Conversation with a Theist, Part 1. Setting the Table

About a year ago, I had a conversation with a theist on youtube. He seemed to be a sincere fellow and was extremely well-mannered and generally likeable. We didn't see eye to eye, but had a very spirited (but friendly) exchange, portions of which follow. Kudos and shout outs to infidels.org and atheists.org for the help in disposing of these arguments.


The set-up: We were discussing the concept of "eternal life" and whether or not it was a good thing. The conversation took off from there. His comments will be bolded. Mine will be in regular font. Any "after the fact" commentary by me will be italicized.

This first bit is an exchange over eternal life that bled into an exchange over the nature of evidence.

"survival is innately good."

not necessarily. survival which causes unnecessary suffering is not only not "innately good" but can be quite cruel. Let's break it down this way: if it is innately wrong to desire the power of a god because to do such would be to put one's self on a level of equality with a god, why then is it not equally wrong to desire the immortality of a god for the same reason?

Personally, I see it the desire to live forever as a deep-seeded case of psychological denial brought forth by the fear of death and religion as the enabler to that denial.

"It is strange for us to desire [eternal life] so intensely, if it doesn't exist."

That we desire it so intensely is not an indication that it exists...it is only an indication that we can conceive of the idea, the idea is attractive. Throw in the notion that the idea is impossible to disprove and you're going to have people trying to find it....with intensity.

"I won't grant that it's impossible to disprove"

How would one disprove eternal life after death?

"Simply by showing that materialism is true. That all that exists is the physical world so once the physical body is dead, nothing exists to move on to this eternal life."

So....in order to disprove that a realm beyond the physical world exists as you claim, I have to prove a negative? How do you propose I do that? Demonstrating non-existence is something I never learned how to do.

"You could at least prove that it is more probable than not."

How, exactly? By stating that we have no evidence of an existence beyond the natural world aside from wildly divergent "revelations" "out of body experiences" and such? It is impossible to provide you with evidence of "nothing," making your claim impossible to disprove.

"I for instance, don't want this to be true as badly as you seem to assume. I simply have no choice because it is true"

I will skip over your glaring self-contradiction (Eternal life must be real because it would be strange for us to want something that isn't real/I don't really want eternal life to be real, but it is) and will instead focus on this: You have no way of _knowing_ that because you have no way of _showing_ that. You have beliefs. You have arguments and reasoning upon which you base those beliefs. But you do not have positive knowledge, you have a declaration of faith. You don't have positive knowledge because you don't have evidence. You may have that which you accept as evidence which serves to reaffirm that faith, but if you had real evidence, any amount of faith would be completely unnecessary. I will gladly admit and proclaim that I have no evidence that eternal life or gods or fairies or invisible pink unicorns don't exist....but not having evidence of non-existence does not count as evidence of existence.

"Arguments are methods of presenting evidence"

But they are not evidence themselves.

"What do you mean by 'evidence'?"

That which is used to demonstrate the truth of an argument. If I argue that pink unicorns built the pyramids, I must show you evidence: which is a pink unicorn that either exists or existed at one time that can build pyramids and compelling evidence that their kind built the pyramids in question. (pink unicorn hoofprints or hair samples within the structure)

More Questions....

Found these at http://carm.org/questions-for-atheists

 

1.   How would you define atheism?

The lack of belief in a god or gods.

2. Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?

I act according to the information I have. If I don't think I have enough information to act in a responsible or safe manner, I don't.

3. Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?

Yes, which is why I don’t waste my time trying to “prove” the non-existence of something.

It is much more productive to critically examine the claims of ones asserting the existence of something: be it the Loch Ness Monster, alien abductions, ghosts, ESP or gods.

4. How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?

It doesn’t matter what religion you are talking about, they are all built upon the testimony of people who claim to have had a divine revelation from some supernatural deity that only reveals itself at a time, place and manner of its own choosing and never seems to do so through independently verifiable means. Either they are all equally valid, which is impossible, or they are all equally invalid, which is more likely.

5. How sure are you that your atheism is correct?

How sure am I that i’m unsure of something? Pretty sure.

6. How would you define what truth is?

That which is in accordance with fact or reality.

7. Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?

Go back and re-read my answer to number 4.

8. Are you a materialist, or a physicalist, or what?

A realist.

9. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview?  Why or why not?

It is not. A worldview is a set of fundamental assumptions about how the world is and often includes statements on how the world should be. Secular Humanism is a worldview. Religious fundamentalism is a worldview. Nihilism is a worldview. One's world view can be theistic or atheistic, but your worldview is not “atheism” or “theism.” Christianity is a theistic world view. Secular Humanism is an atheistic world view. See what I mean?

 

10. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity, but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?

Why has there been such antagonism towards atheists by christians for the last couple of thousand years?

11. If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?

A serious and honest critical examination of what I believed and why I believed it.

12. Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?

No. But I don’t believe that it would be any worse either.

13. Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?

See previous.

14. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?

It can certainly be confused as one. It does often act as an enabler for mental disorders by exacerbating an existing condition. Generally speaking though, I would say no. People ultimately choose to believe in gods, they don’t choose to have mental disorders. As far as why people choose to believe in gods, there are numerous reasons.

15. Must God be known through the scientific method?

Based on how a god is defined, it seems impossible that knowledge of one could come about through the scientific method. That’s why I assert that all religious claims are inherently equal. There is no way to determine whether or not one claim is more or less valid than the other….in science, there is.

16. If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?

I don't require material evidence for an immaterial god. I require independent verification of theistic claims.

17. Do we have any purpose as human beings?

Yes.

18. If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?

Depends. If you are asking for an individual purpose, each person has to find their own purpose. If you are asking for humanity’s purpose, in terms of the universe, we are largely irrelevant. We occupy a speck of dust in the middle of an incomprehensibly big ocean. As far as humanity’s purpose in terms of the planet earth, I believe Kurt Vonnegut said it best when he said, “we're here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is.”

19. Where does morality come from?

Agents of socialization, enlightened self-interest, the truth or falsehood of the underlying assumptions behind our actions, and above all, the situation and circumstances.

 

20. Are there moral absolutes?

 

It is very dangerous to deal in absolutes as it is very dangerous to assert that something is always “A” or always “B.” If something is always “A” or always “B,” then the situation or circumstances around it and/or the factuality of the underlying assumptions are irrelevant. Therefore, if we take “thou shalt not kill” as a moral absolute, then there is no moral difference between one who kills in self-defense, one who kills in a fit of passion and one who kills for sexual gratification. No criminal code on earth (not even Saudi Arabia or North Korea) operates like this.

 

21. If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?

Be sure your actions are based on truthful assumptions, sound evidence, and an understanding of the situation.

 

22. Do you believe there is such a thing as evil?  If so, what is it?

As an abstract concept, yes. An action can be defined as “evil” if it is done with willful disregard to the fact that the underlying assumptions behind the actions are known to be false, or the evidenciary support is known to be fraudulent or incorrect.

23. If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?

I don’t call the guy good or bad,

But a quick profile of the guy reveals:

-he’s possessive.

-he’s vain and has some obvious insecurity issues which explains his constant need for praise.

-he’s got a violent temper.

-he has an obsession with arbitrary rules that indicates OCD.

-he has schizophrenic tendencies.

-his penchant for getting others to do his dirty work for him (read the book of Joshua) is reminiscent of Charles Manson.

 

Based on this, he doesn’t seem like a guy I’d want to spend any amount of time with, much less, an eternity.

24. What would it take for you to believe in God?

 

A sound, logically consistent and/or independently verifiable reason to.

25. What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?

The arm of an amputee spontaneously regenerating in response to prayer.

 

26. Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?

It would have to be independently verifiable.

 

27. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer?  Why?

I think a society run by people (regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof) who respect the principles of tolerance and pluralism is safest.

 

28. Do you believe in free will?  (free will being the ability to make choices without coercion). 

Yes.

 

29. If you believe in free will do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?

One uses the brain to make free will choices. The ability to use the brain is dependent upon the neuro-chemical processes of the brain. You are essentially asking if someone can use the brain independent of the brain.

30. If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time?  If not, why not? 

You seem to be unclear on the difference between what is “possible” and what is “probable.”

You are asking if it is probable that something that exists inside of time and space will evolve to operate independent of time and space.

To establish probability, you must first establish possibility. Is it even possible for something inside of time and space to operate independent of it? If so, how do you know this? Even if you successfully establish possibility, you then have to determine probability based on the number of observed occurences of it happening.

You also reveal a bit of ignorance about biological evolution. Evolution does not mean that an organism is always “improving.” Evolution refers to how an organism changes over time. Changes can be beneficial, detrimental or benign.

 

31. If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?

See previous.

Answering a list of "puzzling phenomena" without much struggle

Came across these questions on some website.  Enjoy.
 
 
"Here are some puzzling phenomena that every person should try to struggle with, and find the answers."

You overstate the importance of these questions. There's nothing in Maslow's hierarchy of needs that suggests that “every person” should try to find answers to these questions.


"Here’s the full list:

1.What caused the universe to exist?"

I have no idea. I'm pretty sure you don't either. I'll even take it a step further and say that i'm unconvinced that the universe had to have a cause. Lots of people like to special plead an “uncaused cause” into existence and assert that the rules of causality don't apply to it because it exists outside of time and space. I got 3 problems with that.

1. You have no evidence that “outside of time and space” is even possible, much less that it really exists. Furthermore, you have no evidence that within this “outside of time and space” there exists a universe “causer,” nor can you say anything credible about the nature or character of this hypothetical universe “causer” or how it “caused” the universe.

2. The rules of causality are dependent upon the existence of “before” and “after.” Both “before” and “after” are functions of time. Functions of time cannot exist “outside of time.” It's equivalent to saying that an internal combustion engine's internal combustion takes place externally.

3. You have of way of knowing that the rules which apply in time and space (i.e.: causality), apply to time and space itself. Since you don't, you are not free to assume they do.

"2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?"

There is nothing to explain. The universe is not “fine tuned.”

"3.Why is the universe rational?"

If it were not, you'd have no way of knowing that it wasn't. So how do you know that it is?

"4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?"

Either through a complex series of interconnected natural processes, or a “magic man done it.” Given that I have no reason to believe in magic men who poof things into existence, I'm gonna go with option “A.”

"5.Where did the genetic code come from?"

See previous.

"6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?"

See previous. Oh, and "irreducible complexity" is just a fancy way of presenting an argument from ignorance.

"I’m leaving out numbers 7 and 8 because they lack specificity."


OK

"9.How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessity?"

Because the world is not ruled by just chance and necessity. If it were, nobody would have sex for fun. There is a host of other things that “make the world go 'round” that are neither chance nor necessity. But the existence of these things do not necessitate the existence of a god or gods.

"10.How do we account for self-awareness?"

Highly-developed brains honed by years of evolutionary processes. Either that or a “magic man done it.”

"11.How is free will possible in a material universe?"

Because one has nothing to do with the other.

"12.How do we account for conscience?"

Agents of socialization, and enlightened self-interest.

"13.On what basis can we make moral judgements?"

On the basis of the situation in which the action was committed and/or the truth or falsehood of the assumption[s] that led to the action[s] in question.

"14.Why does suffering matter?"

If you have to ask, you have obviously never suffered. Or cared about anyone who has.

"15.Why do human beings matter?"

To whom or what do you refer? To the universe, as far as we know, we don't matter at all. It's gonna do what it's gonna do and we can either cry or get over it. To each other, we matter quite a bit. We, like other primates, are social creatures. Our survival and development as a species and as a civilization depends on our ability to co-exist, and in many cases, work together.

"16.Why care about justice?"

Injustice is detrimental to the individual and to human society as a whole.

"17.How do we account for the almost universal belief in the supernatural?"

Because most people are comfortable to believe what they are told to rather than critically examine what they believe and why they believe it. Ignorance is bliss, and delusions feel good....especially when they make us feel good about ourselves.

"18.How do we know the supernatural does not exist?"

We don't. But we also have no real reason to believe that it does. I don't know for certain that thetans, unicorns, or sugarplum fairies don't exist. But I have no reason to believe that they do.

"19.How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?"

See previous.

"20.What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances and growth of the church?"

Well, the written evidence for the first two is spotty at best. Not to mention that this same evidence has been translated, retranslated and edited for style, content and grammar a few hundred times or so since the earliest editions we have first came on to the scene...which is a good 40-60 years after the alleged events took place. But...

Empty tomb: an empty tomb is not evidence of a resurrection, it is simply the absence of a corpse.

Resurrection appearances: all based on alleged eyewitness accounts from a biased and heavily-edited source.

Growth of the church: irrelevant. The popularity and or growth of a religion has nothing to do with the veracity of the claims it makes. The Mormon church has grown to 14 million members worldwide in just a little over 170 years. Does that make their claims more credible? Scientology has an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 members worldwide, and it's only been around since 1950. Does that make its claims credible?

Updating the Pledge of Allegiance to Reflect Modern Reality

I pledge allegiance to the flag,

of the United States of America,

that was made in China 

by slave laborers at a re-education camp.

And to the Republicans and Democrats,

who sold us out,

One Nation,

Under the thumb of the corporations,

With liberty and justice 

to those who can afford it.

The Incompatibility of Religion and Science

It all comes down to a question of purpose and nature.  

At one time, religion and science were one in the same.  Both developed simultaneously a way to understand and make sense of a chaotic world.  What could be readily explained without invoking the supernatural, was.  What could not be readily explained was attributed to a god or gods.  Gradually, the two began to emerge as separate entities, with a divorce taking place at the end of the Middle Ages when Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus and a host of others formally divorced science from religious dogma.  After this divorce, science emerged as the more reliable method for learning about the world and the universe.

What led to the divorce has to do with the incompatible methodologies of the two.

Religion seeks to understand the world through the divine revelation of a god or gods.  The pursuit of knowledge becomes an exercise in understanding the character, nature, and will of the god or gods in question.  Knowledge comes about either through direct, personal divine revelation, or by accepting on faith the claims of those who have received this revelation.  Here is where religion's first dilemma develops.

How do you tell correct revelations from false ones? The faithful will point to a sacred text.  But what is a sacred text? It is someone's else's record of their own divine revelation, only older.  An older claim of divine revelation is just older, not necessarily any more valid.  The only solution is to have an authority dictate which is which.  But from what is that authority derived? Yet another "divine revelation."

Bear in mind, we have only examined conflicting claims within ONE religion.  When we expand our focus to conflicting religions, the waters get even murkier.

Now let's shift our focus to science.  Science seeks to understand the world through observation, logical reasoning,and experimentation.  Nothing is taken on faith.  There is no "revealed knowledge."  When conflicting claims arise, both claims are tested through a controlled, repeatable testing method (experimentation) and the false claim is exposed (and discarded) through this process.  No authorities are needed to dictate what is a false claim and what is correct.  The evidence IS the authority.  "If you can't show it, you don't know it."  The pursuit of knowledge in this light is a pursuit of evidence and the construction of a logical apparatus to account for the evidence. 

From this we see that these two institutions are completely incompatible, and any attempt to "re-marry" the two will be disastrous for both.

Video Response

So, this is my response to the Atheist "Challenge" put forth by Youtube user GodIsReal101.

Here's the original video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frm3fNOFSuA

He virtually guarantees that anyone who accept this challenge will contradict themselves.  Of course, when you intentionally ask questions that have contradictory answers, that's pretty much gonna happen.  Oh, well.

"This is a Challenge for all non believers."

Not really.

"1.How do you think life began?"

What I think about how life began is irrelevant.  The evidence as of now is inconclusive.  I don’t know.  I’m fairly certain you don’t know, and i’m fairly comfortable saying that whoever wrote your favorite version of whatever bible you use didn’t know either.

"Does empirical science prove your answer?"

I’m not sure how to employ empirical science to show that I don’t know something.  Maybe you can help me out on that one.  As far as using it to demonstrate that you don’t know, i’m not sure how to do that either....except to say that if you did know, it’d be the scientific discovery of the ages and instead of making Youtube videos, you’d be publishing your results and collecting your Nobel Prize.  As far as the writers of your favorite version of your favorite bible are concerned, empirical science can demonstrate that they were wrong about the age of the earth, they were wrong about the moon being a light, and they were wrong about the earth pre-dating the sun and stars.  Based on that alone, i’m fairly confident in saying that they probably didn’t know the origin of life on earth either.

"2.Why has every civilization believed in a creator?"

Every civilization has not believed in a creator.  Some have believed in multiple creators.  But that’s beside the point.  Belief in gods developed out of primitive man’s attempts to understand the world using the limited perspective and amount of information he possessed.  As the first civilizations formed, these beliefs were codified into the first religions.  As civilizations advanced and became more complex, so did the religions.  What type of environment a civilization was located in had a lot to do with the religions that developed.  In Mesopotamia, the flooding patterns of the Tigris and Euphrates were violent and unpredictable.  As a result, the Mesopotamians worshiped tempermental gods that were prone to fits of rage and frequently smote things (sound familiar?).  The flood pattern of the Nile, however, was predictable and not destructive.  As a result, the Egyptian gods were less emotional.

"3.What types of government structures have been created from an atheistic world view in the past? What positive ideals has atheism offered this world?"

You are talking about atheism as if it were an ideology.  It is not.  Atheism is the rejection of the theistic positive claim.  That’s it.  Secularism, on the other hand, is an ideology.  If you are looking for a government structure based on Secularism, look no further than the U.S. Constitution.

"4.By what authoritative writer or principles do you live your life? Do you live by any standards?"

No one’s writings make my decisions for me.  I think for myself, agree or disagree as I see fit with whoever I choose.   I live according to the knowledge that the planet earth is all we have.  If we screw up here, there’s nowhere else to go. If you don’t like somebody, there’s nowhere else for them to go.  So my principles are this: we all share a collective responsibility to take care of this place and get along as best we can, or we will all die.

I enjoy life and i’m pretty sure most people do...so there’s the incentive.

"5.In your opinion should religion be removed from public? If so where should it be tolerated?"

I have no problem at all with religion being in public.  I do have a problem with one religion being endorsed or paid for with public funds or given a place of prominence on public lands over other religions and religious points of view.  

"6.How did the universe begin?"

In a hot dense state....if you accept the Big Bang model.

"Can nothing create everything?"

This is a pretty damn stupid question.  No, nothing cannot create everything and that’s not what the Big Bang model shows.

"What was the cause?"

Why does there have to be a cause? What if the universe is a living, self-aware entity that just decided one day to expand? What if the rules that apply within space-time do not apply to space-time itself?  If you assert that the universe had to have a cause, then so did the cause. Even if you special-plead an “uncaused cause” into existence, you have no reason to assert with any degree of certainty what the cause is or was.  So to sum it up:  

I don’t know.  I’m fairly certain you don’t know, and i’m fairly comfortable saying that whoever wrote your favorite version of whatever bible you use didn’t know either.

"7.Hypothetically if you had to choose a religion what religion would you choose? Why would you choose this religion? Would you tell others of your religion?"

All religions are based on what amounts to the same evidence: statements of faith from people who have allegedly encountered divine entities, which are then ultimately taken on faith by believers.  Having said this, theologically it makes no difference what religion one chooses.  However, if one had to be chosen, I’d choose one that believed in live and let live, practiced what it preached (no sense being hypocritical), and didn’t require anyone to give money (why would a god need money?).

"8.How can evolution explain features of irreducible complexity apart from intelligent intervention?"

“Irreducible Complexity” is a fancy way of saying “I don’t understand how evolution could have done it,therefore, it must’ve been magic!”  It’s a gussied-up argument from ignorance.  There have been numerous videos and articles made to answer your question for you (if you are legitimately interested in an answer, which I don’t think you are), but the gist is this: Add a part, make it useful.

"9.How can natural selection produce something that is a prerequisite for natural selection to operate?"

Natural selection (like the other evolutionary mechanisms) is the process through which life diversifies.  it is not how life originated.. This is why Darwin explained selection in a book called “Origin of the Species” and not “Origin of Life.”   

"10.Morality seems to change with the times in the atheist community why are morals so subjective within the atheist community?"

All morality changes with the times.  An atheist’s morals are no more or less subjective than anyone else’s.  The atheist simply realizes and acknowledges this.  Morality, in a sense, is a living thing.  Like all living things, it changes, adapts, and …. evolves.

"11.What is the motive of freeing others from their belief in a God if they are happy and content with their belief and dont hurt others?"

I’m not out to “free” anyone of anything they are happy and content with so long as they don’t harm others.  But you see, in this country there are a lot of people who are not content to be happy and content in their beliefs...they want everybody else to be happy and content in their beliefs as well.  They also want to make laws and policies for everybody based on their beliefs.  I will also say this: beliefs spawn assumptions and assumptions spawn actions.  Dangerous beliefs have a tendency to spawn dangerous assumptions and dangerous actions.  

"How can you tell who is not content and happy?"

Ummm....they kinda went over that in kindergarten, didn’t they?

"And why the main focus on Christianity?"

Quick quiz: What’s the number one religion in America?

"12. If humans evolved from Apes why have the transitional species gone extinct but yet the Ape and Man still exist? Why the middle gap?"

Because humans didn’t evolve from apes.  Humans are apes.  Advanced apes, but apes none the less.  We share common ancestry with all the other apes.  One pair of fused chromosomes is all that separates your DNA from that of a chimpanzee.  And as far as why the transitional species went extinct, no one knows for certain.  Possibly something in the environment changed that it couldn’t adapt to or it was outbred by its evolutionary descendants.

"13. Can you give three examples where the narrative of Jesus and his message would be a negative influence if what he said was true?"

Well, there are two problems with that.  One, we don’t know if Jesus existed at the time and place described, if he was a composite character or if he existed at all. The second problem is that we don’t know that everything that was attributed to Jesus was something Jesus actually said or did.

But, assuming that Jesus existed and assuming that everything attributed to him was something he actually said or did and assuming he meant exactly what he said:

1.  "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother"

- Matthew 10:34-35

2.  "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." - Luke 12:51

3.  “If anyone comes to me and does not hate their father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26

Then there's the whole fig tree incident in Mark 11:12-14, 20-21.  Where Jesus gets mad at a fig tree for not having figs on it …. when it wasn’t fig season.  So he curses and kills the fig tree in a fit of rage....because it was a normal fig tree.  Ummm...yeah, that totally doesn’t sound cocoa for koo-koo puffs at all.  

"14.Do you think the world would be better if there was no belief in a God? What if there were no rules or standards to that belief system?"

And there you go assuming that the existence of rules and standards necessitates the existence of a god.  In fact, there are many Buddhists who live with rules and standards and yet do not believe in a deity.  There’s also something called “Christian Atheists” who follow the (alleged) moral teachings of Jesus but reject the existence of a god..  

"15.Can you give five examples of Atheists being persecuted in America currently?"

Is five the “magic number” of atheists that need to be persecuted before persecution of atheists becomes  wrong?

1.  Nicole Smalkowski was kicked off her Oklahoma public school basketball team and harassed by students and teachers at her school after she told her coach she didn’t want to pray with the team because she was an atheist.

2. Erik Brown of Baton Rouge has had his property vandalized and destroyed, has been threatened with violence and punched in the face for being an atheist.

3. Damon Fowler of Bastrop High School in Louisiana opposed having a prayer at his high school graduation.  He sent a complaint to the Superintendent, who cancelled the prayer.  His name was then leaked.  He was physically threatened by other students, publicly demeaned by one of his teachers, and thrown out of his house by his own parents.

4.  President George H.W. Bush once said of atheists: “I don’t know that atheists should be considered citizens.”  Commentator Michelle Malkin has said that Atheists “Should be treated like trolls.”  Now imagine someone saying this about Jews, or Mormons, or Baptists.  Would it be ok then?

5.  Atheist and Secular students are routinely denied the right to have school clubs and groups despite the presence of religious groups.  When they are allowed to have their club or group, posters advertising them are routinely vandalized and group members are routinely harassed.

I could go on, but you only asked for five.

"16.Do you think the laws that govern America are for the most part just and appropriate?"

The laws themselves are, the enforcement of them is where the problem lies.

"17.Can empirical science prove the missing link, big bang, or the abiogenesis theories? If not why are they taught in schools today?"

Empirical science doesn’t “prove” anything. That’s why we still refer to germ theory, atomic theory and the theory of gravity.  We always leave open the possibility the new information can completely obliterate what we think we know about things.  Theories are models constructed using scientific laws, logical reasoning, and the best available evidence.  When new evidence comes along, the theory needs to be modified to account for it.  If the old theory cannot account for the new evidence, the old theory is discarded  and a new one replaces it.   

Now, these are basic, fundamental scientific principles we are talking about.  Anyone with a proper high school education should know this.  The fact that you, a grown man, needs me to explain this to you really calls into question the quality of education you received as a young man.  

"18. Do you think if the story of Jesus was proven true that his resurrection would be the greatest feat in human history? If not what was greater?"

Yes, i’d consider that one a hum-dinger for sure.  It would  also cause me to question and re-examine the validity of all the resurrection stories that have appeared in various cultures.

"19. What came first the chicken or the egg? What does evolution say?"

It depends on which chicken you are talking about. If you mean one of the hundreds of different breeds that humans have used the evolutionary mechanism of selection to produce over the last thousand or so years,  then your answer is the egg.  Two parents of different breeds made an egg that produced a new breed of chicken.  

If you are talking about the wild chicken that was the first to be domesticated, then i’d still have to say the egg because the evolutionary predecessors to that chicken were laying eggs long before that particular yardbird came onto the scene.    

"20.What three things would you change if you were the creator of this world?"

1.  I would go out of my way to not resemble something that didn’t exist.

2.  There would be no need for a Muscular Dystrophy Association, Autism Speaks, an Association of Retarded Citizens, or child-sized wheelchairs, hands-free speech devices, or leg braces..

3.  There would be absolutely no need whatsoever for a Children’s Cancer Ward at any hospital anywhere.  Furthermore, there would be no such thing or need for a child’s coffin.

"21.If belief in an afterlife is a naïve wish for people that are afraid of death cant non-belief be a naïve wish for people that are afraid of accountability to God after death?"

Well, let’s take a look at the fundamental underlying assumptions each one is based on.

Claim 1: "Belief in an afterlife is a naive wish for people who are afraid of death."

Fundamental Assumptions:

1.  People fear death because they instinctively want to survive.

2.  People observed plants appearing to die in winter time “coming back to life” in the spring, which led to a belief in a life after this one.  

3. Fearful people (with limited perspectives and a limited knowledge of the world) who are told something they want to hear were (and still are) more likely to be persuaded by charismatic “visionaries” and “prophets” who tell fantastic stories about realities beyond this one and mystical beings who determine our destinies.

Problems: None.  All of these things can be shown to be demonstrably true.

Claim 2: "non-belief in an afterlife is a naïve wish for people that are afraid of accountability to God after death."

Fundamental Assumptions:

1.  A reality beyond this one exists.

2.  In this new reality, there resides a god

3.   This god made some rules for us to follow in our current reality and holds us to account for our transgressions in the next reality.

Problems:

1.  You cannot establish that a reality beyond this one exists.   

2.  Even if a reality beyond this one exists, you cannot establish that a god (or 2 gods, or a billion gods) exists in this “other”’ reality.

3.  Even if you special-plead a god (why just one?) into existence in this other reality, you have no way of establishing that it is the god you think it is, which means you have no way to differentiate your book of divinely-inspired rules from anybody else’s.  

So what are you left with? Hoping and wishing and dreaming....but little else.

Now which one sounds more like a naive wish?

"22.In a universe without God or immortality, how is mankind ultimately different from a swarm of mosquitoes or a herd of cattle? Are humans of more intrinsic value?"

Life as we know it is extremely rare in the universe (as far as we know).  From that perspective all life is precious.  However, humans can do things that a swarm of mosquitoes or a herd of cattle cannot.  Therefore, humanity wins.

"23.Do humans possess the ability to feel love, affection, and empathy? If so, explain how? Can it be explained without using the metaphysical?"

Yes.  Humans possess the ability to do these things.  How? Well you’d have to ask a behavioral psychologist or somebody who studies that sort of stuff.  And as far as it can be explained without invoking the “metaphysical,” quite a few things that were once thought to be explainable only through “metaphysical” means turned out to have a naturalistic explanation that didn’t require invoking supernatural mumbo-jumbo.  Based on that alone, I feel fairly confident in saying that such things can be explained without using the “metaphysical.”

"24.Who contributes more charitable services and financial resource to the worlds suffering and impoverished? Atheist or Theist?"

Well, now this is an unfair question given that theists are a majority (90% or more) of the world’s population.  My question is: given the immense numbers and wealth and power that theists have possessed, why haven’t they eradicated poverty and other preventable sources of human suffering?

And for the record, there are numerous charities that do immense good in the world that are secularist, humanist, or unaffiliated with religious groups, mandates or principles.  DonorsChoose.org, Kiva, the Union of Concerned Scientists, UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders, and Amnesty International are just a few.

"25.What evidence would you need to prove that God existed and by what standard of evidence?"

Show me a god (any one will do).

Show me supernatural phenomena (have your god poof a unicorn into existence).

Have your god write his name on the moon.

Better yet have your god miraculously heal every child at St Jude’s Children’s Hospital in Memphis without the help of science, doctors, medicine or radiation therapy.  

Have your god close down the Children’s Cancer Ward at the University of Mississippi Medical Center because he has eradicated childhood cancer with one snap of his fingers.  

"Do you follow this same standard in all of your current beliefs?"

Yes. I do.  I demand that anyone who makes a positive claim back it up  with fact-based, logically consistent reasoning....myself included.  My question is: why don’t you? Why don’t you apply the same degree of critical analysis and skepticism to the claims of the bible that you apply to the claims of random Youtube atheists? Why don’t you demand that empirical science “prove” Noah’s flood or talking snakes or bread falling from the sky? Are you afraid to? If so, I don’t blame you.  Fear is one of religion’s most effective recruiting and retention devices.