An Open Letter to Kim Jong-Un

Dear Tubby,

I realize that nobody in your inner circle has the balls to be honest with you, so that's why i'm taking the time to write this.

Look, I don't know what your deal is or what you are thinking, but somebody needs to set you straight.

I realize that you and the rest of the bowl-cut wearing fat-asses in your country are paranoid about a U.S. invasion.

But here's the deal: historically, the U.S. has shown no qualms whatsoever about invading a country based on flimsy or spotty reasoning.

Seriously, if we wanted to invade you bad enough, we'd have invented a reason to.

Just ask Iraq.

See, Chuckles, your country doesn't have anything we want. 

So, pipe down, go back to starving your own people and leave the rest of the civilized world alone until you have something interesting to say.

Thanks a bunch!

Friendly Relations

Heading to work the other day when I was greeted by this sign outside of a church:

Well, since you asked, it's working out just fine!

I can focus on being a good person and a productive member of society without having to apologize all the time for being human.

Traditional Marriage

I am a 39 year-old straight man.

I am married to a 43 year-old straight woman.

We have been married to each other for almost 17 years (in a row).

We have one child.

We were married in a church, by her uncle, a retired Methodist minister.

I work full time and am the sole breadwinner in our family.  My wife is a stay-at-home mom.

I tell you all of this to say that when it comes to a "traditional" marriage, it doesn't get more "traditional" than mine.

Opponents of marriage equality contend that allowing homosexual couples to enjoy the same rights to have their unions legally recognized will threaten traditional marriage. 

In my 17 years of "traditional" marriage, not once has the union (legally recognized or not) of a single solitary homosexual couple threatened my marriage. 

Allowing my gay friends and relatives and their life partners to enjoy the rights and responsibilities of a legally recognized married couple poses absolutely no threat to my or my wife's rights and responsibilities as a legally recognized married couple, any more than expanding the right of marriage to interracial couples poses a threat to same-race couples or inter-faith marriages poses a threat same-faith marriages.

What does threaten my marriage is a government being allowed to discriminate against people. 

The same governmen tthat can deny the right of legal marriage to a same-sex couple is the same government that can deny the right of marriage to any one of us for any arbitrary reason whatsoever.

Personally, I can think of no greater threat to my "traditional" marriage than that.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Dr. Martin Luther King

Doubting "Doubting Atheism"

http://www.lcwym.com/2012/11/doubting-atheism.html

Atheism cannot offer credible answers to my fifteen doubts.

Challenge: Accepted.

1. Why are atheists so obsessed with religion? 

If life were meaningless and ends at the grave, why even bother. If life is just a monopoly game that's going to be put up, why even try to take the property and money of others (in a metaphoric sense, of course)? It doesn't make much sense. Given atheism, nothing really matters since it's not going to last. So, again I ask you, why bother with religion and its negative effects?

You are equating atheism with nihilism.  These two things are not the same. The fact that life ends is the very thing that gives it meaning.  The fact that life in the universe is rare (as far as we know) is what gives it value. As we see it, you have one life and one shot to make the most of that life. 

As far as atheists' "obsession" with religion, we generally aren't.  That is, until someone wants to pass laws that effect all of us based on their interpretation of a bronze age religious text.  Or until someone wants to harass us and get us fired from our jobs because we don't share their interpretation of reality.  Or until someone traumatizes our children by telling them that their parents are going to hell. Or until one of our leaders wants to take us into a war on the orders of an invisible, inaudible, atemporal, immaterial deity that only communicates telepathically.   Or someone wants to shoe-horn religious dogma into the science and social studies curriculum. Or someone wants to kill, or imprison, or deport us for imaginary crimes.

Counter-question: If life is just a waiting room to a great beyond up yonder in the sweet by and by, why continue living?

2. Why are atheists so obsessed with monotheistic religions? 

Why only the big three? If all religions are equally false, why only bother with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam? What about Hinduism or deism? Again, it doesn't make much sense. Perhaps there's a reason that atheists are so amazingly obsessed with Christianity?

Christians and Muslims make up 57% of the world's population.  Islam and Christianity combined are the dominant faiths in 214 countries.  Of the 38 countries where blasphemy is a criminal offense of some kind, 37 are either majority Christian or Muslim.  Judaism is the evolutionary predecessor of these religions. 

When Hindus start trying to pass laws in the United States based on the Vedas, i'll criticize them.  When deists start blowing people up and beheading people for being infidels, i'll go after them.  When Sikhs start trying to elect candidates who call science "a lie from the pit of hell," or that the female body can shut down pregnancies that result from "legitimate" rape, or that prayer creates a halo around a woman's body that prevents date rape, i'll go after them.  When the largest organization of Wiccans in the world spends the better part of 50 or so years hiding and enabling child molesters within its clergy, i'll go after them as well. 

Counter-question: What makes your claim to one god any more valid than polytheists' claims to multiple gods?

3. How do atheists explain the beginning of the universe? 

Often atheists have pointed to the Big Bang to justify their worldview, but the Big Bang actually proves theism.

It does no such thing.  The Big Bang Theory establishes that the expansion of space-time had a beginning.

 Here's a simple syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This is called special pleading.  You are assuming that the laws of causation (before and after) which apply inside of time and space, apply to time and space itself.  But i'll put that aside and play along. 

For this to be true, there has to be 2 separate and distinct realities: the state of affairs where the universe does not exist (A) and the state of affairs where the universe does exist (B).  Furthermore, one of the four following contingencies must be true:

1. The universe doesn't exist. Disproven by the fact that it does.
2. The universe never began to exist. Disproven by the Big Bang.
3. The Big Bang (Y) was preceded in time by the cause (X). Disproven by the fact that a cause cannot exist in time because there is no time until the Big Bang.
4. X is the atemporal cause of Y.  For X to exist in A and be the cause of Y (which exists in B), then there has to exist some point where A and B are indistinguishable.  This means that somewhere there has or had to be a point where universe exists and does not exist simultaneously.  This is impossible.

There is great evidence for the Big Bang. We can be led to it by first stating this fact: The universe is either eternal, or it is not. If it's not, than my argument is scientifically supported. The universe cannot be eternal because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy is running out.

Actually, it states that entropy (the degree of disorder) does not decrease over time in a closed system.  Please demonstrate to me and everyone else how the universe represents a closed system. 

 If the universe is eternal, it should've run out a long time ago. The Big Bang proves God because it proves the universe came into being from nothing, and nothing cannot create nothing, for it is nothing.
Therefore, Something must have caused the Big Bang. So how do you explain away this evidence for the existence of God?

"The Universe" refers to the four-dimensional construct (space-time) which we inhabit. The beginning of the Universe does not refer to "the creation of everything ex nihilo."   This construct did not come into being out of nothing.  The Big Bang speculates that the initial singularity that was the universe began to expand roughly 14.5 billion years ago.  Prior to that? No one can say.  Literally.  Not only does our concept of time not account for that, we don't even know what time was or how it functioned or if it functioned at all prior to that....or if "prior to that" is even possible.  Let me put this as simply as I can:

I have no fracking idea how the universe began and I feel quite confident that you don't either.

The difference between the two of us is: I can accept that I don't know something.  You plug in your favorite creation myth and call that "knowledge."  It's just a re-hash of the "god of the gaps" arguement.
You might special plead a god or gods or hyper-intelligent shade of blue into existence, but the fact of the matter remains:

You cannot make any positive claim to knowledge of a "cause" for the universe.

Even if you could "prove" a "cause" for the universe, you have no way of proving who or what that cause is or was.  The only thing you would have "proved" is deism: the existence of a non-specific creator.  You still have miles to go after that before you can "prove" theism: the existence of a particular god.

4. How do atheists explain away objective moral values?

I always find it hilarious whenever Christians ask this question.  Especially when I bring up how the Bible condones slavery in both the Old and New Testaments. 

Objective moral values are ones that are independent of human thought.

No. Objective moral values are ones that are independent of context, situation or time period in question.  Human morality cannot exist independent of human thought as it is a product of human thought.

If God doesn't exist, they wouldn't exist either. There'd be no one in charge to make a universal standard of right and wrong. It'd simply be a matter or opinion. But moral relativism fails. For one, it says that moral claims are only a matter of opinion but it asserts that as a fact.

Moral relativism does no such thing.  It is not "just a matter of opinion." Moral relativism basically means that moral claims are a matter a myriad of factors, which can include:

1. biological necessity.
2. context or situation
3. truth or falsehood of underlying assumptions
4. level of enlightened self-interest
5. level of socialization and cultural development

Christians play the same game with morality when confronted with genocide, child abuse, rape and slavery in the Bible. 

"Well, that only applies to that time period..."
"Well, that only applies to the ancient Jews...."
"Well, Jesus nullified that rule (even though Jesus said no such thing about Old Testament laws)

Also, we know things such as rape, murder, and child abuse are wrong, and if everyone agreed that they were right, they'd still be wrong.

We certainly don't know these things are wrong because of the Bible because the Bible condones all three of these things, and slavery too. 

We know things are objectively wrong because we feel guilt when we do what is wrong;

No.  We know these things are wrong because they infringe upon the rights of others, they contribute to human suffering, they destabilize societies, they perpetuate mental disorders, and we all have something called enlightened self-interest.  You guys call it the "golden rule" and it exists in every religion that has ever been.

If morality was just our opinion, we wouldn't feel guilty, for we would be doing what is right for us. So how do atheists justify the fact of objective morality?

The problem with objective morality is this: it creates a situation where there are no degrees of right and wrong.  If killing someone is objectively wrong, then there is no moral difference between one who kills in self-defense, one who kills accidentally, a soldier who kills someone in combat, or someone who stalks and tortures a victim prior to killing them.  Not even the most brutal dictatorships on earth have a legal system such as this. 

5. How do materialists justify immaterial realities?


Logic, math, morality, and other things such as free will, human dignity, and time exist. These things are all immaterial. We can't put the number 7 or the Law of Noncontradiction in a test tube.

But we can demonstrate logic, we can demonstrate math, and we can measure time.  Furthermore, logic, math and time all have practical applications in the material world.  Free will and human dignity are also concepts with pracitcal applications in the material world. 

But if God doesn't exist, matter would be all there is, since there'd be nothing to be the foundation of immaterial things. Everything would come through by matter, and thus, be matter. How can atheists give an answer to this argument?

On what do you base the assumption that all "immaterial things" need a foundation and what type of foundation are they required to have?   On what do you base the assumption that this "foundation" is a god?   On what do you base the assumption that this god is your specific god?   Can you measure or demonstrate this god?  

6. How do atheists explain the existence of the universe?

If atheism is true, there isn't a reason for anything. It's all an accident. There isn't any purpose. But if there weren't a purpose for anything, how do things exist?

Okay, you *really* don't understand atheism.  Atheism is not nihilism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That's it.  It makes no positive claims about the existence or non-existence of a god or gods, it is simply being unconvinced that the positive claims of theism are true. 

If God does not exist, the universe would have no meaning for its existence, and would, thus, not exist.
So how can we living in a universe that both exists and has no reason for its existence?

Until you can demonstrate the existence of a god or gods, this is pure speculation, Once you do that, you still have to demonstrate that the existence of anything is contingent upon the existence of a god or gods.  Once you do that, you still have to demonstrate that the god or gods in question are your specific god or gods.

7. How do you explain away circumstantial evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?
Here are just two facts that help lead up to the conclusion that Christ is risen: 1. The early Christians died for their belief that He rose from the dead. You don't die for what you know is a lie. No one does, and no one ever could.

Simply put, they didn't believe it was a lie.  Early Mormons were persecuted and killed for what they believed, including Joseph Smith himself.  It does not verify any of the claims they made. 

2. Christianity started in Jerusalem. If the tomb weren't empty, the Jewish pharisees could've proved it and ended the Christian movement. But they didn't. How can an atheistic worldview explain this?

An empty tomb indicates only the absence of a corpse. 

8. If the gospels are just pieces of historical fiction, why are there embarrassing details in there?

Jesus being accused of being a demon. A prostitute wiping Jesus' feet, which was seen as a sexual approach.

Excuse me? When was foot washing ever seen as sexual? Foot washing is an old middle eastern tradition that was a show of hospitality and gratitude.  Typically, a host would offer a guest water to wash their feet in or offer to have servants do it for them.  There were no sexual connotations unless you put them there.

Peter being called "Satan" and denying Jesus three times. Jews being told to pay taxes to the Roman empire.

Simply put: these things fit the narrative.  The problem with the gospels is not that they are "historical fiction," but that they are unreliable as history. The average life expectancy during this time was between 28 and 52.  The earliest gospel on record is the Gospel of St. Mark, written 30-40 years after Jesus' alleged death and resurrection. It is highly unlikely that any contemporaries of Jesus' would have lived long enough to have written the Gospel of Mark.  That being said, i'll play along.

Exhibit A): We don't really know who the Gospel of Mark was written by, or about.  Church tradition states that it is the recollection of Mark the Evangelist, who was also John Mark referred to in the Bible, but that attribution was not made until the 2nd century by Papias of Hieropolis.  Hippolytus of Rome in the 3rd century differentiated the two. 

Exhibit B): There are multiple versions of the Gospel of Mark, and several known editing insertions in all of them.  The earliest complete copies in existence date to the 4th century. 

So at the end of the day, the only possible first-person account for Jesus' life is a source by an anonymous author, which are the alleged recollections of a person whose identity is in question, in a document that has been heavily edited for style and content for the last 2000 years.


  One criteria of finding a historical truth is to see if the text is embarrassing to the writer. If it is, they probably didn't make it up. Could you clear this up for me?

There are five criteria for establishing the reliability of a source.

1. Accuracy
2. Authority
3. Currency
4. Objectivity
5. Relevance

The claims in Mark (and the other Gospels) cannot be independently verified.  In many cases, the claims of one Gospel cannot be verified by another Gospel. Accuracy: FAIL. 

The identity, qualifications and affiliations of the authors are all in question.  Authority: FAIL. 

The works were published no sooner than 30-40 years after the events described took place, and the only complete copies of the works themselves date to 400 years after the alleged event took place.  Currency: FAIL

The Gospels have been edited for style and content by institutions that have a vested interest in their veracity for the better part of the last 2000 years.  These institutions have a well-documented history of physically destroying conflicting or contradictory accounts with the full cooperation of the governing authorities.  Objectvity: FAIL.

9. If we are just matter, and not souls, why would some atheists support life-sentences?
The matter in our body is totally changed out every seven years. If Cartesian dualism—a view I embrace—is false, and we are just matter, that means I am not the same person as I was seven years ago. And this is also true for a criminal.The justice system is completely futile if atheism is true. If matter is who we are, why don't we change as our matter changes?

Neither I nor anyone I know puts forth the idea that we are "just matter."  Once again, you confuse atheism with nihilism.  I don't know enough about the human consciousness (and I would wager you don't either) to definitively and objectively say whether or not we exist independent of the body.  If your assertion is that we exist independent of the body in an immaterial undemonstrable state, then it is my assertion that you cannot say anything definitively and objectively about the subject.  If you can, show us your evidence and book a flight to Sweden to collect your Nobel Prize.    

10. Why do so many atheists deny historical facts?

Also funny coming from a Christian when so many Christians declare the United States to be a Christian nation founded on Biblical principles.

The common view today that most atheists hold is that Jesus didn't exist.

Actually, the view that most Atheists hold is that Jesus probably did exist, but did not possess magical powers, was not his own father and was not a zombie.

 But Jesus did exist. How do I know this? Historically reliable sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, the Jewish Talmud, and Pliny the Younger wrote about Jesus. So why do atheists hold to the Christ-myth hypothesis in spite of what we know through historical facts?

Josephus:  wrote in the 90s, a full sixty years after Jesus' alleged death and resurrection (not a contemporary).  Josephus was also a Pharisee, who would never have referred to Jesus as "the Christ" or "the Messiah."  The passage where he refers to him as such is a likely later insertion.   

Tacitus:  Textual evidence indicates that he was repeating what he was told by Christians and not what was in official Roman records.  He refers to Pilate as a procurator when he was actually a prefect, and he refers to Jesus as "Christ," which he would not have done unless
A: He was working off of what Christians told him. 
B: He was a Christian himself, which calls into question his objectivity on the matter (highly unlikely as he called Christianity a "pernicious superstititon") 
or C: His work was edited later.   

Lucian:  wrote a full 140 years after Jesus' alleged death and resurrection.  Since he doesn't name a source or offer any new information, his account is pretty much useless.   

The Jewish Talmud:  Not compiled until the second century, wasn't written down until the 5th century and the references to Jesus are inconclusive.  

Pliny the Younger:  Pliny simply mentions that Christians exist in Asia Minor around the year 100.  Nothing he wrote independently verifies anything written in the New Testament.  

Even if you could provide 100% independently verifiable solid evidence that there existed a man in 1st century Palestine named "Jesus" who started a Jewish cult that grew into Chrisianity, you still have provided no evidence whatsoever that he was who he and others are alleged to have said he was, or that he did what he is alleged to have done.   I can provide you with pretty solid evidence that no fewer than 5 Peter Parkers currently live in New York City.  With a little digging, I can probably find more that have either moved or deceased.  I could probably establish that a Peter Parker lived in New York City at the time the first Spiderman Comic Book was released.  But that does not in any way verify that any of these people named Peter Parker are, in fact,  Spiderman.

11. Why do most atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Denette, equivocate evolution with atheism?
Evolution does not prove God exists, nor does it prove God doesn't exist.

But it does show that a divine agent is not necessary for life to diversify.

Darwin did not kill God. Most Christians accept evolution. Why, then, do so many atheists point to evolution as if it disproves Christianity?

I might ask the same question of you, only I would replace "atheists" with "fundamentalist Christians."  Most atheists actually point to evolution as a disproof of strict Bibilical creationism.  If evolution does not pose a threat to Christianity, then why have so many Christian groups spent so much time, effort, energy and resources attempting to discredit evolution?

12. Why don't atheists actually question everything?


They're always advocating skepticism, but fail to question their own views, including that of skepticism. If we should doubt everything, why not doubt atheism?

So I should be doubtful of being doubtful of claims that are made without solid evidenciary support or logically sound reasoning? So basically, I should just accept these claims at face value.

This is just utter nonsense.  Skepticism and questioning what we believed and why we believed it is what led many of us (myself included) to atheism.  I personally spent the better part of 2 years actively seeking just one good piece of evidence or logically consistent reasoning to believe that a god or gods (ANY god or gods) are real.Couldn't find one.  If you know of one, I'm all ears.

 13. Where do rights come from?

Most atheists are supporters of the gay rights movement, and are furious when someone denies a homosexual of his or her rights just because of their sexual orientation. So it's pretty clear that atheists believe inalienable rights exist. But where do they come from? How can they be explained naturally?

Human rights are very similar to laws of motion.  They are descriptions of the natural state of things and don't "come from" anywhere but the human mind.  The idea came about when secular, non-religious Enlightenment-era thinkers decided to apply the same reasoning to the state of human society that had helped them make discoveries about the natural world and universe.  Like all  ideas, which are similar to living things, they change and adapt as new information becomes available. At first, the ideas only applied to white men..  But as our knowledge has increased (especially in the area of biology and human origins) we can see the unscientific absurdity of racism, sexism, and even homophobia.

Counter-Question: Homosexuality has been a part of every human culture (there are even clues in the Bible that King David himself may have been gay or bi-sexual) and has been observed in over 400 species of animals.  Two consenting adults in a monogamous homosexual relationship pose no threat to society, and homosexual parents provide stable, healthy and loving homes for children who'd otherwise not have one. Knowing this, how can Christians (or anyone else)  justify the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" and that homosexuals should be denied basic human rights?

 14. How can there be no objective evil, but religion causes it?

 A top argument in the atheist arsenal is that religion causes evil. This doesn't prove a thing, for Pythagoras caused evil but no one doubts that a^2 + b^2 = c^2. But when atheists argue against religion by pointing out its sins, they assume that objective morality exists. If morality were a matter of opinion, there'd be no point in asserting it as a fact. So why do atheists use religious evil to try to disprove theism, when it actually does the opposite?

I'm not one to call religion "evil."  I will not be one who says that religion is at the root of our problems.  I will say that religion can exacerbate existing problems.  I will also say that religion doesn't really offer anything resembling real solutions to poverty, disease, war, social injustice or economic disparity.  Religion often serves as an enabler for mental disorders, and can encourage anti-social behaviors.  It often discourages or seeks to limit (often with the cooperation of government) scientific inquiry, academic freedom and artistic expression; all three of which can be shown to benefit both individuals and societies. As I said, i'm not one to call religion "evil," but I do question how such an institution can be called "useful" or "beneficial."

I will also not discount the beneficial things religious organizations and religious people do.  However, no beneficial or benevolent act done by a religious person or organization is one that could not have been done by a non-religious person or organization. 

15. Why are there no good reasons to believe atheism is true? 

Whenever I ask an atheist to disprove God, they can't do it.

Wow. You not only don't understand atheism, you don't understand how the burden of proof works either.   

I think the character Hermione Granger said it best in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows":

"You could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist!”

 I can't disprove the assertion that there lives a purple sand worm beneath the surface of Pluto that influences the outcome of all sporting events, but I have no good reason to believe that such a creature exists.

When something is true, there are good reasons to think it is true.

No. When something is true, you have evidence and logical reasoning to back it up and what you "believe" about it is irrelevant.

But there are no good reasons to believe God does not exist.

Actually, there are several:

-Atemporal, immaterial, undetectable, and invisible entities who only communicate telepathically bear a striking resemblance to imaginary entities.

-The only real evidence for the existence of gods are the wildly divergent claims of divine revelation by numerous prophets, true believers, shamans and mediums.

-A person's variety and level of religious belief is often closely related not to the validity of the claims, but to such accidental factors as geography, what religion their parents were, and what kind of society they grew up in.

-people who believe in a god or gods divorce, commit crimes, die of natural and unnatural causes, have abortions, have premarital sex, have unsafe sex, have bad things happen to them, live in poverty and go to prison at the same statistical rate (and in many of these cases, at a higher statistical rate) as people who don't believe in a god or gods.

So knowing all this, in response to your last question:

So why do non-believers count me as irrational when I embrace theism?

I offer my final counter-question:

Why should I count you as rational when you clearly embrace an irrational concept?

And yet again.....

Came across these beauties at work the other day.  Enjoy.  http://emach.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/10-questions-every-intelligent-atheist-must-answer/

Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?

Everyone is a moral relativist, some of us are just honest about it.  Did you cut off your right hand when it caused you to sin as Jesus commanded? Pluck out an eye after checking out some hot toddy across the room? I know nothing of an “absolute morality” wherein an action is always right or always wrong regardless of situation, time period in question, context or motivations and outcomes. Certain moral values are seen throughout humanity in every religion and even among other primates (Do not murder, do not steal, do not practice sexual infidelity). As Thunderfoot pointed out, even piranhas refrain from killing other piranhas. One of the best measures I can find to determining the morality of an action is whether or not the underlying assumptions behind the action are true or false. Take the Holocaust, for instance. The Nazis perpetrated the Holocaust because of two underlying assumptions: 1. minorities, “deviants” and handicapped people were not fully “human.” 2. The continued existence of these groups represented a clear and present danger to human civilization. Therefore, the logical outcome was the “final solution.” Clearly, this is a flawed conclusion because the first two premises are demonstrably false. Is this a perfect system? No. But it is a lot more honest an evaluation than doing something “Because __________ says to.”

Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?

My “trust in science” is based on the fact that I don’t have to “trust" in science. 
Science demands evidence. 
Faith demands belief. 
Science demands fact-based, logically consistent answers. 
Faith demands belief despite the facts and despite logical inconsistencies. 
Science begs to be questioned. 
Faith begs the question. 
Science changes to account for new information. 
Faith ignores new information. 
Science screams “Here I am, come kick my ass, if you can!” 
Faith (in many cases) specifically forbids you from questioning it. 
Science takes nothing on faith, which is exactly why faith has nothing on science.

Unless you’ve observed something yourself, or observed and interpreted the evidence yourself and drew your own conclusions, you are just as guilty as faith as any religious person.

No. A religious person accepts claims made for which there is no evidence other than the claim itself OR no evidence other than being in agreement with an old book of such claims. To accept a scientific study as valid, all one need do is accept the validity of the scientific method. If you accept the validity of the process by which the conclusions were arrived at, then you know two things: 1. If the conclusions are in error, then the error will be exposed by further application of the scientific process. 2. Even if no error is present in the in the conclusions, the conclusions are still subject to change in light of new information. This is why all scientific knowledge is still referred to as “theory.”

Where does language, art, music, and religion come from?

The human brain.

Suppose, hypothetically, that you met with someone who knew nothing about you except your first name. And this person was able to accurately name deceased family members, discuss in detail how they died, and describe intimate personal details about your relationship with these people (including people you aren’t consciously thinking about). How would you explain this?

That would be a pretty remarkable occurrence indeed! However, it would also be suspicious. My first question would be this: How would I know that they didn’t know anything about me other than my first name? How do I know they’re not lying when they say that? What sort of control mechanism was in place to insure that they hadn’t done a little research on genealogy sites about me or knew and communicated with people that knew me?

You claim that you had such a thing happen to you and that you are smarter than the average person and therefore more difficult to fool and that we should take all of what you say as totally valid because of this. Well, I hate to point this out to such an obvious intellect such as yourself, but you have no way of showing what you claim to have happened actually happened the way you describe it. You claim to have heard tapes and that you know that the medium knew things he couldn’t possibly have known before hand and you have this mountain of evidence, but I’m unconvinced. What, other than your word, do we have, and why should we believe you? You say that scientific claims should not be regarded as valid unless “you have observed … or observed and interpreted the evidence for yourself” yet you expect us to accept as valid your claim because you heard a tape of something that sounded pretty convincing and you are (allegedly) smarter than the average person. I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy it.

Is absence of proof the proof of absence?

No, but if you are going to claim the existence of a god, goddess or hyper-intelligent shade of blue, then it is beholden unto you to back that claim up with something other than “I can’t show how this is true, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t.”

What does the atheist position offer people?

It offers nothing but honesty.  It takes nothing from you, requires nothing of you and places no burdens upon you. 

I admit that Christianity has been the cause of great suffering for many people over the years, I also believe that it has been the cause of great happiness for many people over the years.

So has Scientology. So has Buddhism. So has Taoism. So has Islam. So has Zoroastrianism. So has Hare Krishna. So has Wicca.  The ability to bring happiness into people's lives is not a testament to the veracity of the claims made.  

Heroin addiction causes suffering, but also brings happiness to the user.  Temporary and illusory happiness, but happiness just the same.  Same with alcoholism, crack addiction, and prescription drugs.  Would you "rather take the good with the bad than take nothing at all" in those cases as well? 

When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest. If you are starting at true premises, then what are they? And how are they true?

I start with the premise that we can know things. I go from there to the assumption that we can demonstrate and communicate what we know.  I will readily admit that either of these could be false...but we've gotten a helluva lot of stuff done by assuming that they are true.

If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position?

I would simply ask why this particular book of allegories should be believed and accepted as the “one true word of god” as opposed to the hundreds of other religious (and non-religious) allegorical texts out there.

Why is it important to you that everyone is an atheist?

It’s not. 
What is important to me is that our society prize real knowledge over ignorance that disguises itself as real knowledge. 
What is important to me is that our government enacts legislation based on something other than someone’s interpretation of an ancient book. 
What is important to me is that we spend our time and resources on things that benefit everyone as opposed to doing things that are either ineffective, dangerous or that strip people of their basic humanity because someone’s religion says to.

Do you believe in extra-terrestrials?

I have no evidence that they exist, but one can logically assume that they can.

If you are an atheist, I am going to require that you also do not believe in E.T.

By what right and under what authority do you require me or anyone else to believe or not believe anything?

And if you acknowledge that E.T. has not been observed but is likely to exist, I demand that you also acknowledge that God has not been observed but is likely to exist.

I don’t assert that ET is "likely" to exist because we simply don't know. ET could exist because if conditions conducive to life exist here and if life is a naturally occurring product of the universe, it is then reasonable to assume that if similar conditions exist elsewhere in the universe, then life can exist there as well.

Would you like me to assert that a god or gods could exist? Fine. A god or gods could exist, but I have found no good reason to believe that they do.  So by what reasoning do you conclude that a god can exist other than the plethora of wildly divergent claims of divine revelation and unverified (and unverifiable) claims of supernatural phenomena?

And if one god can exist, why not 20, or a hundred, or a billion?

As Christopher Hitchens once said, Even if you prove deism, that is the existence of a creator god, you still have all your work ahead of you.  You still have to prove theism, the existence of a personal god who cares about you and what you do.

Questions from the UK

• How do you account for the fine tuning of the universe from the big bang?

How are you coming to the conclusion that the universe is “finely-tuned?” “Finely-tuned” compared to what? Is there another universe that we don’t know about? How many universes were/are not “finely-tuned?”

• What caused this beginning (whatever has a beginning must have a cause)?

A cause would imply that there exists such a thing as “before” the big bang. This is impossible because “before” and “after” are functions of time.  Time did not exist until the big bang, therefore to assert that the universe “must have a cause” is begging the question.

• If an intelligent designer doesn't exist how did life, with all it's vast complexity, even get going in the first place?

No one knows for sure.  But it is irresponsible and dishonest to fill in the blank with our favorite deity or fairy story and call that an answer. 

• Do you really believe that non-living matter evolved and arranged itself into something living and self aware?

I believe that life came about through natural processes that we don’t have enough information to fully understand.  I believe this because this has been our experience.  A host of things that were once thought to be the work of magic, sorcery, or supernatural entities (floods, earthquakes, plagues, eclipses, comets, mental illnesses) turned out to have natural, scientifically valid explanations.  I see no reason to believe that the origin of life is any different…especially when religion has been so wrong about so many other things

• If we live in a purely material world then how do we account for the many supernatural experiences that people have, such as encounters with God, ghosts, spirits, etc (obviously, exactly what all of these encounters actually are are all interpreted by different people in different ways

Let me just stop you right there and say that you have almost answered your own question when you say “exactly what all of these encounters actually are are all interpreted by different people in different ways.”  Therein lies the problem with the reliability of such “encounters.”

• but the fact remains that people encounter things that do not fit a purely naturalistic world view).

No, people claim to encounter things that do not seem to fit a purely naturalistic worldview.  The only evidence we have of these claims are the claims themselves. 

• Are we really to conclude that all of these people are delusional, deceptive, or mad? Or could it be that people are having real encounters with real supernatural beings not explainable through purely scientific mediums?

If none of the people who have claimed to have had these experiences were deceptive, delusional or mad, and if there were an objective way to independently test these claims, you might have a case.  But the fact is this: All of these claims are anecdotal.  You have no way of testing these claims.  Furthermore, when considering even the sincerest of claims of honest people, neither you nor they are aware of the environmental or biochemical factors that may be coming into play, causing them to see or experience what they think they are seeing or experiencing. 

• Where does all of the incredibly complex information come from that is stored within DNA? 

An excellent question. And I say again, no one knows for sure.  But it is irresponsible and dishonest to fill in the blank with our favorite deity or fairy story and call that an answer.  But I have a feeling you're about to....

•  Information doesn’t just appear by itself.  Someone has to put it there.

And you there you went.

• Why does humanity seem to have an innate desire and need to worship something, or someone? Why is there such a universal religious sense within humanity?

The prevalence of religious belief does not represent “an innate desire and need to worship something or someone.”  Religions developed as a way to understand the world that primitive men lived in and as a way to codify (and justify) the prevalent customs, practices and our species’ morality.  This is why some aspects of religion are universal (the “golden rule,” provisions against murder), and some aspects are divergent (polytheism vs. monotheism, matriarchal vs. patriarchal, moody gods vs. ambivalent gods)

And it is in the divergence of these religions that makes them suspect as a source of true knowledge about anything.  Take near-death experiences, for instance.  People raised in Christian cultures claim to see Jesus or Hell.  Buddhists claim to see Buddha, Muslims claim to see Mohammed, while Jews claim to see Abraham.

• Isn’t it a bit extreme to assert "God does not exist"? To make such a statement you would have to have complete knowledge and to have been everywhere in the universe.

And that is exactly why I don’t assert that a god does not exist.  Atheism is not the denial of the existence of a god or gods, it is the disbelief of a theistic positive claim.  The theist claims that a god or gods exist while the atheist is unconvinced.

•  Maybe God dwells somewhere in the universe you don’t know of or have not been to? Is that possible? 

It is equally possible that griffins, Jedi Knights and sugarplum fairies exist somewhere in the universe I don’t know of or have not been to.  But that is not a reason to believe that these things do exist and certainly not a basis upon which to believe that these things care about me personally or that I should live my life according to their alleged “revealed knowledge.”

• What about the evidence of design in all of creation?

 "Appearance" of design is not "evidence" of design.  

• It is obvious that anything that is designed has to have an intelligent creator. 

Not necessarily.  You can have something poorly designed that is the product of an unintelligent creator.

• For example, a computer never came about by mere accident, but had to have been thought out and planned by an intelligent designer. It is the same with creation, and more so, as the natural world is far more complicated than anything humanity can create.

You're exactly right! And if computers occurred naturally, you'd have a checkmate...but.

Computers don't occur naturally.  We can see them conceptualized, designed, and built.  We can go to where they are manufactured and see how the process works.  We can talk to people who build them....and even build them ourselves.  This is what separates nature from the world of machines. We can tell machines are manufactured because we have unmanufactured nature to compare it to.

If you propose a designer, where is it? How does it "manufacture" nature? Once it does, how is it shipped here? Why did it design so many things that went extinct because they couldn't adapt to conditions here on Earth? And if this designer is so intelligent, and capable of so much, it too must be too complex to have just come about without an even greater and more intelligent designer designing it.

• Where does all the matter in the universe come from?

If you are referring to the elements, nuclear fusion.  If you are referring to sub-atomic particles, etc., then as I said previously:  No one knows for sure.  But it is irresponsible and dishonest to fill in the blank with our favorite deity or fairy story and call that an answer.  

•  Why exactly is there something rather than nothing? 

Atoms are comprised mostly of empty space....so everything is comprised mostly of nothing...so the something you speak of is mostly made up of the nothing you claim doesn't exist.

• How do you explain the changed lives of millions of people throughout history who testify to a life changing experience with Jesus Christ?

I would imagine the same way that you would explain the "changed lives of millions of people throughout history who testify to a life changing experience" with Krishna, Buddha, Allah, Sun Myung Moon, Lao Tzu, Wicca, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and Star Trek.

• How do we account for the historical Person of Jesus Christ? 

Considering there are no records written of him prior to 20 years after his alleged death (and those were  written by a man who claimed to have had a meeting with his ghost on the road to Damascus), and considering that the first alleged "eyewitness" account of his life doesn't appear until 60 years after his alleged death (ghost-written by someone who supposedly got the info from Jesus' buddy Mark), there really isn't much we can say about "the historical Person of Jesus Christ."...especially when you consider that the other biographies of his life not only came out around the year 100-150, but have all been edited for style and content for the last 1900 years or so

• He has made such an impact upon history that we even measure our calendar by Him.

Yeah, I'm sure that has absolutely *nothing* to do with the fact that Pope Gregory XIII is who set up the calendar we use today in 1562.  And i'm sure that Western Europe and America's domination of much of the world from 1600-1945 has nothing to do with it's widespread use either.  

By that logic, Odin and the gods of Scandinavia are real because we measure our week by them (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are all named after Norse deities). 

• 2000 years on and millions still follow Him.

If the age of a religion determines it's legitimacy, i've got some bad news for you.
Zoroastrianism (140,000-190,000 followers worldwide) has Christianity beat by at least 500 years (and bears a striking resemblance to christian theology).
Taoism (20-400 million followers worldwide) has Christianity beat by at least 400 years.Judaism (14.6 million followers worldwide) has Christianity beat by at least 1000 years. Now I know you guys claim lineage from the Jews, but even if I give you that.....
Hinduism (1 billion followers worldwide) has Christianity beat by about 2000 years.

Tragedy Compounded

In times of tragedy, I feel a sense of sympathy for believers.  Primarly because I used to be one.  Before I became an atheist, I remember when tragedies would strike, a part of me always felt a little bit angry.  I would always ask,"Where was God? Why didn't he stop this?"

The radical fundamentalists will often look for some "sin" on the part of the victims, or their relatives, or society at large to blame it on.  Much in the same way that this bozo did.

Many believers are not such ass-hats as this.  But their response was and is very similar to what mine once was. 

I would quickly dismiss the question and focus on finding the heroes: because after a horrific tragedy, especially one involving man's inhumanity to man, you need to reassure yourself that there still exists such a thing as good.  But I also put it out of my mind because my belief system did not permit questioning God, or "His ways" or "His Perfect Will."  We would always say that this was a great tragedy and we just didn't understand God's ways but we knew that when the roll got called up yonder in the sweet by and by, we'd understand and fully appreciate why this horrible thing had to happen. 

Only later did I realize how twisted this idea really was.

And any time one makes an excuse like this for why the all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present (and above all: loving) deity didn't show up to prevent a tragedy, they are essentially saying is that the tragedy is part of the divine will.

In other words, the deity wanted it to happen so he/she/it could prove some cosmic point.

Noted creationist William Craig Lane put it more bluntly when he justified the slaughter of children by the Israelites:

"God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit." Translation: "my belief system does not permit me (or you) to question God, or 'His ways' or 'His Perfect Will.'"

"The death of these children meant their salvation."  Translation: "the deity wanted it to happen so he/she/it could prove some cosmic point."

And here is where the horrible tragedy gets compounded.

When you see it this way, the deity not only allowed it to happen, but consciously and willfully wanted it to happen.

If the deity consciously and willfully allows a horrible thing to happen because it wants it to happen, the deity is the accessory to the perpetrator.   In a court of law, such actions would be a felony.

When viewed through this prism, it is easy to see how so many people become, as I did, completely disillusioned with theism in general, and christianity in particular. 

It all boiled down to one question that I could never provide a satisfactory answer for:

If you worship a god who apparently wants senseless tragedies to happen despite being able to prevent them, how can you honestly say that your god is good, or loving?