religious people. See "More research concerning atheist morality."

If you mean "[b]Does atheism have a characteristic moral code?" then the answer is no. [/b]Atheism by itself does not imply anything much about how a person will behave. [b]Most atheists follow many of the same "moral rules" as theists, but for different reasons. Atheists view morality as something created by humans, according to the way humans feel the world 'ought' to work, rather than seeing it as a set of rules decreed by a supernatural being.

"Then aren't atheists just theists who are denying God?"

A study by the Freedom From Religion Foundation found that over 90% of the atheists who responded became atheists because religion did not work for them. They had found that religious beliefs were fundamentally incompatible with what they observed around them.

Atheists are not unbelievers through ignorance or denial; they are unbelievers through choice. The vast majority of them have spent time studying one or more religions, sometimes in very great depth. They have made a careful and considered decision to reject religious beliefs.

This decision may, of course, be an inevitable consequence of that individual's personality. For a naturally skeptical person, the choice of atheism is often the only one that makes sense, and hence the only choice that person can honestly make.

The word "deny" can be used to mean "fail to accept the truth of." In that sense only, atheists deny the existence of God. They are not "in denial," willfully ignoring evidence; nor do they necessarily positively assert the nonexistence of God.

"But surely discussing God in this way is a tacit admission that he exists?"

Not at all. People talk about Santa Claus every Christmas; that doesn't mean he climbs down the chimney and leaves us all presents. Players of fantasy games discuss all kinds of strange creatures, from orcs and goblins to titans and minotaurs. They don't exist either.

"But don't atheists want to believe in God?"

Atheists live their lives as though there is nobody watching over them. Many of them have no desire to be watched over, no matter how good-natured the "Big Brother" figure might be.

Some atheists would like to be able to believe in God--but so what? Should one believe things merely because one wants them to be true? The risks of such an approach should be obvious. Atheists often decide that wanting to believe something is not enough; there must be evidence for the belief. See "The Revelation Game."

"But of course atheists see no evidence for the existence of God--they are unwilling in their souls to see!"

Many, if not most atheists were previously religious. As has been explained above, the vast majority have seriously considered the possibility that God exists. Many atheists have spent time in prayer trying to reach God.

Of course, it is true that some atheists lack an open mind; but assuming that all atheists are biased and insincere is offensive and closed-minded. Comments such as "Of course God is there, you just aren't looking properly" are likely to be viewed as patronizing.

Certainly, if you wish to engage in philosophical debate with atheists it is vital that you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are being sincere if they say that they have searched for God. If you are not willing to believe that they are basically telling the truth, debate is futile.

"Isn't the whole of life completely pointless to an atheist?"

Perhaps it is to some, but still, many atheists live a purposeful life. They decide what they think gives meaning to life, and they pursue those goals. They try to make their lives count, not by wishing for eternal life, but by having an influence on other people who will live on. For example, an atheist may dedicate his life to political reform, in the hope of leaving his mark on history.

It is a natural human tendency to look for "meaning" or "purpose" in random events. However, it is by no means obvious that "life" is the sort of thing that has a "meaning."

To put it another way, not everything which looks like a question is actually a sensible thing to ask. Some atheists believe that asking "What is the meaning of life?" is as silly as asking "What is the meaning of a cup of coffee?." They believe that life has no purpose or meaning, it just is.

Also, if some sort of mystical external force is required to give one's existence a "meaning," surely that makes any hypothetical god's existence meaningless?

"So how do atheists find comfort in time of danger?"

There are many ways of obtaining comfort:

* Your family and friends
* Pets
* Food and drink
* Music, television, literature, arts and entertainment
* Sports or exercise
* Meditation
* Psychotherapy
* Drugs
* Work

That may sound like rather an empty and vulnerable way to face danger, but so what? Should individuals believe in things because they are comforting, or should they face reality no matter how harsh it might be?

In the end, it's a decision for the individual concerned. Most atheists are unable to believe something they would not otherwise believe merely because it makes them feel comfortable. They put truth before comfort, and consider that if searching for truth sometimes makes them feel unhappy, that's just hard luck. Often truth hurts.

"Don't atheists worry that they might suddenly be shown to be wrong?"

The short answer is "No, do you?"

Many atheists have been atheists for years. They have encountered many arguments and much supposed evidence for the existence of God, but they have found all of it to be invalid or inconclusive.

Thousands of years of religious belief haven't resulted in any good proof of the existence of God. Atheists therefore tend to feel that they are unlikely to be proved wrong in the immediate future, and they stop worrying about it.

"So why should theists question their beliefs? Don't the same arguments apply?"

No, because the beliefs being questioned are not similar. Weak atheism is the skeptical "default position" to take; it asserts nothing. Strong atheism is a negative belief. Theism is a very strong positive belief.

Atheists sometimes also argue that theists should question their beliefs because of the very real harm they can cause--not just to the believers, but to everyone else.

"What sort of harm?"

Religion represents a huge financial and work burden on mankind. It's not just a matter of religious believers wasting their money on church buildings; think of all the time and effort spent building churches, praying, and so on. Imagine how that effort could be better spent.

Many theists believe in miracle healing. There have been plenty of instances of ill people being "healed" by a priest, ceasing to take the medicines prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result. Some theists have died because they have refused blood transfusions on religious grounds.

It is arguable that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control--and condoms in particular--is increasing the problem of overpopulation in many third-world countries and contributing to the spread of AIDS worldwide.

Religious believers have been known to murder their children rather than allow their children to become atheists or marry someone of a different religion. Religious leaders have been known to justify murder on the grounds of blasphemy.

There have been many religious wars. Even if we accept the argument that religion was not the true cause of those wars, it was still used as an effective justification for them.

"Those weren't real believers. They just claimed to be believers as some sort of excuse."

This is rather like the No True Scotsman fallacy.

What makes a real believer? There are so many One True Religions it's hard to tell. Look at Christianity: there are many competing groups, all convinced that they are the only true Christians. Sometimes they even fight and kill each other. How is an atheist supposed to decide who's a real Christian and who isn't, when even the major Christian churches like the Catholic Church and the Church of England can't decide amongst themselves?

In the end, most atheists take a pragmatic view, and decide that anyone who calls himself a Christian, and uses Christian belief or dogma to justify his actions, should be considered a Christian. Maybe some of those Christians are just perverting Christian teaching for their own ends--but surely if the Bible can be so readily used to support un-Christian acts it can't be much of a moral code? If the Bible is the word of God, why couldn't he have made it less easy to misinterpret? And how do you know that your beliefs aren't a perversion of what your God intended?

If there is no single unambiguous interpretation of the Bible, then why should an atheist take one interpretation over another just on your say-so? Sorry, but if someone claims that he believes in Jesus and that he murdered others because Jesus and the Bible told him to do so, we must call him a Christian.

"Obviously those extreme sorts of beliefs should be questioned. But since nobody has ever proved that God does not exist, it must be very unlikely that more basic religious beliefs, shared by all faiths, are nonsense."

The commonality of many basic religious beliefs is hardly surprising, if you take the view that religion is a product of society. From that viewpoint, religions have borrowed ideas which contribute to a stable society--such as respect for authority figures, a prohibition against murder, and so on.

In addition, many common religious themes have been passed on to later religions. For example, it has been suggested that the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament actually have their roots in Hammurabi's code.

The claim that because something hasn't been proved false, it's less likely to be nonsense, does not hold. As was pointed out earlier in this dialogue, positive assertions concerning the existence of entities are inherently much harder to disprove than negative ones. Nobody has ever proved that unicorns don't exist, and there are many stories about them, but that doesn't make it unlikely that they are myths.

It is therefore much more valid to hold a negative assertion by default than it is to hold a positive assertion by default. Of course, "weak" atheists may argue that asserting nothing is better still.

"Well, if atheism's so great, why are there so many theists?"

Unfortunately, the popularity of a belief has little to do with how "correct" it is, or whether it "works"; consider how many people believe in astrology, graphology, and other pseudosciences.

Many atheists feel that it is simply a human weakness to want to believe in gods. Certainly in many primitive human societies, religion allows the people to deal with phenomena that they do not adequately understand.

Of course, there's more to religion than that. In the industrialized world, we find people believing in religious explanations of phenomena even when there are perfectly adequate natural explanations. Religion may have started as a means of attempting to explain the world, but nowadays it serves other purposes as well. For instance, for many people religion fulfills a social function, providing a sense of community and belonging.
"But so many cultures have developed religions. Surely that must say something?"

Not really. Most religions are only superficially similar; for example, it's worth remembering that religions such as Buddhism and Taoism lack any sort of concept of God in the Christian sense. In short, there is no consensus amongst religions as to what God actually is. Hence one of the problems you must face if you wish to discuss God with an atheist, is that of defining exactly what you mean by the word.

Also, most religions are quick to denounce competing religions, so it's rather odd to use one religion to try and justify another.

"What about all the famous scientists and philosophers who have concluded that God exists?"

Firstly, note that surveys typically find that around 40% of scientists believe in god; so believers are in the minority. (The most recent survey was by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, was carried out in 1996, and was reported in the journal "Nature."

For every scientist or philosopher who believes in a god, there is one who does not. Besides, as has already been pointed out, the truth of a belief is not determined by how many people believe it. Also, it is important to realize that atheists do not view famous scientists or philosophers in the same way that theists view their religious leaders.

A famous scientist is only human; she may be an expert in some fields, but when she talks about other matters her words carry no special weight. Many respected scientists have made themselves look foolish by speaking on subjects which lie outside their fields of expertise.

Also, note that even famous scientists' views are treated with skepticism by the scientific community. Acknowledged experts in a particular field must still provide evidence for their theories; science relies on reproducible, independently confirmed results. New theories which are incompatible with a large body of existing scientific knowledge will be subject to especially close scrutiny; but if the work is sound and the experimental data reproducible, the new theories will displace the old.

For instance, both special relativity and quantum mechanics were highly controversial, and required that a lot of existing scientific theory be thrown out. Yet both were relatively quickly accepted after extensive experiments proved their correctness. Pseudoscientific theories such as creationism are rejected not because they are controversial, but because they simply do not stand up to basic scientific scrutiny. (For further information, see the FAQs for http://www.talkorigins.org/.)

The Constructing a Logical Argument document has more to say about scientific verification and proof by authority.

"So are you really saying that widespread belief in religion indicates nothing?"

Not entirely. It certainly indicates that the religion in question has properties which have helped it to spread so far.

The theory of memetics talks of "memes"--sets of ideas which can propagate themselves between human minds, by analogy with genes. Some atheists view religions as sets of particularly successful parasitic memes, which spread by encouraging their hosts to convert others. Some memes avoid destruction by discouraging believers from questioning doctrine, or by using peer pressure to keep one-time believers from admitting that they were mistaken. Some religious memes even encourage their hosts to destroy hosts controlled by other memes.

Of course, in the memetic view there is no particular virtue associated with successful propagation of a meme. Religion is not a good thing because of the number of people who believe it, any more than a disease is a good thing because of the number of people who have caught it.

The memetic approach has little to say about the truth of the information in the memes, however.

"Even if religion is not entirely true, at least it puts across important messages. What are the fundamental messages of atheism?"

There are many important ideas atheists promote. The following are just a few of them; don't be surprised to see ideas which are also present in some religions.

* There is more to moral behavior than mindlessly following rules.
* Be especially skeptical of positive claims.
* If you want your life to have some sort of meaning, it's up to you to find it.
* Search for what is true, even if it makes you uncomfortable.
* Make the most of your life, as it's probably the only one you'll have.
* It's no good relying on some external power to change you; you must change yourself.
* Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good.
* If you must assume something, assume something easy to test.
* Don't believe things just because you want them to be true.

And finally (and most importantly):

* All beliefs should be open to question.

Thanks for taking the time to read this document.

Let me make it simple for you.

An atheist is one who has no belief in a supernatural being.

In furtherance of this

(atheist) refer(s) to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist  is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

from wikipedia

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god", which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

from the same source above

Atheists tend to be skeptical of supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Atheists have offered various rationales for not believing in any deity. These include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[10]

I hope you paid attention to the bolded and coloured parts.

Still from wiki

People who self-identify as atheists are often assumed to be irreligious, but some sects within major religions reject the existence of a personal, creator deity. In recent years, certain religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as atheistic or humanistic Judaism and Christian atheists.

Christian Atheist indeed. How could you have missed that in your classification Sir ?

You said

Wow u have  chosen to narrow down the scope to suit your self.

You should know the point I'm objecting to.

u mentioned war, but i dont see this as any war

Since you didnt get it the first time, I'll say it again. The reference to "war" is a metaphorical one. Unless you are in denial surely you should get my meaning.

"Evangelical atheism": Sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it? But "evangelism" literally means "bringing of good news." I believe that strong atheism, the belief that there is no god, is not only true but is also good news. I also believe that the world would be a better place if there were more atheists. Unless you already are one, I believe you would be happier and the world would be a better place if you were an atheist.

There are already a number of resources on atheism: books, web sites, movies, you name it. Most of them patiently deal with the rational. This is as it should be; atheism is the only rational response to the question of whether there is a god. What I want to focus on, though, is the emotional. I believe that emotion, not reason, is the moat between the fantasy of religion and the reality of atheism.

The term Evangelism has its origins from the bible. You know, I could bring up several links saying "God loves Homosexuals". You know for a fact that some Churches have openly man-lover pastors/priests/bishops etc. Does the fact that there are links and verifiable facts of people violating christian doctrine by itself amend the christian position? Why didnt you include "Christian Atheists" as wikipedia mentioned ?

RALEIGH, N.C. — The cliche notwithstanding, there are atheists in foxholes. In fact, atheists, agnostics, humanists and other assorted skeptics from the Army’s Fort Bragg have formed an organization in a pioneering effort to win recognition and ensure fair treatment for nonbelievers in the overwhelmingly Christian U.S. military.

    “We exist, we’re here, we’re normal,” said Sgt. Justin Griffith, chief organizer of Military Atheists and Secular Humanists, or MASH. “We’re also in foxholes. That’s a big one, right there.”

Plastered on billboards in Raleigh, Durham, Pittsboro and Smithfield are the smiling faces of real Triangle atheists and agnostics, accompanied by pithy statements such as “I’m saved from religion” and “Another happy, humanist family.”

Thank you for the above. My only surprise is that you used it to support your position. I guess thats the problem with the average christian debater. I believe I made reference somewhere in this thread that christians had been hounding atheists and ridiculing them.
You made a point somewhere saying that many scientists were christians (or something like it) I believe I directed you to another thread. I dont know if you found it, but in addition to what I said there, another point is that there were probably a lot of scientists who kept their atheism to themselves.
The point is that everybody is free to believe or not to. Most theists (christians in my experience) will try to force their religion on you, their beliefs and opinions. Same as you are trying to do here. In your opinion, atheism is a religion and we must accept it.
However, reading the above article a little further I came upon this

After reading both the AP and the News & Observer stories, I came away with a sense that the tactics employed by the North Carolina atheists are sort of evangelical in nature. In fact, I wondered if — except for the lack of belief in God — these groups could be described as “religious.” I wished that one of the reporters had posed that question to a theologian.

In both stories, the non-believers are portrayed as victims of society’s wider belief in God. However, not much evidence is provided to back up that notion. For instance, we have non-believers in the lede of the AP story trying to “ensure fair treatment for nonbelievers in the overwhelmingly Christian U.S. military.” But we have no feedback from Christians in the military to give an idea how they relate to atheist comrades.

Since I am far from an expert on atheists, I’ll be interested in GR readers’ feedback on the two recent stories and even the guilt-laden WSJ piece from way back when. Remember, we’re concerned about journalism and media coverage, not that bigger question, if you know what I mean.

Basically, you cited an admitted non expert to prove your point, and even the parts you cited dont help your case.
If we agree with him that the US military is overwhelmingly "christian" then you should understand why the different ones need to stick together. There is a tendency in humans to isolate those that are different and stick with their kind.

One quote there struck me though as instructive

In fact, I wondered if — except for the lack of belief in God — these groups could be described as “religious.”

In my opinion, taking God away from religion, takes away a whole lot. What would remain without God in a religion ?
A unified belief system (belief in what?). Possibly some rituals (though Im not sure what good that would do without a God). This is all hypothetical here I have to point out.
As I've said before, atheists have different reasons for being atheists. The basic term, I have defined above. There is no unified belief and no rituals. The thought of atheism as a religion is silly.

You gave Sam Harris as an example of an "evangelical atheist" in his book "Letter to a Christian Nation" this is what he says

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs

The above Sir is very instructive and for the future, you should be careful with your sources.

There is, as has often been noted, something peculiarly evangelistic about what has been termed the new atheist movement ,  It is no exaggeration to describe the movement popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens as a new and particularly zealous form of fundamentalism -- an atheist fundamentalism. The parallels with religious fundamentalism are obvious and startling: the conviction that they are in sole possession of truth (scientific or otherwise), the troubling lack of tolerance for the views of their critics (Dawkins has compared creationists to Holocaust deniers), the insistence on a literalist reading of scripture (more literalist, in fact, than one finds among most religious fundamentalists), the simplistic reductionism of the religious phenomenon, and, perhaps most bizarrely, their overwhelming sense of siege: the belief that they have been oppressed and marginalized by Western societies and are just not going to take it anymore.

You didnt post any link. Perhaps you forgot. I found it though http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/harris_hitchens_dawkins_dennett_evangelical_atheists.html
Some of the readers comments were quite damaging. A small sample

Wow, I guess journalists don't feel the need to actually research their subject anymore.
It's so stuffed full of propogandic rubbish that there's no point in highlighting the individual mistakes.
Absolute drivel, and somehow the author still picks up work. Perhaps his prayers are answered, or maybe the devil really does look after his own. Either way, writing of this poor quality does nothing good for the WP.

After reading the article (did some editor check some improper and incorrect statements?) and comments, I wonder why Americans all (pro & con) getting so spastic when even the word atheist is mentioned.
Come people, let reason prevail, and above all, this fine British sense of humor that makes Mr. Dawkins just what he is: a nice person, with the sort of reason many others lack. Stay cool, or get raptured

I tried to post a comment showing how Aslan was demonstrably wrong on many counts. They did not get published in the comments in this comment section (probably due to volume). But the comments can be read here:
http://allusiveatheist..com/2010/07/transcendent-bs.html

(In my best conspiracy theorist voice These are the comments THEY don't want you to read, maaan.

You have characterized Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennet as examples of your "evangelical atheists".
Could this be why ?

Some prominent atheists—such as Bertrand Russell, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins—have criticized religions, citing harmful aspects of religious practices and doctrines. Atheists have often engaged in debate with religious advocates, and the debates sometimes address the issue of whether religions provide a net benefit to individuals and society.

One argument that religions can be harmful, made by atheists such as Sam Harris, is that Western religions' reliance on divine authority lends itself to authoritarianism and dogmatism. Atheists have also cited data showing that there is a correlation between religious fundamentalism and extrinsic religion (when religion is held because it serves ulterior interests) and authoritarianism, dogmatism, and prejudice. These arguments—combined with historical events that are argued to demonstrate the dangers of religion, such as the Crusades, inquisitions, witch trials, and terrorist attacks—have been used in response to claims of beneficial effects of belief in religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Atheism.2C_religion.2C_and_morality

Lets read about those you tagged "evangelical atheists"

Richard Dawkins does not provide such a strict definition of atheism, and the fact he opposes describing a child as 'Atheist' or 'Christian'[5] suggests that he views atheism as a conscious position and thus leans towards the dictionary definition of atheism as necessarily an active disbelief: Martin's 'positive atheism'. Dawkins' central argument against religion is probabilistic, and his scale of belief reflects this, ranging from 1: 'Strong theist. 100% probability of God' to the equivalent 7: 'Strong atheist'. He doesn't see 7 as a well-populated category, placing himself as 6: 'Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist'.[6] Again, this terminology suggests that he sees atheism as strictly requiring certainty. It should not be taken for a lack of certainty in a practical sense, however: Dawkins states 'I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden'.[7]
Dawkins divides agnosticism into TAP (temporary agnosticism in practice) and PAP (permanent agnosticism in principle), identifying the first as Sagan's stance on alien life. All but 1 and 7 on his scale can be identified as TAP. The second, PAP, he rightly argues would not be on the scale at all, even in the middle,[8] though it is not clear if this is not sometimes true for TAP as well: Sagan does not give a probabilistic response to the question of alien life. Dawkins reserves PAP for[b] questions that can never be answered by science: and it is central to his thought that God can be shown to be incredibly improbable scientifically.[/b] As such, committed agnostics tend to be portrayed as obscurantist, and Dawkins attempts to claim that Huxley overlooked the question of probability, perhaps in an attempt to accommodate the religious to make his central points more effective. Whether this can be squared with Huxley's references to Kant and his 'pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble' is another question.[9] In any case, Dawkins' reading of agnosticism makes a useful distinction and seems fairer to the etymology and common use of the term 'agnostic', and most agnostics can be helpfully placed in the TAP or PAP categories.

Another useful distinction can be made between a broad sense of atheism (positive or negative), according to which an atheist lacks a belief or positively disbelieves in any God or gods, and a narrow sense of atheism (positive or negative) according to which an atheist lacks a belief or positively disbelieves in the personal God believed in by members of the Abrahamic religions, or some other subset of gods. Certain thinkers are positive atheists about Abrahamic religion, but best described as agnostic (whether TAP or PAP) about a deist God, or some other possible sort of God.

In the current atheist debates the New Atheists generally deny that there are good reasons to believe in the sort of personal God believed in by members of the Abrahamic religions. This is because they perceive the great Abrahamic religions - Christianity, Judaism, and Islam - as the greatest threat to the integrity of science and the rule of secular law. However, they also reject deism - the belief in a God that is not based on revelation but on evidence from nature and does not intervene in the world - polytheism (belief in many gods), and pantheism (belief that God is identical with nature). The last is described by Dawkins as 'sexed-up atheism', as he sees it as seeing the natural world in a spiritual way: probably very true for modern pantheists, though by no means universal amongst earlier pantheists, many of whom were more accurately panentheists, seeing the world as within God, rather than exhausting a description of him.

If we apply this distinction to the contemporary debates, the three chief public atheists, (Dawkins, Dennett and Harris) should probably be categorised as positive atheists in the broad sense. Dawkins, for example, denies not only of the personal God of the Abrahamic religions but also the more minimal deist God; he also dismisses the gods of the polytheistic religions, as well as the alleged pantheism of scientists such as Einstein, which he interprets as mere religious metaphor. The Abrahamic God is their primary target, but they broadly dismiss all other forms of belief in God as well.

Moreover, although this is not entailed by atheism in any of the abovementioned senses, avowed atheists tend also to disbelieve in supernatural entities of any kind (e.g., spirits, disembodied souls) and also in supernatural interventions of any kind in the course of nature or events inexplicable in terms of the best contemporary (orthodox) scientific understanding of the universe (for example, parapsychological occurrences).

It is noteworthy, however, that the strident atheist Sam Harris has signalled an openness towards the possibility of parapsychological events in nature.[10] This, of course, does not affect his status as an atheist, since the existence of phenomena such as telepathy and precognition is compatible with there being no God or gods. However, this puts him at odds with Dawkins and Dennett, for whom belief in such things is inextricably associated with the religious mentality.

The attitude to the term 'atheist' also varies, with some thinkers wishing to escape its negative connotations, or purely reactive definition. Sam Harris did not use the term in his first book, 'The End of Faith', and argued at a recent conference that 'our use of this label is a mistake-and a mistake of some consequence', objecting on both 'philosophical and strategic' grounds.[11] Alternatives proposed or used include 'free- thinker', 'rationalist' and the controversial 'Bright'.
References
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press, 2006.
Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2004.
Martin, Michael, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html

in addition, jay kindly read what another atheist had to say who was formally a christian

Instead of just being a passive observer I began to question people about their reasons for believing things that can’t be proven and over the years I have become more aggressive in that area. Now, I belong to the Freedom from Religion Foundation and write letters to newspapers who have printed religious claptrap or other letters from overtly religious nuts who would like to have a 10 commandments posted on every street-corner and prayer in the schools. I characterize myself as an Evangelical Atheist and I believe that more of us have to take an activist stance.

Reference please.

You apparently  must be oblivious to the ills of religion. Maybe you are a "thinking christian" (which strictu sensu is a classification that does not make sense) like my friend claimed. Maybe you tend to see only the "good" in religion. Maybe you dont have friends that have been exploited by the church or by men of God. Maybe you were in Mars with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears when certain child witches were killed. These were not the first set. Maybe you dont know anybody who was violated by a pastor or prophet or a small boy who was molested by a priest.
Maybe you dont know of anyone who killed his or her mother because she was a "witch" and was preventing his or her progress. Maybe you do not know of the ills that have been blamed on the devil or commanded by God.
Maybe you do not know of the attrocities directly traceable to the bible. Slavery. Subjugation of women. Religious intolerance. Maybe you never heard of the crusades or the inquisition.
There are a lot of ills directly traceable to the religion and the bible. Someone speaking out against them does not make him an evangelist even if he calls himself that.
If I hold a fork in my hand and refer to it as a spoon, it will not automatically become a spoon.

Ill leave the below for you to read. This happened a year back I believe.

Man accused of killing pastor for Desecrating his daughter

BY PATIENCE OGBO


A 56-year-old man, John Oromoro, is in police custody for allegedly killing his pastor, Ben Ojinaka.

The incident happened on Sunday, September 19th at Jakande Estate, Ajangbadi. Mr Oromoro said the pastor of Jesus Power Ministry, Benjamin Ojinaka, 45, allegedly violated his 15-year-old daughter in July this year. He said he went to confront the pastor on the allegation that it was his daughter that lured him to Be Intimate with him when a fight ensued between them that led to the pastor’s death. “I be tanker driver,” he said. “The thing wey happen na since more than one month ago. My daughter, wen be the last born of my fourteen children get marine spirit. Pastor Ben come say him fit deliver her. Na me and pastor na we form the church together, so na so pastor come dey carry her go for deliverance.”

Scandal and death

Mr Oromoro stated that his daughter was eventually delivered of the[b] ‘spirits[/b]’ but he noticed she kept going back to church after the deliverance. “Later my daughter come refused to go church; after I ask her many times, she come confessed say pastor Ben violation her for inside my house one day during deliverance,” he said. “I come vex, go meet pastor. Him come tell me make I forgive am say[b] na devil work[/b], I vex but I come forgive pastor.” He said he then heard rumours of the pastor claiming that his daughter lured him to Be Intimate with him. “When I hear say pastor dey tell people say na my daughter violation am, I come go him house on Sunday go ask am say why him dey spoil my daughter name,” he said. “Him tell me to get out from him house , I come vex, we come dey fight. Na so people for the compound come separate us. As pastor dey run go tell police, na so him fall down.”
http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Home/5622189-146/story.csp

This is one out of many that will never make the news.

You want to know if there are different types of atheist ?
The real answer is NO !
Am I contradicting myself when I say atheists have different idealogies ?
No !
An atheist is a person who has no belief in God.
When you ask a person if he believe in God, if he says no, then he is an atheist. It wouldnt make any sense to start asking him what kind he is. Militant or closet or "evangelical" etc
The fact that you can divide christians into sects and denominations does not mean that everything can be so categorized.
If you can stop this simplistic thinking, we can have structure, but you cant stop it because thats the only reason for this debate.

Your first lines at the beginning of this thread were

toba:
Alright. I was reading something online last night before i stumbled on a forum as  well as other sites and blogs wherein the subject atheism/atheists' were being discussed. I became enthused and then chose to review what had been discussed.

Some of their views will be captured on this thread, which i may or may not agree with.

So, you go to a few sites, then you copy and paste without understanding, come here with a biased mind and openly declare so.
Infact

claremont:
I am sure if Toba had found out from the Internet that there is such a thing as "Goat Atheism, "Cow Atheism", or "Tortoise Atheism, he would have come on here asking us which one are we. My point is, there are a million and one mundane concepts out there, it doesn't mean that these concepts make any form of logical sense, the concepts only make sense to the persons who may have invented them.

Apparently anything on the internet must be true. Here Sir.

To be “evangelical” means to be intentional about sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ to others. So, it is essentially nonsensical to speak of an “evangelical atheist”, as that would mean an atheist who believes in the divinity of Jesus and thinks others should as well!

Perhaps what he INTENDs to say, is that he is opposed to “proselytizing atheists”. (or perhaps even “evangelistic atheists” – which is not quite so problematic, but still a softer misnomer).
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/05/evangelical-atheist-misnomer

Heck maybe what you meant was anti theism

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. An antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.

Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is dangerous or destructive. One example of this view is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which Christopher Hitchens writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

This is the same Hitchens that you dug up some bogus link proclaiming him an evangelical atheist. I believe he has made himself clear to you Sir ?
I hold similar views as he does, particularly the all religions (I'd be more particular about the major ones) being versions of the same untruth. What does that make me ? An anti theist evangelical atheist ?

Truth be told, theres no need to continue here.

toba:
Some of their views will be captured on this thread, which[b] i may or may not agree with.[/b]

Enjoy .

PS
I'll be on the streets tomorrow with Darwin's "Origin of the Species" in one hand and a megaphone in the other.
Till we meet on another thread, goodbye.

Toba a picture proves nothing. We need to know the context (assuming its not photoshopped).

And please tell us what kind of christian you are
1) A hypocrite or
2) A genuinely confused christian.

@Toba, try not to hurt yourself. I wouldnt have responded but for the sheer length of your post. My teachers used to say "just write, at least even if you write rubbish, we will give you one mark for your biro". I know its not going to do any good, but I'll just try and respond.

really? this is pathetic after reading your post, i found more grounds to still question your logic cos your attempt at shifting the goal post isnt good enough sir and haven't helped push your  matter very well thus far.

No need to engage you on this.

this is still a pathetic attempt cos your biased view shouldn't be used as a basis for generalization. Once again i would still give u the same response. Kindly educate your self well with what the term evangelical atheism means. This subject have long been trashed out on NL and should in case u aren't satisfied with what has been said here, don't be lazy, do some research i wouldn't have time to spoon feed u for too long

What pathetic view ? What spoon feeding. At least spoon feed me once before you say you wont have time for it for too long. I repeat, there is nothing like evangelical athiesm. If I told you there was a true christian that accepted that Mohammed (pbuh) was the comforter Jesus spoke about, would you agree ? There is literature documenting that fact. Does it make it true to you ?

I will still give u the same response. Dont generalize. the definition of belief i gave applies to atheist. It might be different whats being believed in but yet it still applies. Many atheist are so much convinced that they arent even ashamed to go public. U may still look up for the meaning of belief from other mediums to see how atheism fits in. Dont return here to tell me atheism isnt a belief without looking well into the definition of belief

In your mind, a lack of belief is no different from a belief. No wahala.

Let me say to you that this thread is not particularly directed to an individual but to a group of which u may belong to. really i wouldnt have bothered if  u never made an attempt at shifting the goal post of the subject of this discourse to review some of your post to see your orientation.

A second reference to shifting the goal posts. Now Sir, let me classify christians on my personal experience (which may attract attention and get its own standard definition later on). In my classification (and possibly a lot of atheists), there are two types of christians.
1) The genuinely confused
2) The hypocrites.
Now Toba, under which category do you fall. Answer me this if you are a man.

Now this is really pathetic. your contradiction knows no bound. U have generalized that atheism isnt a belief and know u want me to believe  that other atheists may have divergent view about the subject. Where did u leave the characters in bold before making a  pathetic attempt at defending atheism? SMDH

What contradiction? There is only one if you hold the stubborn opinion that atheism is a religion. If you are determined against all reason to hold so, then there is little I can do. I can only repeat what I said earlier; atheism is not a belief. You can actually find two atheists having different views. Their converging point would be that there is no God.
I'll try and clarify a bit. I'm never going to say for certain that there is no God. Until I have proof, I wont say so. The reason for this is that Im not from a science background. I cannot directly determine for myself if what Darwin, Dawkins et al say is true. My atheism journey started before I entered University and continued. I didnt need science to tell me there was no God. Science says "A" today and "B" tomorrow because they are forever questioning their theories and establishing new truths. I look to science to provide me with plausible answers. I can rely on those answers because of the peer review system. I dont need to test these things myself. I suspect atheists who declare with certainty that there is no God are of the scientific calling and they have tested these things for themselves.
Yet again, the one thing I will say with great certainty is that your God of the bible is a non entity.

May be if u had kept yours to yourself, we could have been saved this part. I really do not care about anything. I just love fair play. If atheist accuse the theist of something, have they checked thoroughly if they arent guilty of same? Remember u started this with your long tale. Its only fair for me to respond in kind manner Smiley sir check your logic

Thats like you assaulting me and when I fight back, you accuse me of starting it. Its possible that you never antagonised an atheist (I doubt that) but you belong to a body which does and you cannot escape liability.
On a similar note, most of the christians I have met have nothing but contempt for the atheist. If I said I was muslim, the more tolerant of them would be like "OK. At least you believe in something". Some christians even tell me that even if I dont believe in their God, I should at least believe in something. Why is it so hard to comprehend a human without belief in a deity ?

No it does.  U only need to read others' post with an open mind and stop being biased. I told u the definition says we find them on the internet. Again are we not using the internet as a discussion platform?

Do I really need to refute this silly assertion. I want to spare you the embarrassment.

Thats one of the issues i may have with . have  u bothered an attempt at reading what  evangelical atheism is all about?  U cant sit comfortably behind a system and say what u have little knowledge about, having the opportunity to arm your self with what it entails. Before  u make claims kindly read the definition or meaning once again. pathetic

*Yawn*. I believe Ive addressed this before.

Na and how do u know this about atheist? do u know that we also have different kinds of atheists/atheism? Which one of this kinds have no belief?

Dont hurt yourself Sir. Who gave atheists different classifications ? Is it in your bible ? For the 500th time, an atheist is an atheist. An atheist is one who has no belief in a supernatural deity. When it comes to Ogun, Sango, Allah, Buddha etc, you are an atheist too. Under which of your misguided categories do you fall ?

I must lol here. I just discovered that the letter 'u' on my keyboard is failing. hence the letter missing is u. i would get it checked after this post

Thank "God" your "U" is now working. It hasnt made much of a difference though.

1)Naaa. U really have to pity your self here cos most of atheist get agitated over frivolous matters during online discussion and hence result to insult. your pathetic response is amusing.
2) I havent insulted u thus far even though u have used poor logic in most part of this discourse. It may also be good for u to know that same thing  U have said in this paragraph also applies to u and other atheist.  
3) U are trying to make us believe in what u believe in, its only fair that u get same response on what u are giving out.

4) Its the atheist here that get fed in time hence change the goal post and turn to insult others. U have attempted that on this thread. Trust me, u give it to me, i give it to u back. Im ready for it.

1) I agree, some atheist on this forum (not all) dish out insults. Sometimes they fight back when they have been insulted and sometimes they dish it out without provocation. I am not for the latter, but you never know what these people have suffered in the hands of christians and theists.
2) No Sir, you didnt insult me. You only called me lazy and made references to my profession when you do not know how I came up.
3) Nobody is trying to make you believe in anything. Trust me, if you ever become an atheist, it will come from you. If I had conclusive proof that God doesnt exist, you still wouldnt believe. An atheist doesnt believe in anything, so what is he trying to make you believe ? Speaking for myself, I never argue with the idea of getting someone to stop believing. If you want to take 10 percent of your hard earned money and throw it at a charlatan (who is most likely an atheist himself) whats my business? All I ask is for peace and quiet. Let me be without religion. I dont need it.
4) I didnt insult you. Maybe my reference to your poor logic ruffled your feathers but hey, it is what it is.

Muhehehehehe. So sir what is the logic u have been passing so far? Arent we chatting in English? Havent i told  to go check for meaning of words before u apply them on this thread? what else are  u talking about here? at a point, u  would say people have different thinking at another u would want to speak for all atheist. this is poor logic mr man if u dont know

I said a true atheist. I dont presume to speak for all atheists. Its my opinion in anycase. Im sure you wont own up to every act committed by christians. If you will, I'm sure the atrocities of Reverend Dr James is enough to debunk your faith. However if I attempted to put you in the same category as the Reverend Dr James, you would probably make an effort to distinguish yourself

Thats why i said u still need to do more in terms of intensifying your effort. We have evangelical atheist, kindly learn about them and convey your message to them via the same internet u are using in responding to me. ok? U must discover that we have fanatics among atheist as well.

Not bothering with that. Too base.

I would still ask u, what are the logic u have demonstrated on this thread? U are attempting to shift the goal post again. U brought in the issue of God here and its only fair to give  a response. I havent started this thread to discuss god or God. your poor logic has drifted us into doing this. Its also very pathetic that u  kept on calling this or discussion a war. War for what exactly? I really dont care if anyone believes or do not believe in god. if truly there's a God, we shall all know one day. The way u are going about this is just too poor. Let me tell u this isnt a war. Pls change your poor logic sir

Poor logic, poor logic, shifting the goal post. It would appear I touched a nerve somewhere. The basic point of my post was to address/correct certain inconsistencies. The most outstanding were
a) Atheism is not a belief system and
b) There is no such thing as an evangelical atheist.
And as for the "war" thing, its metaphorical. I dont hate christians or people who believe in a God of some sorts. I dont think most hate me either. They mostly pity me or feel superior to me.

Naaaa. This is really really pathetic. What brought about this trash? Did i start this thread to preach about God? Have u forgotten that the God subject was brought in by u? Too bad. Its just too obvious that most of u are just against the christian and the christian God with a stereotyped and biased opinion which has been preconceived in your minds. U bring this into a every discussion and make the christian look guilty at all times. This is very very bad. What sense have u made with your logic here?

You didnt preach about God. Not directly at least. However Id like to hear you explain or have a discussion about atheism without God coming into it. Nuff said.

Dont tell me that u deliberately posted trash on this thread to please some people. Is that the correct position?

No Sir. This is not a question you should ask.

And how do  u know it requires faith to accept that God did that?

As a christian, you are adept at believing the unbelievable. This is a small thing for you . Just have faith.

U fall into one of the above categories. satisfied?

U fall into one of the above categories. satisfied?

No Sir. What category ?

I have no issues with them really cos what i do, they supplement it by preparing tenancy and lease agreement for me. I have issues with comprehending how a barrister would be applying very poor logic in a discussion. U have shifted the goal post severally which is very pathetic

You must be into real estate then. It would be poor logic to you. That doesnt surprise me.

U see. i was talking about something else and u are referring to something else. U said theres nothing like evangelical atheism. I responded by saying  should back it up. See what in came p with? this is pathetic. This your God obsession is becoming embarrassing

No Sir, infact you said

This is why i frown at your laziness.  dont just make a claim without backing it p.

Because I had already decried the term evangelical atheist (in no uncertain terms), and I thought that the point had sunk in, I thought you were insinuating that those mythical beasts were not found in the bible. I still think that is the case (the opposite scenario is too severe for me to contemplate concerning a fellow human being). My post is still there. You may want to refer to it again.
Interestingly, you have nothing to say regarding the mythical beasts.

Whats the percentage of atheists in the world? I have a thread on that on this same NL. pls do your own research and if u cant, ask me for the link and i would gladly bring it up for u. Just before u do that, i can confidently tell u that the entire atheists on earth arent up to 25% of the worlds total population. This only confirms that those that doesnt believe in anything like God or a supreme being or spirit, etc belongs to the minority of which  u are one. pathetic

U need to do more evangelism to win souls. lo

I warned you not to hurt yourself Sir.
Truth is not measured in mass appeal. At the risk of galling you further, this is terrible. Are you insinuating that you are a christian because its one of the major religions ? Are you a catholic ? Are you afraid to be different. If you are in a group of 10 people and 9 say 1+1=4, would that make it true ?
I dont need to do any evangelism. What am I evangelising about? Im not concerned about any souls. If you eventually see the light, you will do it on your own.
25% is even a big number. I thought atheists were less than that. The number has no bearing on reality.
In your mind, its pathetic to belong to a minority. Have you ever heard of the word "sheeple" ?

It might not make too much sense continuing this discussion with u cos of your lazy attempt to learn.

Evidently you consider this a compliment not an insult

I have being able to educate about the different categories of atheism which u  have failed to grab. Its pathetic.


Im still available so if  u need more, consult me

*Yawn*

I completely stand by that post and my other posts on this thread: the evangelical atheists are doing exactly the same things that they accuse "religionists" of and are now themselves also practising a religion.

This is why I asked you for a definition of a religion. Are you afraid to define it because you know that the very definition will expose the inherent absurdity in the term "evangelical atheism"?

@Enigma, I was going to take out a separate post to respond to you but I dont think there is any need. It is silly to consider atheism a religion unless you are saying that tongue in cheek just to "find our mouth".
If you keep holding that opinion after clear explanations have been given to you, then we have nothing to contribute to knowledge on this subject.

@Toba once again, just so the point doesnt get lost. I want you to tell us on nairaland, what type of christian you are.
1) a hypocrite
2) a genuinely confused christian

Thanks in advance for identifying which category you fall under.

@Toba ****yawn***
There really is no need to reply you but I'll try.

I read everything that was posted. You see that out of everything I took particular issue with the term evangelical atheism. Once again, its a misnomer in case you didnt get it the first time.
Atheism is NOT a belief, its a lack of it. Why do you want to put an atheist in the same category as yourself. Where is your sense of logic. I ask you, how is it possible to believe in a thing that is not. Infact since you are the very epitome of research and diligence, you might want to show me where I ever said that I am certain there is no God.

In case you don't find it, let me categorically state it here. I[b] have no belief [/b]in a supernatural deity by whatever name so called (is that better phrasing for you) but I cannot say for certain that there is none. Until I see evidence to the contrary, this is my stand.

Do the bolded parts satisfy you? I hope this will quench your desire to tag me as one of you.

Now, that is my position, and please do not tag me as agnostic. I'm not. Another atheist may say he knows for certain that there is no God.  Each person with his own way of thinking.

If you wish to believe a bunch of primitive tales and guidelines each at variance with itself, so be it. But keep such away from me. Go to your heaven or hell. See your visions, its fine. But when you bring them to me its a different story.
You made a very silly point that might titillate those with a feeble grasp of logic. You said

Its clear from one of the definitions that we find people like this on the Internet. We are chatting on the internet arent we?

This proves nothing. Its a pathetic attempt really.

Moving on, in my personal life, I dont bother people. I dont even like debating or explaining my position. Every now and then, there comes a person who thinks he knows better than you (majority call you fools to your face or in their minds), a person whose religious fervour knows no bounds, a person who feels he/she can change you, a person who is intolerant of anything but his own viewpoint. Then they make certain claims which are false and need to be refuted.
A good example of this is calling atheism or science or evolution a belief. Or a silly term like evangelical atheism.

I read the topic and it asks the question which kind of atheist are you. I didnt answer because I dont even like being called an atheist. I'm a human being simple and plain. The term atheist is just a convenient grouping for people who have no belief in a supernatural being.

have u actually fond out beyond the shores of Nigeria that theres nothing like evangelical atheism/atheists? Have  tried reading some of the links Enigma gave s on this thread? If not then  need to do that first. Some of the forms owned by atheist are available for free members registration. Go there to learn more about atheism and how r people are reading to defend their belief in order to silence the theists.

You havent told me you have either. What forms are owned by atheists ? Is it forms or forums ? There is a difference between a religious sect and an association. I'm not a member of any atheist forum and I dont need to be. Its really not my business what you do with your life, just dont expect me to do the same. If christians kept their wahala to themselves, you wouldnt have any problem with atheists. As I see it, you are a desperate bunch. The wiser christians among you read and move on. They dont contribute because its a war thats impossible to win. I respect that. Those of you coming here with half baked logic and spurious rebuttals garnished with heavy doses of vile insults are the ones I pity.
You cant win. A true atheist wont win either because he knows that religion and logic are incompatible. Its based on belief. The same word that is causing this dispute now. How else can your mind comprehend a position other than to call it a belief.
Thus you reason "call it a belief, then its more familiar to us and we can engage it on our turf". Sorry, you are wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief.
If any man is going on the streets sensitizing people about the non existence of God, I would suggest that his head be examined. Its just not normal to do this just like its not normal for a christian to take to the streets and force his religion on anyone. The internet is a different thing entirely. Its not "in your face". You are neither forced to read or having read, to respond. Religion has more than its fair share of fanatics. You people would like to bad mouth Islam forgetting that the oceans of blood that were spilled have only just dried up (I'm speaking figuratively since its hard for you to figure things out).

NAAAAAAAAA. why are u like this? most of the world's best scientist, dont they believe in God? some of them actually believe and do read the bible yet it doesn't affect their scientific studies

Where are your statistics Sir ?
I reacted to this issue today, I dont feel like doing it again. Since you are a great researcher and you have followed most of my posts, go and dig out the answer.

U may also have forgotten that  and r fellow atheist go about nl trying to convince the theist with some scientific logic that theres poor evidence for a God. dont ? 
U were actually in a haste  to respond without adequately reading what we are talking about

Theres poor evidence for God really. I believe I mentioned that its fun taunting theists cos they do it a whole lot. The fun is actually when people like you attempt to violently stand logic on its head and resort to crude insults to cover up their lapses. Sometimes too, its wiser to refrain. It just depends on your mood. The best way to win this war is not to fight it. Just keep on doing what you do, and leave us alone. You need to get your spiritual heads to decree this . After that, peace shall reign. If you want to talk, you have to be prepared for a response as well.

No Sir, I wasnt in haste. You are apparently, from your spelling and grammar.

Wow i thought  said  were a Lawyer. This is shocking. Did  care to read the title of this thread? Now this is what the title says 'I Heard There Are Different Kinds Of Atheism/atheist, Which One Do U Fall Under?' I am not here to claim or not claim that atheism is or is not a religion. Its a pity u are using the same atheist tactic to allege what im yet to claim.

Not worthy of a response since you didnt get my meaning the first time.

Exactly the point. Which means both sides are actually doing the same thing. An atheist tells me theres no god or God, in order for me not to be called a fool, i choose to defend what i believe in just as the atheist did

Theres nothing that gives an atheist the direction or mandate to call another man a fool, so we quietly wait for you to quote the verse in psalms and then we hint you that you are now in danger of hell. I have never in my entire life attacked any christian for his faith. Rather I find myself having to explain my position. The response and degree may vary in proportion to the delusion of the christian, but the responses are typical.
I'd be surprised if any of the atheists on this forum went about asking people to stop believing in God. Its usually the other way round.

This your scenario really makes no sense to me. U may be right to tell this to other christians who go about doing some of what  highlighted in the scenario and not to me. The title of the thread is very clear. Which of the kinds do  fall under.

It requires faith for you to accept that God came to me and told me he didnt exist (it really happened). Ask for the spirit to guide you and you will understand.

Yes the title of the thread is very clear but the information contained in it is misleading. If I say nothing at all, another day when I object to the term, they will ask "but why didnt you say something then".

I can tell u straight away the one  fall under cos having read some of your previous responses, i can draw a conclusion.

Well Sir, you seem to know me very well. Where do I fall ?

This is why i frown at your laziness.  dont just make a claim without backing it p. Im sure  have the internet and also some available data. Kindly do your research. Lawyers arent lazy to read and learn. Do that your self to  find out if we have evangelical atheism or not. In some countries, this people are even shouting for constitutional recognition. Pls read through the links Enigma provided. That u dont believe in something or have never heard about something doesnt make such thing to be a myth

I dont know what your thing is with lawyers. It has no bearing on your poor comprehension.

What claim do you want me to back up ? Mythical creatures in the bible ? I didnt think there was a need for that.
I never said my ignorance of something made it a myth . Did I ? What I said was that if something had a definition, it doesnt conclude (Im rephrasing for your sake) that such a thing exists.

Isaiah 13:21 "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."

What is a Satyr Sir ?

Numbers 21:6

What is a fiery serpent Sir ?

Jeremiah 8:17 - "For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the Lord

A cockatrice ? Have you seen one ?

Isaiah 34:7  "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls, and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness." See also Job 39:9-12

The only unicorn I know of is the Invisible Pink Unicorn which is a great spiritual being. We know this because it is capable of being pink and invisible at the same time. Like every religion, it relies on a mixture of faith and logic. We have faith that it is pink and logically we know its invisible because we cannot see it (though it is everywhere).


Sir, have you seen a unicorn before (I know you dont have the faith to do it).
Please use the old king james if you have access to it because modern bible editors are ashamed of these ridiculous monsters (and they have definitions) and are replacing them.

Malachi 1:3 "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness."

Dragons Sir ?

toba:
1) im yet to see  make a reasonble point on this thread.  have just been cheer leading r fellow atheists. Lets try to reason. What i posted here are some of the things being belived to be in practise by r fellow atheist.

2)The bible says stdy to show r self approved. Most of  atheists need to stdy very well abot atheism.

3) base most of your belief in What Dawkins and Darwin have said. Try to do some research r self and learn more about your belief

1) I dont doubt that you are yet to see a reasonable point.
Look again.
Keep looking.
Tell us how long it took you.
Still looking ?

2) Thats what your bible says. An atheist is free from all that because he has no belief. The basic premise of atheism is "until you show me your God, I cant believe in it". How that equates to a belief to you is unfathomable.

3) Actually theres Carl Sagan, James Randi, Edward Current, Comedian George Carlin, Bertrand Russel, Bart Erhman,
and the list is endless. You apparently dont know the meaning of research There are plenty of atheists out there and they are not the reason that anyone is an atheist. Nothing I can say will convince you, I know that already. Usually an atheist passes through stages before he gets there (unless he is born into an atheist family). Infact, I'll leave you with this quote from Isaac Asimov

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.

The other day I was discussing with a friend and he called himself a "thinking christian". I promptly told him that there was no such thing.
Likewise, there is no such thing as an evangelical atheist. An atheist is just that.

Enigma:
@toba

In addition to what you have said, evangelical atheism actually exists in Nigeria as well; sometimes publicly with people like Leo Igwe (who is actually a decent writer occasionally) and the anonymous evangelical atheist campaigners on this forum and on this very thread. Indeed, now they dominate the Nairaland religion forum and many Christians are now leaving them to it; (in fact as an aside I wonder what the "intellectual" Christians who tend to side with the atheists and other anti-Christians now make of it!)

Further, the evangelical atheists saying there is no such thing as evangelical atheism are simply in denial being ashamed to admit that they are doing exactly what they accuse religionists of and have themselves become members of a religion!

Everything I said to Toba applies to your post.





At this point, Id like to say something before I leave. I have heard that some people just pick flaws in peoples arguments without adding anything constructive. I have been accused of that personally and this is always my response. I like to learn because I dont know everything. If you state a case, I may not be able to counter you with facts, neither will I make them up on my own. If however you make an unsound argument, you cannot force me to take your conclusion, even if I have no facts to counter you as yet (and I will not make any up as mentioned earlier).

The fact that Im not going to tell you what kind of atheist (a rubbish classification in my opinion) I belong to, does not stop me from pointing out to you the absurdity inherent.

@Deep Sight, thank you for responding. Now that you have said that you are a Deist, I understand where you are coming from. You said I am agnostic. It may sound like that because I said "Im willing to bet that there is no God but I cant say for sure". I can clearly confirm to you that I am not agnostic. I'm uncertain that the most hardcore atheist can say bonafide that he is certain that there is no God.
When I say Im willing to bet, it means that thats the side I stand with. Nobody can claim to know everything.

You have stated that you are not religious. It seems to me however that you are even if slightly so. Your responses give that impression. I do believe though that you are not religious in the way most of the theists here are. I might have mentioned in this thread or some other that if there is a God, it probably is closer to the Deist concept than any. In the same vein, I mentioned that if there is a God, one thing Im certain of is that its clearly not the God of the bible.


Now Deep Sight, I need a clearer picture and I'll beg you to answer these questions. I know you said you are a deist, but its better we put this issue in the light. The reason is when an atheist argues with a theist and you jump to their aid, you are poles apart from the side you are defending and the other side.
The improbability of God refers to the religious God of whatever creed. Not necessarily the Deist God. If you read Dawkins essay again, you see some place where he makes reference to the Deist concept, without necessarily mentioning it. Here

There is a temptation to argue that, although God may not be needed to explain the evolution of complex order once the universe, with its fundamental laws of physics, had begun, we do need a God to explain the origin of all things. This idea doesn't leave God with very much to do: just set off the big ba.n.g, then sit back and wait for everything to happen.

When you want to join an argument like this, it would be better you clearly define your position. I wouldnt necessarily make the same points if I'm arguing with a Deist that I would if I was arguing with a theist. Quite simply, God means different things to them.

My questions are as follows
1) Do you believe in the God of the bible ?
2) If the answer above is no, do you believe in a similar entity (Allah, Buddha, etc) ?
3) Do you believe that the God which you recognize intervenes in human affairs by means of supernatural means ?
4) Does your concept of God answer prayers offered to him by mankind ?
5) Is there a prescribed mode of reaching/ speaking with him akin to worship ?
6) Is there an afterlife ?
7) What happens to people who dont believe in your concept of God ?
8| Do you believe the world was created like countless religious myths would have us believe ?
9) Where is the God now and how can we prove him ?
10) If he cant be proven, why not and wherein lies your certainty (or are you just guessing/hoping) ?
I know what the Deist concept of God is but I need you to answer these questions so I can understand your position better. Humour me please.


You said

I am Deist, and I draw this position from both logic and intuition.

This I understand. I think though that the intuition is on the higher side.

The best current cosmological scientific thinking for the commencement of the universe is the big b.ang theory which indicates that the universe commenced expansion from a singularity. The critical questions are –

1.   What caused such an expansion?

2.   Where did the energy therein come from?

It doesn’t make any sense to ask where God came from and yet refuse to ask the very same necessary question with regard to the singularity and the energy inherent in it from which the expansion that brought the universe as we know it commenced.

Now given the law of cause and effect, it is only rational, indeed, painfully obvious and logical, that the cause of such an event must –

1.   Have preceded the event

2.   Is not the event itself

We are therefore left with the logical conclusion of the existence of a preceding causative element – which is what God is said to be.

Not so fast Barrister. I've noticed a tendency in your arguments to assume what you seek to prove. You may be right or wrong. We dont know yet and I dont see that it is even important. We had creation stories before but we know that they are ridiculous at the least, hence the quest for the origin of the universe.

I am sorry, but I don’t see how the logic of a preceding causative element will lead to an unlearned world.

It would indeed interest you to know that virtually all the leading innovators who drove modernization through novel technical and scientific creations were theists.

Thus your suggestion is eminently presumptuous and utterly unfounded.

No it is not unfounded. As I have pointed out we are talking about two different kinds of Gods here. I'm addressing the theistic concept and you the Deistic concept . They are worlds apart. Surely you wouldnt say they are the same thing ?

Did acceptance that “God did it” stop all the theist scientists in history from investigating human anatomy and developing medicinal solutions?

Why then should an acceptance of the existence of God impede the continuation of scientific inquiry into the universe? Does the nation that leads space research today – the United States – not have as its motto – “In God we Trust?” Does that stop them from continuing with space research?

Please stop making these huge assumptions and logical leaps.

My response above is sufficient. I'm not making assumptions and leaps. You are the one who came to the debate with a different topic.  As for the "in God we trust" bit, surely you know that the founding fathers of the US were Deists, not theists. It proves no point but I'll let it slide because there is no point debating when we arent debating the same thing.

Certain and convinced atheism is what is rationally ridiculous. It requires omniscience.

I sort of agree with you here, but the opposite is the case as well. Nobody can be certain about the origin of the universe. We can only weigh up evidence and decide which theory is more plausible.

That is the conundrum of the infinite regress. But it is not a problem for the mind who understands that the preceding causative agent is an eternal element. Eternity by its very nature is self-existent: it is therefore uncaused. This is why the creative element is referred to as the uncaused cause.

It is also a very creative excuse to stop all questions which is not acceptable to a purely logical mind. This is why I said you were probably guided more by intuition than by logic. You will also remember this quote of yours

The best current cosmological scientific thinking for the commencement of the universe is the big b.ang theory which indicates that the universe commenced expansion from a singularity. The critical questions are –

1.   What caused such an expansion?

2.   Where did the energy therein come from?

It doesn’t make any sense to ask where God came from and yet refuse to ask the very same necessary question with regard to the singularity and the energy inherent in it from which the expansion that brought the universe as we know it commenced.

Which brings us to the same point. The scientist (not atheist this time) might stammer at this point because he doesnt know yet, but he will in the same vein, keep from giving an answer like an "uncaused cause" unless he has good evidence to back it up. The uncaused cause puts a full stop to all queries at that point. Dont you think so ? If we never query what we think we know, we remain stagnant. I'll address this later.

As stated above, this is factually incorrect. Learning throughout the ages did not stop on account that men believed in God: and it remains on record that most of the most important scientific breakthroughs have in fact been accomplishments of men who believed in God.

The above was in response to my saying we have no need for God again or we might as well stop learning.
I'm not sure you got the import of that. As I've mentioned before, God here refers to the typical theist God. The God of Frosbel if you will (couldn't resist that). The God you refer to is the Deistic concept (it remains to be seen whether you adopt the whole of Deism or just some aspects hence the above questions).
There may have been religious theist scientists who have accomplished scientific breakthroughs (I dont know about the "most of" part). However you must realize that calling yourself religious or a christian doesnt necessarily make you one. They may be selective adherents like most people today. Also they are following a culture and they see nothing wrong with it.
To illustrate, the christian faith has it that sin causes bad things, illness included. The remedy is in prayer and penitence, and somewhere (I think in James) it says if any is sick, he should send for the elders of the church and they will lay hands on him. Now there were physicians even in the time of the bible but think for a moment if these teachings were followed strictly because "God" (theist) said so.
Think about the other unscientific declarations in the bible.
We wouldnt even need to pursue evolution because the origin of the world is found in every religion. Without evolution, you wouldnt have your intelligent design theory to work with. We would "know" for certain, the origin of the universe.
However, because some people decided to think and not swallow what was thrown to them, the world is a better place. Evidence is sometimes denied. If it was possible to conclusively prove to a christian that there is no God, he still wont accept. Try it one day. Ask a christian friend what it would take for him to believe there is no God. All the responses I have gotten are "Nothing"!

Deep Sight, this has been a long post, thank you for the time spent reading it. Please answer the questions, respond to the rest of the post if you deem it fit so to do.
Finally, I'd appreciate if you opened another thread detailing your own concept of the origins of the Universe. You seem to be absolutely sure of your theory, so I hope you accept this challenge and educate us in the process.

Thank you.

globexl:
@jayriginal: You said best.

Thank you Sir.

Scientific studies have shown that societies where there is no diversity tend to stagnate ,whereas, societies where there is a lot of diversity tend to be vibrant and progressive.

Just to add to the above point which I think is very important, we wouldnt have such a technologically advanced world if we all accepted the bible. Look at what the church did to scientists.
What if we all believed that sickness was caused by sin, and when we get sick instead of going to the hospital, we all called the elders of the church to lay hands on us. Imagine what would happen.

Frosbel, if you are a christian and you are not a catholic, you have no right to call anyone names. Apparently you need to read the history of the church and the bible.

Atheism is NOT a belief. You cannot believe in something that is not. If I believe that there is no God, its a belief that there is no God, but its not the same as believing there is a God. This is a limitation of language but common sense should override that limitation.

You cannot have evangelical atheists because there is nothing to preach or evangelize. No atheist will go around telling people that there is no God. In fact, christians hound, taunt and ridicule atheists and turn around to complain when atheists put them to shame with cold logic. Then you come out and say atheism is a religion. Or evolution is a religion. That is dumb to say the least.

While you were busy with your urban dictionary and other links, you should have at least sought the definition of religion. Then you would have known if atheism falls into your category.

There is no doctrine and no need for one. A religion by its very definition requires belief in a supernatural being or deity.

You cannot expect to flaunt your self approved righteousness and circular logic in another persons face and expect him to be quiet when he doesnt share your belief. You cannot call a person a fool to his face and expect him to smile.
Now that we are comfortable in the knowledge that you will not burn us at the stake as you were likely to do in times past (following your scriptures), we can now tell you why we dont believe.

Let me give you a typical scenario
Friend : What church do you attend
Me: I dont
Friend: Why ?
Me: I have better things to do with my time
Friend: But you are a christian
Me: No
Friend: You dont believe in God
Me: No
then the preaching starts. Im being told next that theirs is the one true religion bla bla bla. Who is evangelizing here?
Sometimes its fun to taunt christians, I'm surprised many even respond. We take more of it than you guys do. For a fact, most of you christians dont even believe in God sef. You just dont realise it yet. Then there are a few nut jobs that believe that God talks to them.

Well God spoke to me last night. He told me that he was annoyed that you could ascribe such an error riddled primitive piece of literature to him and say he inspired it. He said that if he didnt want you to use your brains, he wouldnt have given them to you. He then showed me a vision of Paul burning in hell.
Finally he told me very clearly that he didnt exist and promised to visit me soon and inspire me with real revelation.

For all those screaming about evangelical atheism, it may have a definition, but that doesnt mean it exists. Otherwise dragons and unicorns would exist (these mythical creatures are found in the bible by the way).

SMH

@Deep Sight, I'm still waiting for your answer to the Deist/Theist question.

It occurs to me however that you seem to be against anything that says or purports to say that there is no God. As KAG has said, you cannot point to the Universe as an argument for God. It is a blindingly fallacious argument. It prevents learning. In such a way, you fall victim to confirmation bias. If all mankind accepted the God theory, we would still be in the dark ages. We would be praying instead of going to physicians, we wouldn't know the world as it is now.

Science is still a long way from proving conclusively the origins of the universe (and may never be able to do so), but if we all just accept that "God did it" we will never learn.
Look at the stem cell research controversy, something that holds promise for mankind. It is strongly opposed by religious fervents. This is an example of how religion can hold back progress.

Coming back to Dawkins, the basis of your position seems to be "how can he say this when the universe itself argues for God". I suspect that you would have no problems with Dawkins' essay if he presented the same arguments in favour of God.
I read the essay and failed to draw the same conclusions you did.

For me, I'm willing to bet that there is no God and never was, but I cannot say for sure. What I can definitely say for sure is that if there is a God, its definitely not the God of the Bible. I'm sure of that. The Deist notion of God is the only probable likelihood of any such being existing.
If we admit of a God, we have to question who made it, and who made the maker of God and so on. Luckily christianity solves that problem in a totally simplistic manner that contradicts itself.

We dont have a need for God anymore. If we do, we might as well stop learning and researching.

Deep Sight:
Well please pardon my bile: its simply because it irritates me to see such pedestrian logic being glorified the way the abysmal write-upd of this man are.

No, I am not a scientist, I am a lawyer by profession and a (wannabe) philosopher by spirit and yearning.

Well you certainly could have fooled me. I'm a lawyer too though I no longer practice (at least not litigation).

About the pedestrian logic thingy, I still dont agree with you, but its a free world.

That said, whats your position Deist or Theist ?

I think it will help me understand where you are coming from.

Image123:
@mazaje and co,
Now, you should notice that i said the OT laws are BROADLY divided into two. It's a broad/general classification we're on, try to grasp that, there are other classes. Ceremonial laws involve rites, ceremony, ritual, usually involves temple/priest activities and are aimed as a sort of cleansing.
Moral laws involve basically what is good and what is bad.
Tithing is a form of giving/offering to God. Giving is moral.

I cant believe this man just implied that it is moral to give to God.

Children are still expected to obey/honour their parents.
Posted by: Image123
@mazaje
Can you please provide the passage on the children who disobey their parents?

Lets see
Exodus 21:15, Exodus 21:17, Leveticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Instead, we now live with power provided by the new covenant for grace, forgiveness, truth and love.

Again with Pauls fiction. There is no such thing as a new covenant. This is what allows you to cherry pick and what not. I can see why you insist on it.

More Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How can you be absolutely certain there is no God?

A: I don't need to be absolutely certain there is no God to be an atheist, I just have to be reasonably certain that when people pray that I get hit by lightning, they're really just talking to themselves.

Q: If you're not certain there is no God, doesn't that make you agnostic?

A: Sure, in some pointless, bullshit, technical sense of the word "agnostic". I'm also that kind of agnostic about the Earth being round.

Q: How can you be "reasonably certain" that when people pray that you get hit by lightning, they're really just talking to themselves?

A: Well, for one thing I haven't been hit by lightning. For another, I had a vision where God told me He didn't exist.

Q: That doesn't make any sense; how can God tell you he doesn't exist?

A: You'll believe in talking snakes, a magic cracker that turns into godmeat that's extra-special magic god meat because it still tastes like a cracker, and even that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, but you just can't cope with something that acts without existing. Interesting.

Q: So you believe in a creative "force" that acts without existing?

A: It's either that or visions aren't a reliable source of information. I wonder which it could be?

Q: If there is no God, where did all this come from?

A: I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know."

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?

A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. The assumption that anything we don't understand must be the work of supernatural forces is superstition, pure and simple.

Q: Doesn't it take more faith to believe all this "just happened?"

A: It might. If I ever meet someone who thinks it "just happened" I'll ask them. Meanwhile, scientists will be spending their time figuring out, in minute detail, exactly how it did happen.

Q: If you don't believe in God, why do you spend so much time talking about Him? You don't spend time talking about the Toothfairy or Santa Claus.

A: The people who believe in the Toothfairy and Santa Claus don't vote, neither do they threaten to beat the shit out of people I care about. When people start beating my friends for not putting teeth under their pillow, or there's serious talk about defining marriage as between one man and eight tiny reindeer, I'll start complaining about that.

Q: Why do you use offensive language?

A: To offend a certain kind of people. I reference sexual and excretory functions; the people I'm mocking reference hellfire. Out of f@cking, taking a shyte and being burned alive, which is on your avoid-at-all-costs list for this weekend?

plappville:
Matt23:23 was for((KJV Matt 23:23)Jesus said,
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.)

but not for (U dont have to say all christians are deleting/silenting some verses in the old testament, some laws are over shadowed in the old TM by the new NT when Jesus came.) U are trying to misquote me, i dont change te scripture.

That was an error. I didnt notice the verse was there. I have removed it now as it had nothing to do with my reply. The rest of the post remains valid.

Jenwitemi:
LOL! Quite funny, that . Perhaps "Me" should have asked the two butt kissers this question, "What if Hank farts as you are about to kiss his butt? How would they feel?"
Good stuff.

I guess they would take it as some sort of divine "test".

apocalypse:
really hilarious

I thought so too.

Image123:
i'd love to be involved in this, hopefully mazaje would not run away as usual. You have an habit of disappearing it seems.
To start with, the Word of God is living, not set in stone but written on flesh. It follows that you'd encounter 'complexities' similar to encountering a human being. Another thing is poor understanding of the Word of God, caused by varying factors like sin, adam's nature, self-will, spiritual maturity, teaching etc.
Another thing is that old testament laws are broadly divided into moral laws and ceremonial laws. No law saves us by the way. We are expected to keep/obey moral laws though many christians do not know this unfortunately. On the other hand, we're not required to keep ceremonial laws, it's already been kept/fulfilled/obeyed/by-passed for us by Jesus Christ.ist.

Thats false my brother. That is the success of Paul.

mazaje:
Which are the ceremonial laws and which are the moral laws? Is tithing a ceremonial or moral law? What about the law with instruct parents to stone to death their disobedient children? Is it a ceremonial or moral law?. . . . .

Good question. Assuming Image123 is correct and there are two divisions, tithing would fall into a ceremonial law, definitely not a moral law. I dont know if other christians agree with his classification so for now, I'll reserve my comments on that.

There are two big reasons I dislike christianity (not christians) .
One is the utter arrogance and sense of superiority it gives them. Many look at you pitifully, look down on you, knowing fully well they are better than you and that their God is the only true one out of a million and one others.

The second one is that christianity is very exploitative financially. Its all about money these days.


You know, I think I'd be willing to bear the whole Christianity thing (even with the arrogance) if only they have the balls to throw away the offering/tithing part of it. They should throw it away as they have thrown away other uncivilized practices in the bible, such as blood sacrifices, killing those who dont believe in your religion, not shaving hair on the temples and beards etc.
Why does God need my money ? Or yours ? He can build a church himself, he can generate money for himself. Why is he always needing "seeds" and the people sowing are always people that need the money.
I have a friend who is a student. She was suspended from the choir cos she hasnt paid her tithes. In case you missed it, I said she was a student. Yet like a sheep, she doesnt see anything wrong in it and is looking for a way to pay her tithe and arrears.

mazaje:
The bible is the writings of many people with a different idea and conception of who God is to them so when you read the bible you see many concept or God, you see a God that is sometimes against some of his laws in some places. . . .

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

mazaje:
What you have said really doesn't make much sense. . . .Some specific OT laws were changed by Jesus, such as abolishing the Sabbath laws, laws like an eye for eye for and eye, but even the ones he put in place are NOT followed by christians to day, laws such as turn the other check, giving away your coat if a person ask for your shirt e.t.c. . . . .

I think I would have to disagree with you here. Those laws were not so much "changed" by Jesus as they were "improved". In my opinion, it was simply a realization that the old law brought much hardship and encouraged vengeance and wickedness in mankind (an eye for an eye), whereas Jesus taught forgiveness and compassion. He wanted men to follow the spirit, rather than the letter of the law as was mostly done. I dont think that Jesus was "commanding" his followers.
As an example, the law prescribes a punishment for stealing, but it will not force you to prosecute. So also, if you were smitten on your cheek, while the law permitted you to strike back, it would not sanction you if you turned the other cheek (which Jesus apparently felt was the better option).

You did a good job quoting passages that show that the entire old testament is relevant (inspite of the fact that the church wants to keep the tithing and offering whilst throwing out the rest). Let me continue with that theme.

Matthew 5:17-19 KJV “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Luke 16:17 “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Matthew 7:21-23 NKJV “Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!”

1 John 5:2-3 “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his Commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his Commandments: and his Commandments are not grievous.”

Matthew 22:35-40 “Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, You shall love your neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two Commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

^^^^ The above verse is often thought to mean that Jesus had radically changed the the commandments, however, he was in reality quoting from the commandments

Deuteronomy 6:5 “And you shall love the LORD your God with all thine heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.”
Leviticus 19:18 “You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.”

There are tons of passages, I think I'll stop here.

Another point is that its not just the ten commandments, its all the law and prophets.

Now coming down to the ten commandments, which particular one are we referring to? Consider the following verses from Exodus 32

15And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.

16And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.

17And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.

18And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.

19And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

and for added effect, consider the following verses from the same chapter

26Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

27And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

28And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Those were the first commandments (the popular ones) written by the finger of God (before Maradona invented the hand). Next in Exodus 34 God calls Moses and ,

1And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

lets jump to Exodus 34 :10-28

10And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.
11Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.
12Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
13But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
14For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
15Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
16And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
17Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
18The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
19All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
20But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
21Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
22And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
23Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.
24For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
25Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
26The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
27And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Of course someone is bound to come up with some BS explanation for this discrepancy where God cannot remember what he first wrote down. Its only relevant in explaining the inherent confusion in this funny religion and their propensity to select what they like from it and discard the rest while simultaneously labeling others who do not subscribe to their pretensions and misplaced fervor as fools and similarly unflattering titles.

One more thing. I have a feeling that Dawkins would write differently if he was publishing in an academic journal. The fact that he is writing for the layman might lead him to simplify certain concepts which might be easily misconstrued.

Deep Sight, I'm surprised at your bile. First of all Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent man and his credentials and credibility are superior to yours (for now at least). That is not to say that you are unintelligent in anyway but to go around bashing him in such a manner is unworthy of you.

From some of your posts, I have been led to believe that you are a man of science (I may be mistaken). You are not wrong for holding contrary views (indeed it is healthy) but your manner of expression in this post leaves a lot to be desired.
I read the article from Dawkins and I didn't get any of the impressions you got. This may be partially due to the fact that I am not a man of science, but its also largely due to the fact that a lot of your rebuttals come from errors of logic and semantic misconstruction (whether deliberate or not).

As KAG pointed out Dawkins may not be the best Philosopher. You made a point somewhere

1. It is well known that the theory of evolution addresses the development of living things and says nothing about the development of the universe and support systems for such living things.


2. The question therefore remains the source or cause of the entire super-system.

These are not quite rebuttals. Dawkins never claimed to have all the answers. If you read the article properly, you would have met this

The details of the early phase of the universe belong to the realm of physics, whereas I am a biologist, more concerned with the later phases of the evolution of complexity.

Your post is filled with many instances of this, rebutting or seeming to rebut claims that weren't made.

I'd prefer a more robust debate. We can all learn more from it. KAG is a brilliant person and seems to be well versed science wise. It would seem that you are on the intelligent design spectrum. You can make your arguments and let viewers be the judge, though I suspect some creationists would take up arms here too.

There is an article I found and I started a thread on it. Its an article on intelligent design. It would be interesting to hear your comments.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-763915.0.html

^^^ In addition to the above you would think that Paul would harp on the teachings of Jesus instead of needlessly complicating things. What happened to lessons like the beatitudes ? What happened to the emphasis on loving your neighbour ?
Why did Jesus say he would drive those away because he was hungry and they wouldnt feed him ?

Why is the mumbo jumbo of Paul preferred ?

plappville:
U dont have to say all christians are deleting/silenting some verses in the old testament, some laws are over shadowed in the old TM by the new NT when Jesus came.

This is totally false. Paul in order to make the message popular, bastardized the teachings of Jesus. Almost everything in Christianity today is based on the teachings of Paul, a fake egotistic wannabe apostle. Almost all sermons are preached from Pauls epistles with little or no attention paid to the simple teachings of Jesus.

I laugh when some folks here claim Paul was the one with the true revelation. INDEED! (Im being sarcastic). Here is what Paul had to say

1 Corinthians 7:40

40But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

He is not even sure he has the spirit of God. Why would he ? A delusional man who never was in the inner circle suddenly "saw the light" and began to bicker with his betters.

Paul is the major curse of Christianity and unfortunately he was a great psychologist. You want the devil ? His name is Paul. Formerly Saul.

In anycase, here is what Jesus himself had to say on the matter (which I would think is more important than anything Paul himself had to say)

Matthew 5:17-18

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I think that much sums it up because last I checked, heaven and earth had not passed away.

I'm now waiting for someone to bring up some ridiculous argument to disprove Jesus himself.
Theres nothing like a second covenant. Its just some BS Paul made up on his own.

I know there are hardcore Paulinians out there, but in truth, you are better of studying Jesus than Paul.

Evolution for Creationists

Craig Gosling

A fellow Center for Inquiry (CFI) member and friend had long been troubled by Creationist claims that scientists cannot demonstrate evolution in the lab before their eyes. Creationists demand that they need this kind of proof if they are to accept evolution. The following is my reply to my friend and to all Creationists.

Dear Joe:

Creationists demand to see evolution for themselves if they are to believe. Their question is: "Can science show us evolution in progress, right before our eyes?" They demand to see a new "species" or new "kind" of animal evolve in the lab or during field research. As you and I know, and probably they, this can't be done with animals such as elephants and humans that have slow reproduction rates. On the other hand, if their question is "Can evolution create a new 'species' or 'kind' of animal or plant in the lab or during field research?" then we can definitely say "Yes, it can."

Unlike you, creationists tend to be insincere. Scientific proofs of evolution will not necessarily satisfy them as it would you. Their emotional belief is not based upon fact and science; it is immune to reason; and it survives fossil, geological, cosmological, and biological evidence. It easily survived the flat earth debacle and the farce of the egocentricity of the earth. There is no evidence that will assuredly convince them. In your case, however, evidence reigns supreme; you have an open mind that can be changed as new evidence is discovered through scientific inquiry. So, the following response is to your open ears and mind, not to their blindness.

First, we need a clarification of what is meant by "species" and "kind." The pre-evolution concept of "species" was rejected by Darwin:

For if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear , it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished from other groups, as all would blend together by steps as fine as those between the finest existing varieties , In short, we shall have to treat species in the same manner as those naturalists treat genera, who admit that genera are merely artificial combinations made for convenience. This may not be a cheering prospect; but we shall at last be freed from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable essence of the term species.

The species concept is based upon Creationists' false claim that species are not related. Evolutionists, of course claim that all life is related, having arisen from a common ancestor. The modern biological definition of species is: "populations of animals or plants that breed successfully together." According to this concept there never is a point where a new species comes into existence except for hybridization or symbiogenesis. The biblical term "kind" is ambiguous and useless; it usually refers to the pre-Darwinian definition of "species."

When next you discus evolution with a Creationist and he challenges you to prove that evolution can create a new "species" or "kind" of animal, answer him by saying:

Here is how a new large mammal can be created, if not in the lab then in the barn. "The Good Lord," in His wisdom had old Noah load on board the Ark two of each kind of animal. That means two donkeys and two horses, and two bison and two cattle, among many other animal pairs. It is fair to assume "God" apparently considered donkeys and horses as separate "kinds" or "species." If so, when the first fertile mule or hinny was born, as occasionally happens, a brand new animal has been created that was not created during creation week. How about a lion and tiger hybrid, a llama and camel hybrid, a bison and cattle hybrid, or the thousands of plant hybrids? Any reasonable person must acknowledge that they are new animals and new plants that were not present a million years ago, or even six thousand years ago. Hybridization occurs in many wild and domestic animals as well as in plants, and each time it does, a new entity is born. Depending upon environmental conditions, the new creature or plant will survive and thrive, or become extinct, at least until the next hybrid is born. It is a perfect example of how evolution and DNA replication, recombination, and natural selection work.

New "kinds" of plants also occurred in the lab when Wild Mustard plants were purposely bred into cauliflower, broccoli, kohlrabi, Brussels sprouts, kale, and collard greens. Grocery stores are filled with new genetically designed fruits and vegetables that were not created during creation week. Ask a Creationist how it is possible that the earth contains many animals and plants that were designed and produced by science. Are they not obvious products of evolution? Ask them how it is possible that organisms exist today, such as the euglena, that are neither animal nor plant; or neither male nor female, such the asexual amoeba. God must have loved one-celled creatures because He made so many of them, a million times more than all the other life on the earth. As I recall, there was no mention of one-celled organisms being loaded on the ark. Shouldn't we assume they were created and evolved after the creation? What other explanation can there be?

Many new "kinds" of birds, fish, and amphibians, have been recorded and documented during our lifetime by laboratory and field studies. Blind cave fish are a good example of evolution. Natural events washed them into dark caves where they did not need their sight so they actually lost their eyes. Recently, scientists have brought several populations of blind cave fish back into the light and stimulated them to evolve back to having eyes. This seems to be a great example of evolution in an aquarium lab where Creationists can actually witness it.

Here is a partial list of new "kinds" or "species"documented in lab and field studies: Blind cave fish and amphibians, many species of birds (including Darwin's finches) have evolved to a point where a distant generation no longer mates with its progenitor. Several "species" of fish (including guppies), many kinds of bacteria, thousands of symbiotic animals and plants that, like hybrids, were newly created when they combined. Lichens are a combination of two other organisms; algae and fungus depend upon each other for survival but can be separated in the lab and coaxed to live on their own. Salamanders are the first vertebrates that have been found to have incorporated chloroplasts into their cells and thereby became able to utilize the energy of the sun through photosynthesis. Slugs with chloroplasts no longer have to eat; they just lie in the sun to soak up energy like a plant.

Evolution has happened and is happening all around us, in the lab, in the field, and in the barn. Animal and plant populations are constantly diversifying along their own evolutionary line, creating new species over time. Occasionally, their distinct lines merge back together creating another new species. New species never occur within one or a few generations, however, unless it is through hybridization or symbiogenesis as previously discussed.

Also Joe, don't let Creationists fool you with micro and macroevolution. There is only one kind of evolution regardless of how long it takes. Evolution usually progresses slowly in step with the changing environment, but Occasionally, it speeds up with punctuated equilibrium, symbiogenesis, and epigenetics. Although it is true that animals such as alligators, sharks, and coelacanths persist from the ancient past into present with little change, keep in mind that evolution is always in operation keeping the mutating DNA in step with their (relatively) static environments. Darwin's theory has now been enhanced with the new concepts of hox genes, symbiogenesis, and epigenetics.These new discoveries help to explain the diversity of life and the speed with which it has inhabited our good earth. The average person has difficulty understanding the new discoveries and new evolutionary science, so we cannot expect Creationists will understand or be willing to learn about the wonders of science and the awesome beauty of the natural world.

Sincerely,
Craig



http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article833.html

for further reading on the blind cave fish, I did a search and grabbed the first few links.
http://creation.com/new-eyes-for-blind-cave-fish (this one purports to refute the phenomenom)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080108-cave-fish.html

Christianity — An Irreverent History

Tim DeLaney

There is an omnipotent, omniscient God who has always existed. How do I know this, you ask? Well, I just do. Your mommy and daddy probably told you this; who are you to doubt them? Of course, the notion of omnipotence is a bit strange. Where did we get the idea of a God with infinite power? Why not just a God with great power, or one with quite a bit more power than we can imagine? I get the impression that theologians aren't very smart when it comes to infinity. It's probably better if you don't think too hard about it.

One day, presumably after having existed for the eternal past, He decides to create the universe. Why did He wait so long? For a negative eternity, He just sat there; we can only guess what He was thinking. Maybe He was counting down the integers, starting with the largest, and when He got down to zero, He did the creation thing. This seems as good a theory as any. Actually, the stock answer is that God is not subject to time. Well, maybe, maybe not. But it seems like a suspiciously convenient answer that was just made up because of the awkward question. Like the omnipotence thing, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason to suppose God exists beyond time.

The concept of a God beyond time is inconsistent with the God of the Old Testament. That God took six days to create the universe; clearly He operated in time, and experienced the passage of time. Virtually everything the Bible says about God affirms that He experiences time. Indeed, the principle of cause and effect makes no sense except in the context of the passage of time. Does this mean that the "First Cause" argument must be abandoned? If God dwells in "eternity" where time doesn't exist, how could He ever cause anything? Somebody once observed that time is what prevents everything from happening all at once. It might be better to just gloss over this—it will just confuse you,

As far as can be determined, the Son and the Holy Ghost were pretty much in the background at this point. I say this because it's supposed to be an overview of Christianity, and you can't very well have Christianity without Christ, can you? According to Christian theology, Christ and the Holy Ghost must have always existed. Come to think of it, why do you suppose that the writer(s) of the old testament never mention either one? Very strange indeed to ignore 2/3 of your God, don't you think? The alternative is to suppose that they began to exist at some point. The first mention of these two seems to be story that the Holy Ghost impregnated Mary and that Jesus was the result. Now, you might think that God the Father would be the one to impregnate Mary. If not, why is He called "The Father"? Was He already the father of "God the Son"? This whole Trinity thing appears to have been slapped together pretty hastily with little thought devoted to logic. More on that later.

Presumably, God created Heaven first, and then the angels—else where would they live? One of the angels was Lucifer, which means "Bringer of Light," which would imply that Heaven and the angels were created before He said "Let there be light." But maybe we shouldn't be too heavily influenced by etymology. As far as revelation goes, it doesn't establish God as being terribly interested in lexicography. Of course, there is the quote from John 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This seems to indicate an interest in words, don't you think? All we know for sure about Lucifer is that he was created at some point in time, and at some point in his existence he rebelled against God. This must have happened before Eve ate the apple, since Lucifer (or Satan, as he was renamed) is said to be the one who tempted Eve.

Now, you might ask yourself: "Why did God create these angels?" Good question. Nobody really knows for sure, but angels are generally said to be God's messengers or army or, well, Jack-of-all-trades. Since God is omnipotent, He really doesn't need them as messengers or whatever. With a twitch of his divine nose, He can send any message, slay any enemy, repair screen doors, and so forth. But one thing He cannot do is adore himself. Hence, He creates angels to perform that important function. Besides, angels are useful as inspiration for medieval art—you know, all those cute little babies with wings. You might also ask yourself: "When were Heaven and the angels created?" One view is that heaven and the angels always existed "out of time," just like God. Another view is that God created time so that heaven and the angels would have a place and time to exist. But how could God decide to create time, and heaven and angels, before they existed? If you want to get a splitting headache, then just think about this for an hour or two.

If you are mean-spirited or just plain skeptical, you might ask this question: "Why would an infinite God desire adoration from a being that He himself created?" These beings, whether angelic or human, are infinitesimal when compared to God. Would a human being want a bacterium to worship him? Of course not; that's ridiculous. Would a human being be offended if a bacterium didn't believe in humans? I wouldn't be offended, but that's just me. Bear in mind that the difference between Man and God is infinite, while the difference between Man and a bacterium is large, but finite.

Let us digress for a moment, though. Put yourself in Lucifer's shoes. God created you a moment ago. You wake up and open your eyes, and you're in Heaven. By definition, you couldn't be happier. Eternal bliss! There's this guy who claims to have created you, and He seems to be pretty wise and very powerful, poofing things into existence seemingly at will. Damn! How does He do that? You have it made in the shade, so to speak. Great weather, three squares a day, unlimited beer, and no mosquitoes. Your duties are few and far between, other than bestowing adoration on Him. A dream job.

So, what's your first thought? "Hey, let's rebel against this omnipotent God of the universe"? I'm not asking this question just to be a jerk—I'm serious. How could You ever believe that a rebellion could be successful? You assemble a bunch of like-minded angels and decide to stage a revolution. It's worth a try, what have you got to lose? You might ask: "Why didn't Gabriel or Michael join him in the uprising?" Don't ask. Maybe they were smarter, or maybe they just didn't feel rebellious that day. We'll never know for sure.

Now, the notion that Lucifer can rebel against God necessarily means that Lucifer has "Free Will." We all understand what is meant by Free Will, don't we? (Just say yes—it'll make things easier.) Now, put yourself in God's shoes at the moment just before You create Lucifer. Oh, wait, Because You exist beyond time, "the moment before" doesn't make sense, does it? Still, there seem to be two events to consider: the decision to create Lucifer, and the actual creation of Lucifer. Are we saying that these two events are not separated? See? I told you it wasn't a good idea to think about these things.

Anyway, Put yourself in God's shoes. Being omniscient, you know that if you create him Lucifer will rebel against you, and will eventually give rise, directly or indirectly, to all the evil and suffering there ever will be. OK, you know what Lucifer will do of his own Free Will, because, after all, you are omniscient. You create Lucifer knowing for certain that he will exercise his Free Will and rebel against you. Does this make sense? Why would you create a being that you know for certain will rebel against you? I suppose this is another one of those things that it's better for you if you don't think about it. (They're piling up, aren't they?)

You are faced with a momentous decision: what do you do? Do you say "Oh, what the Hell, let's see what happens"? (OK, Hell didn't exist yet. It's just a figure of speech.) Or do you recoil in horror at the almost unbearable thought of all that pain and suffering? Remember, you are all-merciful. (Did I mention that?) But hold on there! Being omniscient, you know full well that you are going to create Lucifer. Therefore, you have no choice. No, no that can't be right; you can do anything you want. After all, you're God. But if you look into the future and see that Lucifer exists, that seems to confirm that you will indeed create him. I mean, if you don't create him, who will? You're the only God in town. Is it possible for you to look into the future, see that Lucifer exists, and then decide not to create him? Why not just admit that Lucifer was a mistake and poof him out of existence? Damn, this omniscience is tricky stuff, isn't it? Throwing in that time thing just makes it all the trickier.

Maybe the answer is a compromise. Suppose you decide to create him, but endow him with an extra dose of common sense. After all, nobody with any common sense, not even an angel, would think it a good idea to rebel against an omnipotent being. That's crazy! After you create Lucifer, you could impress him with your power by creating a very powerful dragon (or whatever) and then utterly destroying it before his very eyes to put the fear of God in him, so to speak. After a pregnant pause, you say: "Capisce, paisano?" Then, if he doesn't get the message, your conscience is clear. You have to admit that it's worth a try in order to avoid an infinity of suffering and agony by billions of the humans you are planning to create that will end up in Hell. I mean, don't you want to keep up your "all-merciful" reputation? Well, it's just a suggestion.

At any rate, you create Lucifer knowing full well that it will result in an infinity of pain and suffering for untold numbers of people you are going to create. See? I told you so. Then you create Hell as a place to torture Satan (i.e., Lucifer) and all those people who aren't going to heaven. I mean, they have to go someplace, don't they? There sure seems to be a lot of torture going on in a universe created by an all-merciful all-loving God. "Wow, sorry guys. I just couldn't help myself." Yeah, right.

For some reason that you have never bothered to explain, you allow Satan to prowl about the world seeking souls to torture for all eternity. You are God, after all, and you cannot just shrug your shoulders at the thought of Satan luring billions into Hell. You can actually do something about this cosmic injustice. But, no, you give mankind Free Will, and then let Satan whisper in their ear. It's as though you are just looking for an excuse to send people to Hell. Why not look for excuses to send them to Heaven? Did you ever, even once, think of that?

Come to think of it, what does Satan get for tempting souls into Hell? Is this just simply schadenfreude? As far as I know, he doesn't get a commission for every soul. Wouldn't he be better off to just apologize to God and hope that God would turn down the temperature a few degrees? You know, try to play on God's all-merciful nature? He's gotta realize that he's outgunned. If I were Satan, I would definitely be looking for ways to cut my losses. He must be either blind-drunk stupid, or really, really evil. What does that say about God's angel-creating ability? If I were God, I'd be really embarrassed: I created this guy to adore me, and here he is giving me the (metaphoric) finger? Where did I go wrong? I bet it's that Free Will stuff.

So anyway, enough about angels, I'm getting depressed about Satan and this Hell thing. Fast forward to the point where God creates Adam and Eve. He has already created everything you can see, plus a lot of stuff you can't see, like black holes, angels, the far side of the moon, and the ebola virus. God has taken six days to fashion this creation, then He rested on the seventh. Apart from contradicting the omnipotence thing (why would He need to rest?), God has set in motion events that He knows will cause untold suffering, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and so forth. If you find yourself in Hell, it's your own fault. You committed all those sins of your own Free Will, which God, in his infinite mercy, has given to you. Actually, you might be better off without Free Will. All it does is to cause trouble.

But wait! Being a loving God (I know, I didn't mention this before. Trust me.) He must surely want to give Adam and Eve every chance at salvation, right? Welllll, maybe. He gave them Free Will and maybe, like Lucifer, they will disobey him. So He puts a tree in their garden with delicious looking fruit on it. Then He tells Adam not to eat that fruit. Why? It looks to me like He's just being an asshole. He doesn't warn either of them that billions and billions of their descendants will suffer if they eat the fruit. Why not? Because it's a double blind test, and tipping them off might skew the results.

Well, of course God knows what will happen—He's omniscient, right? (I told you it was tricky.) Not only that, but He has stacked the deck by allowing Satan (nee Lucifer) free access to this otherwise perfect garden in order to tempt them to eat the forbidden fruit. And to make it even more difficult, He didn't bother to warn Eve about the lying snake. Hey, it's supposed to be a test, right? But, why put the tree right smack in the middle of the garden? Why, He could have put it in Belgium or Australia or even Hawaii, and we'd have had no Fall. At least not for a while. I have a sneaking suspicion that God wanted Adam and Eve to fail the test because it was part of his divine plan. You can't tell me that God really wanted them to leave that fruit alone. I think He set them up.

We all know what happened. Moreover, God himself knew it would happen. After all, He's omniscient, right? (You gotta keep this in mind, or the whole shebang collapses. It's a bit like Schroedinger's cat.) Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit—dumb, dumb, dumb. But really, when you think about it, what's the actual harm? It's not as though the tree can't grow more fruit. If this were a criminal case in upstate New York, You'd probably get a suspended sentence as long as you paid for the stolen fruit. Even in South Carolina, you'd probably get off easy. Afghanistan? I'd steer well clear of Afghanistan if I were you.

The rest is, as they say, history. Adam and Eve pissed off the omnipotent, omniscient, beneficent, merciful, loving God of the universe. He might love them, but there are limits. So God, in his infinite wisdom, love, mercy, etc., banishes them from the garden. They broke the rules, they gotta pay. But also, to prove He is a jealous God (Did I tell you about that?), He condemns every one of their descendants in absentia to an eternity of fire, brimstone and that lake of fire stuff. It's called original sin, and unless you get properly immunized, there will be Hell to pay. Literally. You might question the fairness of punishing people who have yet to be born for such a trivial offense, but then again you aren't God, which is probably a good thing because you probably have lots of other faults.

And God knew all this would happen, even when He was just sitting there counting down the integers. It makes perfect sense. He spends an eternity planning the universe, then an infinitesimal fraction of eternity watching his creation play out, then the rest of eternity basking in the adoration of those who passed the test. Let's not think about those poor souls in Hell suffering excruciating pain forever and ever, for all eternity. I'm sure they deserve it. Well, at least most of them.

So anyway, God chased them out of the garden. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply, and despite a lack of practice and even without fertility clinics, they were pretty good at it. The snakes, however, were cursed. God amputated their legs as punishment for tempting Eve, and as a further punishment made it impossible for them to multiply. They were relegated to being adders. (Get it? Multiply , adders?) The snakes took to the forest looking for fallen trees. Being adders, the only way they could multiply was by using logs. (Ha, ha, a little Biblical humor there.) One of the curses mankind—well actually, womankind—had to endure was painful childbirth. Don't you let those "evilutionists" tell you it was due to bipedalism.

Anyhow, for some reason the first few generations were very long-lived. Some of them lived for almost a thousand years. The Bible isn't clear why they lived so long. My theory is that it was punishment for the fall of Adam and Eve. As George Gershwin would later say:

Methuselah lived 900 years.
Methuselah lived 900 years.
But who calls that livin'
When no gal will give in
To no man what's 900 years?

But I digress.

After a while it came to pass that there were a lot of fruitful people inhabiting the earth. But in one of the most unlucky coincidences in recorded history, practically all of them turned out to be evil. How could that be? God made man in his own image, and it turned out that almost all of them were wicked? It just goes to show that giving man Free Will might not have been such a good idea. One would think that a reasonable deity would rethink the original plan, but the omnipotent, omniscient, beneficent, omnipresent, all-merciful, all-loving God of the universe had a better idea: He drowned them. I can't say that I blame him. Fortunately, He spared Noah and his family, or there would be no story. Way to go, Noah!

You might well wonder about the efficiency of using drowning. Did you know it takes millions of cubic miles of water to cover the highest mountains? It's true; do the math. Why not use lightening bolts, or angels with swords, or a souped-up ebola virus? Better yet, He could have stopped each and every wicked heart with a twitch of his divine nose, or turned each of them into a pillar of salt. (The latter would have significant economic advantages as a side benefit, especially if the salt was high purity.) But noooo, He had to drown them. Well, who am I to question God's plan? He probably had good reasons.

So, the eight survivors of the deluge had to repopulate the earth. For the next 400 years or so they did the "fruitful and multiply" thing. Then along came Abram. For some reason, God took a liking to Abram. After considerable negotiation, God promised Abram that he, Abram, would found a great nation if he would just sacrifice his son, Isaac. What a deal! Abram accepted the deal. (Who wouldn't?) But at the last minute an angel substituted a ram for Isaac. That was a lucky break for Isaac, but not for the ram. It is not recorded if Isaac was told of his narrow escape. Among other things, Abram also received a syllable from God and became known as Abraham. Such divine generosity; it just goes to prove how loving God is!

It was around this time that God was getting pretty annoyed at the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah. I mean, WTF? All those drownings didn't seem to have had any deterrent effect. So God sends a few angels to have a look around. Would you believe it? Two of these angels get propositioned by a couple of weirdos. Enough is enough! Goodbye Sodom and Gomorrah. God tells Lot and his wife to flee and don't look back. Lot's wife, naturally enough, thought "Don't look back" was just a figure of speech. Boy, was she wrong! So, God turned her into a pillar of salt. I'd call it an overreaction; why not just pluck her eyes out? But then I don't have God's wisdom, mercy, love, etc. The Bible doesn't tell us whether she went to Heaven or Hell, but just between you and me, I have my suspicions.

After Abraham's death, God arranges for the Israelites to be sold into slavery in Egypt. What about this "great nation" stuff? Well, He didn't say when. Patience, grasshopper, God never said it would be easy. Remember the Fall? God was still a little annoyed about that. The less said about their stay in Egypt, the better; suffice to say it wasn't pretty. Eventually, God sent Moses to bring the Israelites out of bondage. It's amazing how he talked Pharaoh into letting them go. Of course, he had divine help—you know, the frogs and the boils and the locusts and all. But after they left, Pharaoh had second thoughts and decided to give chase. I get the impression he wasn't too bright. So when they got to the Red sea, Moses stretched out his arms and the waters parted. The Israelites crossed the sea, and it wasn't even a little bit muddy. Pharaoh followed them with his army. (I told you he wasn't too bright.) Another mass drowning; I think I'm beginning to see a pattern.

But it's not over 'til it's over. They were lost in the desert without food or water. But never fear while Moses is here. He caused bread to fall from the skies, and water to flow from rocks. He was awesome. But all these miracles came at a price: Moses brought down from Mount Sinai the (Drum roll) Ten Commandments. Written in stone, no less, by the very finger of God himself. Pretty sacred stuff going on here. But when Moses saw the Israelites worshipping a golden calf, he smashed the original stone tablets! Talk about chutzpah! People have been turned into pillars of salt for a lot (no pun intended) less. So Moses had to reconstruct the stone tablets, and they now are safely housed in the Ark of the Covenant. Unfortunately, nobody knows where that is, not even Indiana Jones. It's a shame, too, as it might settle once and for all the question of God's existence. Then again, it probably wouldn't have convinced Richard Dawkins or even PZ Myers.

When the Israelites finally reach the Promised Land, they find to their dismay that there are people already living there. "What's this?" they ask God. Being all-merciful and all-loving, God tells them to kill every last man, woman and child. What could be simpler? Then followed a period of wars of conquest, and the Israelites continued with the "no survivors" policy. (There were a few exceptions made for virgins.) Let's not dwell on it too much. Suffice to say that the Israelites kicked ass for a very long time. That is, they kicked ass until the Romans arrived. Damn! Who invited them? And where is Saint Michael the Archangel when you need him?

At last, in this account of Christianity, we get to the main protagonist—Jesus Christ himself. His birth in a humble stable was celebrated with great joy across the globe by shepherds, angels, and Magi. You'd think that the Magi would have found a better spot for him than a crummy stable, but apparently they didn't even try. Have you ever tried to sleep in a stable, with all that manure? Yuck! His birth is celebrated even today in every town and hamlet in the Christian world. But nowhere is it celebrated with more sincerity and piety than in the boardrooms of Walmart and Toys R Us. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

There are numerous anecdotes about the life of Jesus—lots of miracles, great sermons, and other cool stuff. But the most intriguing story, IMHO, is the account of the three temptations of Christ in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Why not John? Well, John was something of a loose canon. (Ha, ha. A little Bible pun there.) But three out of four isn't bad. Well, anyway, the story is that Satan presented Christ with these temptations, and Christ resisted them. Well, duuuuh! Jesus Christ was God, after all, and Satan was his sworn enemy. It's a wonder Jesus didn't kick Satan's sorry ass back into Hell; I sure would have. But you must admire Satan for giving it a try. In all of recorded history, only Moses had more chutzpah; I still can't believe he broke those tablets.

Of course, the real story is the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. People still talk about it to this very day; they make a really big deal about it. The empty tomb on Easter morning was the grand finale, and it gave us the holiest day in all of Christendom—not to mention the Easter bunny, chocolate eggs, and the Easter parade.

Still, you must admit that there were some puzzling aspects to it. First of all, since Jesus was presumably God, he couldn't really die. OK, the body he was temporarily animating might stop functioning, but what does that prove? Since he was God, he could reanimate it any time he pleased. No big deal. It's like turning your computer off; you can turn it back on anytime you wanted to. Second, how can we say that he suffered? Remember, he was God. (Sorry if I keep pointing out the obvious.) Maybe the body he was animating suffered the pain, but pain is a neural phenomenon, and God doesn't have neurons. No neurons, no pain, end of story. Myself, I think it was just a scam.

Well, let's give the Bible the benefit of the doubt and assume that Jesus was really a human being and God at the same time. Consider it a miracle; with God all things are possible, right? He wasn't just animating his human body; in some sense that we cannot fathom, he was that human body. Hey, if you can believe in transubstantiation what's the problem with this? I call this the easy problem of the crucifixion, death, and resurrection. But there is a hard problem.

Why is it that the crucifixion, death, and resurrection redeemed us? What blood-lust on the part of God is satisfied by this admittedly dramatic spectacle? How could God look down on this event and say to himself: "Good job, Jesus. That makes up for all the sins every man has ever committed, or ever will commit." Now remember that Jesus was God. So God sacrificed himself in order to appease his own desire for vengeance. Sounds masochistic to me, but in a perverse way it makes sense. He condemns us all on the basis of one lousy piece of pilfered fruit (OK, maybe two), but then washes away all that guilt on the basis of a few hours of (possibly faked) agony. So why didn't God just skip the agony and say: "OK mankind, I've had a change of heart. All your sins are washed away as of today." That would have been easier, don't you think? True, it would have lacked drama, but it would have been a lot more logical. Well, that's just my opinion.

But if we think about it, we can see the wisdom of God's divine plan. Remember how He stacked the deck against Adam and Eve? Had they not eaten the forbidden fruit, God wouldn't have had the opportunity for this great spectacle—you know, the crucifixion and all. Mankind might never realize how much He loved them. (See John 3:16) Also, maybe He had the foresight to realize that He would need a good logo. (More about that later.)

I don't know about you, but it all seems like a put-up job to me. This doesn't strike me as the work of an omniscient, omnipotent, merciful, loving God. But I must admit one thing: the crucifixion seems to have vastly improved God's temper problem. He hasn't turned anybody into a pillar of salt lately, and mass drownings seem to be a thing of the past if you don't count the Titanic or the 2004 tsunami, and such.

If you're going to found a religion, then you have to come up with an idea that's distinct. Remember Dianetics? L. Ron Hubbard was no dummy, you have to admit. So, the followers of Christ had to find some way to distinguish themselves from the rabble. Calling themselves Christians was a start, but they needed something more original. They had the original Yahweh, who had a son, but what can you make of that? God and son? Sounds like a roofing company or a law firm. They toyed with the idea of adding a woman to the team, but that brought up sexual issues. The early Christians were not huge fans of sex; they probably would have died out if it weren't for the converts. Besides, they already had the virgin Mary as a token female. (See? A virgin. I told you they weren't huge fans of sex.) Then somebody suggested a silent partner. Perfect! They settled on the name "Holy Ghost," because it sounded mysterious. This was changed much later to "Holy Spirit," probably to avoid negative associations with "Ghostbusters."

However, a new issue arose. People were accustomed to the idea of monotheism, and having three Gods, while distinctive, was a significant departure from Judaism. You can't just go around multiplying gods at will. The ingenious solution was to just say it was one God. Hey, it was their religion; they get to define it, right? Three persons, one God? No problem; just call it a mystery of the faith. They needed a catchword to gloss over the obvious logical problem, and "Trinity" came readily to mind. Christianity was born! They now had the makings of a really good religion. They also had a wonderful logo: the cross. It's more widely recognized today than even the golden arches. They never really found a good job for the Holy Ghost, but nobody seemed to care. If I were them, I'd have put the Holy Ghost in charge of Asia or something. Also, I'd have given him a few lines. It's hard to get worked up over a god-person who never says a word. I mean, everybody knows Groucho, and most people know Chico, but who remembers Harpo?

In spite of frequent martyrdom (or perhaps because of it), Christianity flourished during the first few centuries. At first the Romans used Christians as lion food, but when that didn't diminish their numbers the emperor Constantine paved the way to make Christianity the official state religion. If you can't beat them, join them. Eventually the barbarians overran Rome, but they stopped at the gates of the Vatican. Why? Maybe it was the cross on the gate. See how valuable a good logo can be? It also works against vampires and zombies, by the way. Really good mojo.

The Roman Empire fell, but thanks to the Church, the hegemony (I've always wanted to use that word) of Rome continued, only this time the known world was ruled by the Pope. The following millennium was marked by incessant wars, cruel oppression, rampant disease, abysmal ignorance, and widespread hunger. The common people, in their abysmal ignorance, looked to the church as their only source of consolation. It didn't dawn on them that the church might be the source of their misery. It also could well be that they just weren't praying hard enough. The one great accomplishment of this period was the liberation of the Holy Land by the Crusades. This ushered in an era of peace, prosperity, and mutual admiration by Christians and Muslims that has lasted to this very day. It's true that there are a few malcontents and sore losers in that area, but you can't please everybody.

Eventually the renaissance came towards the end of this period, and not a moment too soon. By the beginning of the 16th century (That's the 1500's—I have trouble keeping this straight), it had spread to all of Europe. The Reformation came in the 16th century, partly sparked by the Renaissance. It stimulated the economy of Europe by initiating a church building-boom. The discovery of America also contributed to this by initiating a shipbuilding boom. The Spanish Inquisition also started around this time, but didn't seem to be a huge economic success. The Spaniards had a good time though, at least the ones that weren't broken on the rack or burned at the stake.

Since the Reformation, it's been a bit difficult to keep track of Christianity, what with so many sects springing up. You have everything from the traditional Roman Catholics to snake handlers, Mormons (do they qualify as Christians? I dunno), and pious folks like David Koresh, Oral Roberts, Jim Jones and George W. Bush. But one good thing emerged from the reformation—a decline in theocracy. Of course, this is just my personal opinion; other authorities in this area think it's a good idea for the government to tell you what to believe—and to behead you if you don't go along. There are all kinds of theories about this, and I wouldn't want the reader to think of me as a bigot.

Well, that pretty much brings us up to date. Oh, I forgot to mention the most important outgrowth of Christianity—atheism. It's pretty much conceded by most modern philosophers that atheism wouldn't stand a chance if Christianity hadn't adopted so many silly beliefs, such as the time thing, Free Will, rebelling angels, an otherwise perfect garden with a lying snake in it, and a supposedly all-merciful God who seems to enjoy inflicting the most hideous forms of torture imaginable. In my sleep I could have come up with a more credible religion. Hmmmm, maybe,


http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article830.html

Ishilove:
I reiterate,foolishness on all fours

Its allowed.