Deliver Us From Evil

I have had many worthwhile discussions with Demian Farnworth of the Christian blog Fallen and Flawed. Our most recent exchange began with his description of writer A.N. Wilson's reconversion to religion.

I found several of the statements made in Farnworth's analysis to be provocative. Perhaps the most intriguing statement I found was this claim:

Materialism can not adequately explain our complex world. Christianity, on the other hand, as a working blueprint for life, can.

Since a substantial portion of my deconversion from Christianity has hinged upon the exact opposite argument - that while Christianity cannot adequately explain our complex world, naturalism can provide a working blueprint for life, to paraphrase the structure of Farnworth's claim - I was intrigued to see a discussion of this argument from a viewpoint distinct from my own.

I decided to enter the fray, and set my naturalistic beliefs side by side with Christianity, and attempt to compare which view could actually better explain the complexities of our existence.

I made a brief argument against Christian theism via the origin of suffering.

Traditionally, almost all Christians have interpreted the text in the Genesis creation stories to imply that their god originally created a paradise on Earth, and that only the disobedient sin of Adam and Eve introduced suffering into our world.

If suffering is inherent in the nature of the world, and not brought into the world by the transgressions of humanity – if the evil that happens in the world cannot possibly be the direct result of a Biblical Fall as depicted in Genesis, then traditional Christianity is falsified. Do you agree?

I have found that suffering persisted in our world for an incredibly long time before the first existence of humanity, therefore I believe it is impossible that humanity is the direct cause of evil and injustice in our world, and that therefore almost all types of Christianity are either absurd or implausible.

Here's an excerpt from Demian's reply, which he made shortly after my original comment:

Second, your argument for naturalism hinges on suffering existing before man. I don’t quite understand that. How could suffering exist before mankind? And how do you know? Furthermore, how do you define suffering in terms of naturalism? In other words, if the natural state of things is beast eat beast, how can you say “that’s suffering?” How are you defining suffering, that’s really what’s at stake.

Those are good questions. How should suffering be defined? How could suffering exist before humanity? Here's a hint to what I believe, courtesy of YouTube satirist Edward Current:



At the end of the video, Current's character states:

"You know, it's almost like, here on Earth, it's every species for itself.

Humans don't get any special treatment at all, do they?

It's because life evolves - through natural selection, not Intelligent Design."

My Deconversion Story

This is the story of my deconversion from Christianity. I originally posted this account on the Forum of the blog "Unreasonable Faith". I hope you'll enjoy it.

I have been raised as a Christian, having attended services for most of my life at a small ELCA Lutheran congregation. I was baptized as a baby, and I was confirmed around the time I entered high school. I attended Sunday school, Bible studies, and church camps. I sang in the choir and I was an acolyte, usher, and greeter.

However, despite my active involvement in the church, I had not thought much about the basic essentials of my beliefs. I had read large portions of the Bible (I still haven't gotten myself to read it all - I've been meaning to do it), and I prayed often, but while I grew up, I was never confronted by any serious challenges to my perspective. I had friends who went to other churches, but I didn't really know anyone who was non-religious. I had this default assumption that there was a God, and that most of things I had been told in church were true.

I was never really one to question authority, and I enjoyed church greatly, and I had a lot of friends there at first. I wish I had a higher voice so I could sing "I Wander As I Wonder" in the proper key. That hymn is eerie, and that is why it was always one of my favorites.

Many things happened to me when I was in junior high and high school. Several rifts developed in my church, attendance lowered, and we had some pastoral changes. I also first learned that some of my friends were atheists or agnostics. It actually shocked me at first -- I grew in a fairly conservative community. Every time I drive on the highway, I spy a large billboard which declares "Trust In The LORD With All Your Heart". I thought to myself, 'atheist?! I don't believe that.'

But I didn't really know them that well, so I shrugged it off.

When I was a junior in high school, one of my closer friends let me know that he is an atheist when we were discussing religion. I started debating (casually) with him and his friends about religion during our study hall period. I was the Christian, and there were two others who were atheists.

Some of the questions he asked made me reflect for a bit, but I wasn't very phased. I didn't have a literal interpretation of the Bible, and I accepted evolution, so we actually agreed on a lot. I wasn't affected by a lot of the arguments he used in the areas that we agreed. However, looking back on the experience, I think if my friends had spent more time on how those points specifically apply to religion, I would've been more receptive. But I also realize that they didn't want to push me too hard, because we were friends, and they didn't want to ruin our friendship, which I also appreciate and understand.

He did ask me why God would create homosexuality and condemn it in the Bible? I didn't know - I was unsure. I didn't think he would. My friend referenced Leviticus, and I pretty much ignored it, I have to admit. I could've been more open-minded.

He also wanted to know if I didn't take the Bible literally, how did I *know* which parts were metaphorical and which were not? I gave an answer I had already heard, that the Holy Spirit guides the believer in the interpretation of the Bible. If I were my friend now, I would've emphasized the divisions in church history. I do remember that my friend emphasized the corruption of certain church leaders, but I always brushed these criticisms away by saying that God's church was for imperfect people, as everything human in this world was imperfect. Maybe I would've been more receptive if he had argued specifically that the existence of so many divisions on interpretation and meaning of scriptures, which accord with cultural practices, makes it supremely unlikely that the texts are divinely inspired. However, that is a complicated argument and hard to fit into a 25-minute study hall period, and I know that when atheists talk to Christians, the harder they argue, the more militant or harsh they seem. I know this can be the case, so I can again understand why my friend didn't press me harder, and I do appreciate his willingness to put our friendship ahead of mere ideological differences.

When I was a senior, my English teacher exposed me to existentialism - I started reading Camus and Sartre. However, I maintained that this was fully compatible with my Christianity, and in retrospective, I don't think that this was a contributing factor to my deconversion.

I also began reading a lot of Vonnegut when I was in high school. I read Player Piano, Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse Five, and Slapstick. Those are all excellent, and I also read Vonnegut's brief essay autobiography, the title of which I cannot recall. I <3 Billy Pilgrim! But I hated the ending of Cat's Cradle - I despised it. It was so irredeemably depressing and gloomy. Somehow, Slapstick was the most amusing and intriguing book of the four, though it seems to be the least popular and the least well-known. There are many excerpts about tribal and community ties which really hit home what it means to be part of a group of people with the same feelings and the same beliefs. I think that book did lay some of the groundwork for my later epiphanies.

Finally, last year I was a freshmen in college. The summer before I left, I had to arrange a schedule of coursework. I was trying to fill my schedule with general education requirement classes, and I wanted to take World Politics very badly. Instead, my counselor stuck me with Forms of the Sacred, a class on Eastern religion. This would prove to be quite fateful.

The second or third week of school, we also had an activities fair. I was out walking after lunch one day, and I strolled along the path in the main common area to visit the booths for all of the clubs on campus.

I spied a banner for a non-religious group. Intrigued, I stumbled over to the display, and asked the volunteer about the nature of the club. I was told that this was a new club for discussing religion, which would primarily be focused on atheists and agnostics. Since I had discussed religion with my friends in high school, I added my information to the mailing so I could stay in contact with the club.

So two or three weeks afterward, I am sitting in my religion class, nonchalantly scribbling notes. We're talking Hinduism, and my professor is going off on a tangent. My ears perked up. The tangents were what made that class - I loved my professor's sense of humor and offbeat commentary.

So anyway, he's talking about all of the different religions in the East, and how they relate, and he casually lets out that some scholars speculated that there might be a link between the proto-religions of the East and some of the western religions. Normally, that would just be an interesting tidbit, a typically inane musing which may fascinate those students who are paying attention.

But that careless slight, that unintended observation -- it struck me. I really had an existential crisis. I felt a surge of doubt paralyze me at that very moment; thoughts of "what if this (my beliefs that I had grown up with) isn't true??!!"

"What if this isn't true?!"

Doubt. I was struck by doubt. Nagging, overwhelming, unceasing, terrifying doubt.

I suddenly realized that I had no idea why I believed what I did.

That was the beginning - that was the day I quit believing in "faith".

And of course, one of the first ever meetings of the atheists and agnostics organization was scheduled later that very week. So I went, not knowing what would happen. All I knew was uncertainty.

So I went. The chairs were arranged in a circular fashion. One of the first things that occurred, since everyone was just getting to know each other, was that each individual in the circle was supposed to say a little bit about themselves: what year they were in, where they were from, something cool about themselves, and if they were an atheist or agnostic, when they became one.

I was one of the last people to be reached, so I got to hear almost everyone else's accounts first.

I was quite nervous at that moment, I must admit. I really didn't know what to say -- I hadn't really reached out to anyone by that point. When I first told my Catholic roommate that I was going to go to the meeting, he looked at me with suspicion because I had already told him that summer that I was a Christian. I told him that I was a Christian, but that I was going anyway because I was interested in the group.

It was sort of a fib. I wasn't sure anymore if I was a Christian or not, because of the doubt that I was experiencing at that time.

Finally, it was my turn to speak. I related my year, where I was from, my hobbies, and my name. Then I stammered something like this:

"Well, I'm not really sure what I believe right now. I was raised as a Christian, but since I've gone to college..."

My brain fizzled. What was I going to say?

"I think my faith has..."

I couldn't say anymore, but I took my hand and made a downwards motion.

In the days before the meeting, I had begun to do some additional research about religion, and I continued this after I returned from the meeting.

Every time I examined my old beliefs, they made less and less sense to me.

The Bible seemed incomprehensible to me. I started asking a lot more questions about it that I couldn't answer. The evidence for a historical Jesus who did the things the Bible claimed was less than I would have liked to believe (I had never actually thought about whether he actually had existed and did the things the Gospels said he did.) It seemed there was too much cruelty and suffering in the world. Evolution and naturalism seemed to be performing spectacularly. Christianity was failing miserably. Everywhere I turned, it appeared that the answer could be better explained if there were no all-good, all-loving, interventionary god.

Finally, there was one particular area that seemed to be the nail in the coffin for my prior religious beliefs.

All the other religions in the world. I had heard Krishna call for grace - I had heard Buddha call for compassion in the wake of suffering - I had heard creation stories which sounded more plausible than the ones I heard growing up. "There was a time when there was neither nothing, nor something". That's a real creation story.

Frankly, Christianity became just another religion, just another faith, and just another mythology. People who believed in other religions seemed to be just as moral as Christians. People who were Christian based their moral ideas on the same principles that non-Christian people used.

And almost all of the so-called religious experiences claimed were more similar than they were different, no matter what the religion.

I remember reading of Near Death Experiences where Native Americans saw a vision of a great chief, where some Hindus saw a great bureaucracy in the sky, and Christians saw heaven and hell.

And even if that weren't enough, I began reading about neuroscience. I became convinced that there is no such entity as the soul. If I needed yet another nail in the coffin, that was definitely it.

The experiments demonstrate that when the brain is harmed, all of the things which have traditionally been identified with the soul are damaged.

What is the soul? Isn't the soul the essence of who you are? And what is the essence of who you are? When the brain is damaged, the essence of who you are changes irrevocably. So when the brain is damaged, is your soul damaged, or is your soul the brain? But we know what happens to the brain when you die -- it rots. So much for the after-life? How can you have a soul to be judged without the brain? It's not plausible.

Lastly, I was already an agnostic atheist for many months before I read "The Evolution of God", but it really cemented many of the conclusions which I had already reached. The evidence which emerges from the sections about political influences on the Old Testament, why the Israelites came out of Canaan and not out of Egypt, and why Paul sold Christianity the way he did in the days of the early faith really make it difficult for me to revert to Christianity or any religion similar to it.

I am an agnostic atheist. I believe that most, if not all, of the gods ever worshiped by humanity are implausible. I do not know if there are ultimately any gods or higher powers. However, I live as if there are none.

Even if there are gods or higher powers in or outside of the universe, I believe that I am living more deeply in communion with them by not adopting a set of beliefs which I am 99% sure are false, and by trying my best to live a moral life based on empathy and respect.

I know that I have prattled on at great length, but I thank all of you for sharing in my journey and my experiences. Thank you.

Is Faith More Reliable Than Science?

“Science is not only less reliable than faith, but faith is used in science."

Did I miss the science Crusades, the science Thirty Years War, or the science Spanish Inquisition?

How reliable is your faith, exactly? Are you a Christian? If so, what kind of Christian are you?

If you’re a Catholic, you may believe that your god directly revealed himself to a line of men who frequently embodied corruption, nepotism, and hypocrisy.

If you’re a Protestant, you’re already admitting that your faith is not 100% reliable, because why would there need to be a Reformation if faith is generally reliable?

If you’re Orthodox, how do you explain the abundance of Protestants and Catholics if faith is so reliable?

If you’re any kind of Christian, then how do you explain the plentiful and confusing abundance of contradicting interpretations of the same exact sacred texts?

If you're a Muslim, which tradition do you adhere to? How do you explain the existence and persistence of other sects? Why is your faith so fragile? Your holy book is even written in the same universal language, and you still have many of the same problems as the Christians.

You think faith is reliable? The wise walk by sight, not by faith.

An Indifferent Universe: The Original 'Original Sin'

Here's a thought experiment:

"Sin is the fault of humanity, but it had to be that way, and fortunately, we still have free will.

How do I know this to be true?

Well, for hundreds of millions of years, various animals and plants endured enormous levels of suffering before humanity existed. So it is difficult to claim that the direct actions of humanity are responsible for suffering in our world. However, one could say that suffering was predetermined for humanity. Essentially, it must then be our fault that the suffering of the world was predetermined for us. So everything's our fault (even if it's not), and we still have free will (even if we don't). Christianity makes complete sense."

Obviously, I'm being sarcastic here.

We can now determine that there was never a Paradise - that there was never an Eden - and that the "original sin" of humanity is merely our own existence in an indifferent universe. Sure, Christian tradition can try to pin the blame on a species which only arrived on Earth during the most recent instant of geologic time, but the growing evidence across nearly all disciplines of science can easily refute such a bold and unsupported assertion.

How can I prove that the only reason a god would permit evil is to bring about some other end? How can I know that this is not the only possible world that it is feasible for a god to create? I most likely cannot fully prove either of these things to you; what I may be able to demonstrate adequately is the incoherence of Christian dogma when its doctrines are contrasted with the harsh, vivid realities of our existence.

A Memorandum to God (Part One)

MEMORANDUM

DATE: ∞

TO: God

FROM: Teleprompter

SUBJECT: Doubt

I hope you are well, whoever or wherever you may be. My friends and family have urged me to contact you over some pressing issues I have encountered. I hope that I am not wasting your time. Here are some of my questions for you:

1. "Your followers call you the judge of the world. You are expected to love justice and fair play. You’re expected to loath all ill treatment of one person by another. A corrupt judge who has no interest in seeing right triumph over wrong is, by biblical standards, a monstrosity.

Moreover, a judge who is found to be living a double life–one condemning criminals and one condoning his own crimes–deserves no such respect, honor or admiration."

- paraphrased from statements made by Demian Farnworth, Christian apologist

So why do you allow so much injustice in your name? Why have you allowed your followers to mistreat women, gays and minorities? Why do you allow wholesale slaughter of tribes with differing theological views?

Why do you condemn those who murder in the Ten Commandments yet simultaneously order the genocide of thousands at Sihon (Deuteronomy 2:34), Bashan (Deuteronomy 3:3), Jericho (Joshua 6:21), Ai (Joshua 8:2), Libnah (Joshua 10:30), Lachish (Joshua 10:32), Eglon (Joshua 10:35), Hebron (Joshua 10:37), Debir (Joshua 10:39), the Negev (Joshua 10:40), and the northern royal cities (Joshua 11:14)? Why did you allow the destruction of the Anakites (Joshua 11:21-22)? Why did you order the total decimation of the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1-2)?

Why did you harden the hearts of the kings of some of these cities so that you could wage war against them so that your followers “might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy” according to your commands (Joshua 11:21)?

(NOTE: this project is an ongoing series; I will devote each installment to a new question; once again, thanks for your participation!)

(SECOND NOTE: part of the opening section to this essay is a paraphrase of commentary written by Demian Farnworth on his blog Fallen and Flawed; you can read the essay in which his statements originally appeared here. The paraphrase was borrowed for rhetorical comparison.)

Encounter with a Proselytizer (Part Two)

I apologize for the length of time which has elapsed since Part One. Thank you for waiting!

I received a phone call when I was at home several days later from the pastor of the church which handed me the brochure about Jesus.

I struggled to think of something coherent to say to the preacher on the other end of the line. Here I was, talking to him directly. What was I going to say? Was I going to make a fool of myself?

I told the pastor that I had been handed the glossy bulletin, that I had read it, and that I decided to call the included number to discuss some questions I had about the information in the brochure.

For my first question I stammered, "What does your church think about the Bible?"

He relayed to me the teachings on Biblical inerrancy: that everything in the Bible is truth, and that the Bible is internally consistent. The preacher also mentioned that his church exclusively uses the King James Version of the Bible.

I asked him why the church uses the King James Version? He replied that the King James Version used direct translation from the "original" languages of the Bible. I did not proceed further with this because I am not knowledgeable enough about the history of the Biblical documents to contend with his claims.

Another angle which my conversant preacher had emphasized about the Bible was that it contains God's messages. It was given to humans, but God had written it ahead of time, so the Bible was God's perfect word to humanity.

I decided to ask the pastor about certain tenets of Biblical morality. I discussed certain acts of genocide and crime in the world today: Serbia/Kosovo, Rwanda, etc.

Did he agree that these acts were wrong? Yes, he did.

I then cited the book of Joshua: the slaughter of the various tribes of Canaan whom the Israelites supposedly displaced.

If the Bible condones an act of terror that we agree is untenable, then why should I follow its teachings as a moral guide?

The preacher directly informed me that the slaughter of these peoples was really the work of God, not the Israelites, and that they were really evil, anyway.

I asked the pastor, "If God told you to murder someone, would you do it?"

He retorted that he would never murder someone, but if God murdered someone, he would understand why God did it.

Just as God slaughtered many of the Canaanites for their immoral ways, God could similarly "send judgment" to many Americans today for the current state of our immoral society.

But the bottom line, the preacher reasserted, is that Jesus saved us, and God sent the Bible to us. The real important point is whether I believe that or not.

"Do you believe in God?" he stated sharply.

"I don't know," I answered.

"You don't know? But the Bible is God's Word!" the pastor responded. "This book talks about Jesus and why he came, so Jesus was either telling the truth or he was a liar. Do you believe what the Bible says about Jesus?"

"What if the people who wrote the Bible made up the stuff that Jesus said?" I inquired.

(My query was ignored and previous assertions were repeated.)

"How can you not believe the Bible?" he asked incredulously. "It contains the words of Jesus. Do you believe them?"

"I could write a book about President Obama and say that he said something, but that doesn't mean he said it," I retorted.

My acquaintance was not amused by that comment. He abruptly ended the conversation.

"Look, if you don't understand this about the Bible, I can't even talk to you."

I thanked the preacher for the discussion, and hung up the phone.

Maybe I should've used some other analogy besides Barack Obama...my second thought was Harry Potter...never mind.

Some conversations are doomed to futility.

Encounter with a Proselytizer (Part One)

I was working in the sun last week, trying to finish pulling weeds from my neighbors' lawn before the start of a thunderstorm, when a man came up to me and started a conversation.

"Hi there, I see you are a Reds fan, too?"

I was sporting a Cincinnati Reds baseball caps. In fact, I do happen to root for the Redlegs. Last summer, I was fortunate enough to catch Jay Bruce's debut against the Pittsburgh Pirates.

The man introduced himself - let's call him "Jim" - and he said that he lived down the street. He told about his experiences as a young Reds fan growing up in Cincinnati during the era of the Big Red Machine - when Pete Rose, Davey Concepcion, and Johnny Bench proudly strode the environs of Crosley Field.

It was a normal conversation until the man pulled a brochure from his pocket and handed it to me - that's when the realization struck, that he was proselytizing me.

He stated that he didn't know if I had a church home, but let me know that I was welcome to attend his Baptist church. I thanked the neighbor, and stuffed the bulletin into my pants' pocket, eager to finish my work before the rain came down.

I didn't want to harass him about religion - being a former Christian, I know what nerves it takes to talk to a stranger about your church. Anyway, he wasn't too pushy, so I was willing to give him some leeway. I thought that it would be rude to argue with this guy on the street.

After I drove home and put my equipment away, I opened the brochure and inspected its contents. It contained a somewhat typical message about sin and Jesus, redemption and the wages of death. Pretty standard stuff - things I would've heard about, if I had still been in the church I had attended for the previous 18 years.

Then I spied a phone number, denoted with the following inscription:

"Have any questions about the Bible? We'd love to hear from you!"

Being the curious kind of guy that I am, I punched the church's number into my cell phone. I had to leave a message - I let it be known that I had received a tract and that I had some questions about its contents. I asked if it was possible that someone could call me back and that I could speak with someone about the brochure.

That was about a week ago. For a description of what happened when my call from the church was returned yesterday, please wait for (Part Two). Thanks!

30 Great YouTube Channels for Freethought

The Atheist Blogroll provides a wonderful service for those who wish to participate in the freethought blogging community, and it's also a great resource for those who wish to learn more information about atheism and agnosticism. However, blogging is not the only way in which people can access information about freethought.

As many of you may know by now, YouTube is also a great place to inform one's self about these issues. Disconcertingly, there is no compendium or guide in which to index all of the highlights of the skeptical community's contributions on YouTube.

Therefore, I have composed an informal list of 30 YouTube channels about atheism or freethought that I really enjoy. I am subscribed to all of them. I did not rank the channels which fell out of the top ten in my rankings; those are listed in alphabetical order below my top ten.

Please realize that my preferences are entirely subjective, and I am sure that there are probably one or two channels I have listed which are bigger than the ones I mentioned in my top ten; there are likely some tremendous, outstanding channels out there which I have the misfortune of not having seen before, so if anyone can think of any good additions to my list, I'd be greatly indebted to you for it.

(Also, in the interests of full disclosure: two of the accounts which are included on this list [DefenderOfReason and theowarner] are subscribed to my personal YouTube channel; eight of the accounts included are "friends" of my channel on YouTube [FFreeThinker, AndromedasWake, cdk007, Thunderf00t, NonStampCollector, nathanforst, FactVsReligion, and DefenderOfReason].)

Lastly, I am including a small blurb of information about each channel with every listing.

The Top 10

1) Thunderf00t: A True Master. The PWN'er of creationists everywhere, and an unyielding champion of logic and reason. His "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?" series is quintessentially fantastic. You will laugh, you will cry, and then you will write letters to YouTube about vote-botting five or six times.
2) EdwardCurrent: This is satire. Even commentators as wise as yours truly have mistaken Edward Current's uproarious brand of "Christianity" for the real item. Must-see list includes: "What If God Disappeared?", "What If Jesus Ran For President?", and "God's Cool Designs".
3) ProfMTH: Possibly the most intelligent, insightful, and thorough presenter of atheism/freethought on all of YouTube. No one has better arguments against Christianity, if that's your thing. Must-sees include: "Jesus Was Wrong" series and "Jesus Was Not The Messiah" series.
4) NonStampCollector: I have a weakness for animation, which explains why three animators are in my top ten list. NSC has created the most succinct and hilarious atheist counter-points to any claims about the morality or inspiration of the Bible, if that's your interest. Very funny takes on free will, Jesus, and the origins of religious thought.
5) TheoreticalBullshit: Yes, he's a professional actor, and it shows. The ladies will be all over him. But TB also happens to be one of the most brilliant debaters in the YouTube atheosphere. His videos are both highly informative and entertaining. Just watch all of them.
6) Nykytyne2: Nykytyne2 has one of the best voices on YouTube, though there are several others in this list who can match him. He's got an amazingly comprehensive series explaining the deficiencies of the main theological arguments called "Doubt 101" which is on-going. Watch all of those, and then watch "Greater Than Us".
7) DefenderOfReason: A rising star. I watch all of her videos. She is succinct, hilarious, engaging, and thoughtful. Her comedies and sci-fi videos are both funny and mind-bending. Be sure to catch "Crimes Against Humanity".
8) theowarner: Please don't get mad at me for this pick. Okay, you may not "get" theowarner's style at first, but once you appreciate his sensibility as an artist (and he is quite the artist), you will never regret the add. A good introductory video is "The Theology of Kodachrome".
9) 43alley: Again, my clear weakness for animation rears its head. I just eat up 43alley's "An Atheist Reads The Bible" series, which combines excerpts from the King Jame's Bible with cheesy 1970s style cartoons. His channel also features animations to accompany selections from Christopher Hitchens and Eddie Izzard.
10) azsuperman01: This is a sentimental pick: azsuperman's channel was one of the first places I found on YouTube. His account of his experience deconverting from Christianity is highly compelling, and it encouraged me as I was traveling down a similar path. Try his "Questions for Christians" series.

Honorable Mention

AndromedasWake: "Welcome to the Universe" series. All that needs to be said - it will blow your mind.

AtheistExperience: Matt Dillahunty, host of the call-in show "The Atheist Experience", kicks ass. Some have compared his style to Christopher Hitchens on crack. They're right.

BionicDance: What can I say? Another animator, another sci-fi style video-maker. I like what I like, and BionicDance is freakin' sweet.

cdk007: If you want a good summary of complex biological concepts surrounding abiogenesis or evolution, this is where you should go. Still though, he really should get around to registering that PowerVideoMaker. ;)

DarkTheAtheist: This is another channel that, like theowarner, may not appeal to everyone. Dark's British, I think he's hilarious, and he has a killer video intro. If you like Monty Python, you will like DarkTheAtheist.

DrixDZanth: DrixDZanth, oh DrixDZanth, where have you been? He has not made any videos in months, but on his channel he promises that more will be coming soon - and this is a great thing, indeed. He's logical, he's entertaining, and he's pretty much a badass of science. (Well, that's the title of his video series, anyway.)

FactVsReligion: She is really a great film-maker. Most of these channels aren't in this list because it was someone smart or good-looking talking into a camera - there are usually some extra qualities which go into my selections. However, she does fit both of those descriptions quite well.

FFreeThinker: Does anyone know the YouTube atheist community as well as FFreeThinker? I think he friended me maybe five minutes after I made my first video? His "Best of Atheism" videos are well worth watching, as is the rest of his channel, which showcases quality videos from other channels in the atheist community on YouTube.

ghostofdayinperson: Unrepentantly zany. Her videos are beyond description - so why do I even bother? Her music, which she composes herself, is almost as good (and mind-shattering) as her videos.

hairyreasoner: His voice sounds so caressing that people deliberately send him things to read to them in his videos. Honestly, that's the only reason I'm subscribed to him, but trust me, it's a good enough reason.

healthyaddict: She's funny, she's intelligent, she's attractive - why aren't you watching her videos already?

KingHeathen: Hey heathens. I'd watch his videos just for the routine he does every time he has a video (and for the beer). But don't take my word for it, think for yourselves.

misterdeity: If you don't like Mr. Deity, please leave now. This show is a fabulously hilarious parody featuring the comedic trio of Deity, Larry, and Jesse. (But don't forget about Lucy!) And yeah, those readers who are attracted to men should watch this channel just for Jesse.

nathanforst: Nathan Forst is the poor man's next Carl Sagan, and he produced one of my all-time favorite YouTube videos, "Beauty Is Truth". It is one of the greatest tragedies of the Internet Age that "Beauty Is Truth" only has 2,000 views. It deserves your attention.

patcondell: Pat Condell is perhaps the most beloved and the most controversial YouTube atheist today. When I first joined YouTube, I devoured his videos as a parched desert traveler gulps water from an oasis. Now I can't really stand him. However, many of his videos are classics. Warning: if you are religious, you will be insulted.

PBBChannel: Dale McGowan runs this channel. Read his blog The Meming of Life. He provides excellent information on secular parenting. For those who would ordinarily skip over such advice, remember: if it wasn't entertaining, it wouldn't be on this list.

QualiaSoup: Watch "Open-Mindedness". Trust me, you don't have anything better to do, unless you're watching "Beauty Is Truth", NonStampCollector, or EdwardCurrent. "Open-Mindedness" could possibly be the best video on religious skepticism and freethought ever made. Even better, there are many other outstanding videos featured on this channel.

SchrodingersFinch: Have you ever heard of MST3K? The finches unrelentingly mock creationist and ID propaganda, and the results are comedic brilliance, along with a healthy dose of outright pwnage struck for science and freethought.

TheAmazingAtheist: I couldn't make a list of outstanding atheist YouTube channels without referencing TheAmazingAtheist. As long as you ignore the fact that he leads a veritable army of 15-year-old males, you won't regret subscribing to his channel. Most of his videos are quite entertaining, but occasionally he makes one or two that almost force me to unsubscribe to him. Blueberry Pie, anyone?

ZOMGitsCriss: I love her videos, but for some reason I discovered that I wasn't already subscribed to her when I began making this list. Now that that gross injustice has been remedied, I can finally tell you how awesome her videos really are. I won't go Hemant Mehta here, but her channel's definitely worth watching.

Does the Euthyphro Dilemma Argue For Theism? (Part Two)

Marc Schooley, author of the The Areopagus, (who also comments as MS Quixote) argues adamantly in a post on his blog that the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. MS Quixote referenced this argument during a discussion on the reasons why people are theists or atheists at the blog Daylight Atheism.

I intend to present a comprehensive case as to why the Euthyphro Dilemma advances atheism, but to do this, I must substantively and seriously address the reasons given by MS Quixote as to why he believes the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. This is my goal, and I intend to demonstrate my case thoroughly and convincingly.

This is my second post which analyzes MS Quixote's argument for why the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism rather than atheism.

Last time, I explained my assertion that one cannot avoid the ED by positing that the paradigm of goodness is embedded in God's nature:

The first philosophic move of the theist is to pass through the horns of the ED by locating the Good as the nature of God. In effect, the theist answers the dilemma by saying “neither.” Hence, the theist claims that the good is not independent of God, as posited by horn one, nor is the good commanded by God, as claimed by horn two. In effect, a tertium quid is presented: God’s nature is the paradigm of goodness. God’s nature is the good...Note, the theist objection does not say that God’s nature is good; it says that God’s nature is the good.

(The emphasis on the final sentence of that quote is solely mine.)

MS Quixote tries to argue that the paradigm of goodness is embedded in God's nature; but he is simultaneously arguing that God's nature is "the good" rather than good. So he seems to be arguing that there is, in fact, no way to tell whether the paradigm of goodness really is, in and of itself, actually good.

Let's try to use your argument for a thought experiment:

Goodness is embedded in God's nature necessarily, since God is the paradigm of goodness. God's standard for goodness is not a coherent concept - because God is the standard. But why is God good? Because he is; it's a brute fact of existence - deal with it. But what if God's nature was malevolent: if God's nature is the paradigm of goodness, and God's nature is malevolent, then is malevolence actually goodness? God could've been anything, but he just is good. We just got lucky that he isn't apathetic or malevolent or bipolar. God's the standard for goodness because he is - through God, all things are. We know God is good because all things are patterned from him - we can tell that all things are patterned from God's goodness, we can tell that he is the ultimate paradigm, because that's just exactly the kind of world we seem to inhabit:

No random, indiscriminate earthquakes, volcano eruptions, mudslides, or tsunamis,

No rampant diseases such as polio, typhoid, smallpox, or the Black Plague,

Just goodness. We know God is good because that's just the way the world works.

You want evidence, you say? You want to know if this assertion really means something?

Just examine the world around you. Then you'll know.

Why do we really say that God is the paradigm of goodness? Why do we really believe in a maximally great being?

Perhaps it's comforting. Perhaps it's disorienting to believe that we are here on this planet, in the middle of this universe, lacking guidance, lacking care, and lacking supervision.

Perhaps that was the best explanation we had at one time. Perhaps it helps us derive meaning from our existence. Perhaps we feel that it keeps us in touch with the traditions of our families and our communities.

It doesn't mean anything to say that any God is the paradigm of goodness if we refuse to define a standard for goodness. So you say that God is the standard? Fine, judge God by his handiwork, if that's what you believe.

God is "the good", you say. God is "maximally great", you say. How do you know?, I say.

Do you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is good, or do you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is his nature, by fiat?

If you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because of some outside standard, then your God is inferior to that standard. If you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is - by fiat - then you've admitted that you have no basis for interpreting God's nature as "good" or "evil".

Whatever God's nature becomes (or rather, what it has become) is the good; whatever it does not become (or rather, what it has not become) is not the good. As a consequence, you have absolutely no idea what the good resultant from God's nature should be, nor what it is, nor what it means.

Anyone can say, "this comes from God, it must be the good!"

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you believe atrocities." - Voltaire

Does the Euthyphro Dilemma Argue For Theism? (Part One)

Marc Schooley, author of the The Areopagus, (who also comments as MS Quixote) argues adamantly in a post on his blog that the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. MS Quixote referenced this argument during a discussion on the reasons why people are theists or atheists at the blog Daylight Atheism.

I intend to present a comprehensive case as to why the Euthyphro Dilemma advances atheism, but to do this, I must substantively and seriously address the reasons given by MS Quixote as to why he believes the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. This is my goal, and I intend to demonstrate my case thoroughly and convincingly.

First, I must commend MS Quixote for his well-written and well-argued critique of ED. I recommend his summary of ED and the surrounding controversies to anyone who desires to obtain a solid understanding of what exactly the dilemma is, and what is meant by it, when both theists and atheists refer to it.

Because MS Quixote has done such an excellent job covering the historic origins of the Euthyphro Dilemma and the traditional use of ED by atheists, I will not delve into those sections of his essay here. I hope that my readers of this entry will already have some knowledge of the dilemma, and if they don't, I recommend MS Quixote's summary of it, because he does a much better job of summarizing it then I could have done.

Let's cut right to the meat of this discussion: Quixote's critiques of the dilemma.

MS Quixote asserts that:

Another nemesis of the dilemma is the tertium quid, the third option. If a viable third option is presented, the dilemma is rightly deemed a false dilemma. The dilemmas above appear to be true dilemmas; there do not appear to be other alternatives to dead/alive and pregnant/not pregnant. However, if a dilemma states that children like either football or baseball, it is rather simple to provide other options, say, basketball. Thus, the dilemma is defeated. This is commonly referred to as “passing through the horns of the dilemma.”

Lastly, one may “grasp the horns of the dilemma.” If it may be shown that one or both of the premises of a dilemma is false, the dilemma is successfully defeated. With ED, the theist is able to both pass through the horns and grasp them.

So, is the theist really able to both pass through the horns of the Euthyphro Dilemma and grasp them? This is the bedrock of MS Quixote's argument: if I cannot demonstrate that his arguments (which purport to demonstrate that the theist can pass through and grasp the horns of the ED) are invalid, then I cannot state that MS Quixote is incorrect when he claims that the ED argues for theism rather than atheism.

MS Quixote's first step is to demonstrate that the Euthyphro Dilemma is, in fact, a false dilemma, by presenting a viable alternative, a third option, in addition to the two horns of the Dilemma as summarized:

The first horn of the dilemma—Is good willed by God because it is good—locates the good independently of God. The good is conceived of as some standard or other that God recognizes in determining what is good. If this state of affairs obtains, God is subservient to standard independent of his eternal being; there is at least one entity He is not sovereign over. Moreover, he becomes the mere messenger of goodness. Admittedly, this position is untenable for Christian theists.

The second horn of the dilemma—or is it good because it is willed by God—tends to render the commands of God arbitrary. The ED proponent argues with this horn that God could have just as well commanded rape and murder as goods, and that they are evils is only at the whim of God’s command. Furthermore, under the second horn, often referred to as Divine Command Ethics (DCT), it is difficult to make informative claims about Gods goodness, if goodness is solely based upon what God says it is. What does it then mean to say that God is good?

While acknowledging that both horns of the original dilemma are untenable for Christianity, MS Quixote presents his third option:

The first philosophic move of the theist is to pass through the horns of the ED by locating the Good as the nature of God. In effect, the theist answers the dilemma by saying “neither.” Hence, the theist claims that the good is not independent of God, as posited by horn one, nor is the good commanded by God, as claimed by horn two. In effect, a tertium quid is presented: God’s nature is the paradigm of goodness. God’s nature is the good.

Ah ha, the ED is clearly bunk, then! So we're finished, right?

Not necessarily.

As MS Quixote aptly recognizes, many proponents of the Euthyphro Dilemma are not prepared to accept this alternative as an answer to the dilemma. In fact, these critics argue that this framing only moves the dilemma one step farther back:

ED is re-erected around the theist’s contention that God’s nature is the good: Is God’s goodness good in relation to some independent standard, or it is good because God’s character is good? The former presents the same problem as the first horn of the original dilemma, the latter, the same problem as the second horn of the original dilemma which again seems arbitrary or whimsical. After all, God’s character could have been anything.

MS Quixote responds that those critics who reply to his offered alternative with this response fail to understand exactly what he really means with his third option:

Theists generally consider the reformulation of the dilemma a clear indicator that the ED supporter has misunderstood the theist contention that God’s nature is the good. Note, the theist objection does not say that God’s nature is good; it says that God’s nature is the good.

The ED supporter has attempted to establish an infinite regress with the reformulation of the dilemma; however, the theist response precludes this outcome by positing God’s nature as a metaphysical ultimate, a brute fact of existence. Brute facts are explanatory propositions that require or admit no explanation themselves.

So God's goodness is a brute fact of existence. But wait, God's nature isn't good; it is the good, according to MS Quixote.

So how we can call God "good" if we have no standard for what is "good"? If "the good" is defined as God's nature, then anything that is God's nature is "the good". But God could be entirely malevolent, and since it is his nature, then complete malevolence is "the good". For who are the pots to question the potter? God can smash all of them if he wants, err, if that's his nature.

And why not? What's preventing God from being completely malevolent? And how do we know that if there is a God, that he isn't entirely malevolent? If God's nature is "the good", and we cannot define "the good" apart from God's nature, then how can we ascribe any qualities at all to this nebulous concept known as "the good"?

If we agree with MS Quixote's definition of "the good", then we now have no coherent standard for whether something is good or evil. In fact, good and evil become meaningless and obsolete; things are either part of "the good" or they are not part of "the good". God's nature defines what is "the good". And those who speak in the name of God get to define what is God's nature!

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

David Brooks, Kerosene Firefighter

David Brooks' editorial from April 7th's New York Times simply tries to do too many things.

Brooks is successful when he examines developments in psychology, but he falls on his face when he tries to extrapolate the broader implications he has presented in the first sections of the article.

Brooks is citing research which supports the hypothesis that human beings are not fundamentally rational actors.

He cites psychologist Jonathan Haidt's work, and I am definitely a fan of Haidt. I readily acknowedge Haidt's conclusions, but Brooks' interpretation is essentially a misrepresentation.

I would say I disagree with Brooks' interpretations, but this criticism goes beyond disagreement. Brooks is just wrong -- his assumptions are faulty and his logic is terrible. As if those travesties were not enough, while evaluating the consequences of Haidt's research, he also misses some of the most obvious and some of the most profound conclusions of all.

He attempts to present Haidt's conclusions as an atheist dilemma.

"It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning."

However, from the premise "reasoning comes later and is often guided by the emotions that preceded it", it does not logically follow that a pursuit of "pure reason" is ill-advised or illogical.

Brooks implies that we should combat irrationality with more irrationality.

That's like throwing lighter fluid instead of water on a burning building. It's a recipe for destruction.

Because we have realized that human beings are not rational actors, we should acknowledge the necessity of examining the basis for our decision-making as closely as possible. Because we acknowledge that humans have a propensity to make irrational decisions, then we must do everything we can to constantly reevaluate our own thought processes.

Brooks pontificates that "most people struggle toward goodness, not as a means, but as an end in itself". And what ends may we use to achieve goodness? Reason.

Much of organized religion is a stumbling block in this pursuit, which is one of the most important claims of the writings of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.

People often make bad decisions precisely because emotion circumvents reasoning, and this is why reason is critically important to improving the quality of human life.

Pope Benedict XVI advised Africans that use of condoms increases AIDS. Because of this poorly reasoned, emotionally-stoked advice, people will die. People will die because the man formerly known as Joseph Ratzinger failed to properly examine the scientific and medical evidence, and instead relied on his intuitions to arrive at an important decision.

People will die because of this irrational advice. It won't be because Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins waged a war of "pure reason".

It is not when reason is overwhelmed by emotion that reason is unwarranted. Rather, it is just when people do not operate primarily by reason that a faith in reason is most warranted.

David Brooks, the kerosene firefighter, has it exactly backwards.

The Atheist Blogroll and ThunderfOOt

Avert Your Eye is now a member of The Atheist Blogroll!

You can view the blogroll in this blog's sidebar. The Atheist Blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to atheist bloggers from all around the world.

Hoo-ray!

If you would like to join *the* Atheist Blogroll, please visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

Of course, I'm also going to throw in a mention of ThunderfOOt. As many of you may already know, ThunderfOOt is one the most popular anti-creationist, pro-science YouTubers.

His video "YouTube vs. The Users", which admonishes YouTube for not addressing votebots has been removed, and his account has been suspended for two weeks.

If you would like to make a mirror of ThunderfOOt's video, please visit the following website and download ThunderfOOt's banned video:

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=4d77967b07dff9ac4012e8015643d9c840c71670e93b4d0b

Literally hundreds of users are re-posting mirrors of this video. Please support these efforts to reduce censorship on YouTube and support ThunderfOOt.

And if you're interested, please go see Mojoey at Deep Thoughts and check out The Atheist Blogroll. Thanks!

On the Nature of Spirituality (Part One)

As an atheist, how do I understand spirituality? How do I understand the religious inclinations of individuals?

Some sources have suggested that certain people have varying predispositions for the mystical or the spiritual.

For some people, "god" is reality - god exists for them and for them, he is indeed real. That is not necessarily a disconnect from reality -- for some people the mystical is as plain as daylight.

Then again, for schizophrenics, many things are also plain as daylight. But I'm not here to make that comparsion. I want to emphasize that this is a tough topic to negotiate: there are many complicated causes and effects of the practices of spirituality and mysticism.

Most of us are inclined to believe in the supernatural, for whatever reasons we may have, whether psychological, cultural, etc.

Some of us describe ourselves as "spiritual but not religious". Some of us are more accurately "religious but not spiritual" -- like a lot of people who profess that they're Christian or Jewish, etc. but rarely worship and only nominally think about and participate in their religion.

Some people really do have a self-proclaimed "spiritual" sense but don't believe in any particular religion, like Sam Harris. It would also be helpful to consider Carl Sagan's perspective on awe and wonder in our lives when considering this particular form of "spirituality".

I know a few friends (this is purely anecdotal) who have rejected Christianity but still felt in touch with a certain kind of "mystical sense" and became neo-pagan or polytheist/pantheist.

It seems from the way our psychology and perhaps our society has formed, that some people have a real need for religion or spirituality or mysticism in some variety. Now, I realize that it is highly debatable whether people actually "need" spirituality or mysticism. Do people need these things the way a drug addict needs drugs? Or the way a hormonal teenager needs sexual outlets? Or the way that a lonely person needs someone to talk to? I don't know where we should place the spiritual "need" in these categories. However, that uncertainty does not negate the existence of the "need" itself. As long as atheists refuse to address this base component of spirituality, most people will not understand atheism. Religion often serves as a proxy for many emotional attachments and states. Statistics may indicate that the non-religious are no less moral than the religious, but statistics are not enough to create understanding, or evolution would be far more widely accepted in American society than it is today. As long as atheists cannot or refuse to understand the emotional basis and implications of spirituality, people will not understand us.

I believe that this spirituality is an inner component of our psychology, and that each of us interprets this differently due to cultural and environmental influences. Some of us also feel this urge more strongly than others do.

Just because I believe that spirituality comes from inside of us, instead of from some external creator force, does not mean that I casually disregard it or see it as unnecessary to our lives.
There are many emotions and such within our minds that we feel, which may or may not be necessarily "true", but that we almost all acknowledge as perfectly valid feelings, such as love, anger, fear, etc.

I fully acknowledge that many urges which originate from inside of us are negative, and that perhaps spirituality is one of these negative urges which should be eliminated, controlled, or reduced. I understand this point of view. I do not know whether or not I agree with it.

I perceive spirituality as one more emotion we encounter in our existence, just as we experience fear, love, hope, anger, happiness, and many other feelings.

For me, spirituality is a perfectly valid feeling, but I have acknowledged that spirituality probably comes from within us, and also that each of us is especially prone to use confirmation bias to mold the perceptions we have of our internal spirituality so they conform to our culture's external sense of religious piety.

Craig Hogan speculated recently that our universe is actually a hologram, based on "noise" from the GEO600 machine. This is what I think about in terms of "spirituality".

My spirituality consists largely of a fond respect for the absurdity of our universe: if it is true that our entire universe is a hologram, can we honestly say that it is any stranger than, say, SpongeBob Squarepants living in a giant pineapple under the sea?

We human beings are all spiritual in many different forms: sometimes it is expressed through our love of religion, our love of a career, our love of nature, our love of humor, our love of family, our love of certain traditions, our devotion to patriotism or to sports or to politics.

Are other atheists so cocksure that they want to take a popular stand against the essence of "spirituality"? Yes, such an opinion may be valid; it may be correct for all I know -- but now it is suicide. When theists ask us why we can live our lives in a moral way, it isn't because they think we're evil -- it's because for them, spirituality is linked to all of these other positive values.

I agree that this connection is a profoundly negative one. But rather than focusing on a complete rejection of spirituality, it would be wiser and more efficient for us to shift the topic of spirituality away from the religious sentiments which divide us and towards the emotional sentiments which we all have in common.

I have nothing against Carl Sagan's or most liberal Christians' or Jews' or pantheists' spirituality. My problems lie with dogma. I have nothing against faith. My problems lie with blind faith.

I just want people to be able to make a knowledgeable decision about religion. Organized religion has claimed a place of unquestioned privilege in the realms of spirituality and morality which I strongly feel it has not deserved for much of human history. For me, it is long past time to reclaim morality and spirituality back from the vise grip of organized dogma.

I have no problems with individual religious experiences or even organized religion itself. My main frustration is with the monolithic oppression of dogma -- fundamentalism and ignorance devastatingly at work. That is the message atheists need to convey.

Atheists are not opposed to spirituality or morality -- not opposed to emotion or feeling -- not opposed to family or patriotism or service -- most atheists are opposed to the ignorance, prejudice, and anti-intellectualism which are strongly identified with religious fundamentalism and even many guises of so-called religious moderation.

Doubt, not dogma. Spirituality, not religion. Faith, not blind faith. Healing, not heresy.

The next segment more geared toward religious believers.

Dear Christian

I am inclined to believe that atheists will never be able to conclusively prove that the generic “god” does not exist. I can’t foretell this, but it seems that there are too many obstacles and unknowns to justify such a belief.

However, I believe that I am fully justified to not believe in the god of the Bible, the god of the Qur’an, the god of Joseph Smith, the god of Scientology, and many other gods which we know of now.

In all likelihood, I cannot disprove the existence of these gods. But there are things of which I know now which to me make it highly unlikely that any of these gods would exist.

Is evolution true? Then I cannot take the Bible literally.

Is the Biblical revelation, and more importantly, the interpretation of Biblical revelation, inconsistent? Then I cannot take the Bible (or most forms of Christianity) seriously.

Is the mind a product of the brain? Then I see no reason why I should believe in the concept of the “soul”.

A metaphorical interpretation of the Bible is more or less fine until I start to doubt the coherency of Christian dogma. But the incoherency is more or less defensible or avoidable until I doubt the existence of the “soul”.

Then I must proceed in doubting the premises of Christianity, due to this continually evolving set of circumstances.

If, once I begin to doubt the premises of Christianity, I cannot defend them, nor convince myself of their meaning or relevance or application or even existence, then I cannot in good faith profess Christianity as my religion, and then I feel compelled to move on to something else.

I am not here to insult or denigrate you.

I just want to express my beliefs, my experiences, and my struggles. I want to illuminate the discussions of religion and faith and skepticism. I want to contribute to our knowledge. I want to engage others in intelligent, calm, rational argument.

I am sure that you want the very same things that I do.

Why NOT Do Something? Why Not?

A few people have asked me recently, "Why do you care about being an atheist?"

The main argument seems to be "why would anyone care about not polluting the atmosphere, or not allowing children to ingest harmful chemicals, or not killing someone, or not eating meat...so why should you or I or anyone care about not having a religion?"

Wait a minute, you ask? Aren't all of those things you just said substantive, constructive examples of the value of NOT doing something?

Yes! I may be a terrible practitioner of sarcasm, so I'm just going to tell you what I'm saying instead. Huzzah!!

People ask me all the time: what's the value of not doing something?

There's plenty of value in not doing something harmful or wasteful or empty. I believe that the practice of religion often falls into one of these three categories.

Sure, there are benefits to practicing religion: a sense of community, the establishment of a moral framework in individuals, and the introduction of some powerful incentives to help others.

One of the problems with religion is that even the benefits of religion can turn out to have extremely negative effects.

Religious communities are helpful until they exclude others. Relgious communities are helpful until they begin to fight over divisions in dogma. Religious communities are helpful until they start to awaken the divisive tribal instincts of humanity.

The religious establishment of a moral framework in individuals is often misguided is sometimes dangerously incomplete. Unfortunately, one of the properties of religious belief is that individuals can often be easily manipulated for nefarious purposes by believing that some act of discrimination or violence is the will of a supreme being. Religions which allow individuals to come through religious training and teaching enabled to harm others in the name of said religion show a dangerous lack in the rigor of their moral framework. Any religion that can be disguised as hate or intolerance probably contains an element of hate or intolerance waiting to be unleashed. A religion of peace can be identified by the actions of its followers: no matter what religious adherents say, if the followers of a religion are peaceful, then the religion is peaceful. Now, I do realize that many religions have a fringe element or two which defies the peaceful teachings and traditions of a religion in order to practice hate. This I understand, and this would not prevent me from labeling a religion as a "religion of peace". However, when the number of fanatics spikes to the range of millions upon millions, then I will have serious doubts as to whether a religion really does represent an agenda for peace, especially if the religion under consideration has established a history of coercion as a method of conversion and political dominance, and if societies founded upon the ideas of a certain religion breed the repression of and intolerance of certain undeserving elements of the population, then it will further be confirmed that a particular religion is not a religion of peace.

It doesn't do much good to establish a moral framework in individuals when the framework itself is much more hole-y than holy.

But in its defense, adherents of religion also tell me that religion is a powerful force for good in our world: examine how religion compels kindness and respect and charity towards others.

Yes, I believe it is positive that certain adherents of religion are motivated to do something. But I do not believe that religion is the most efficient or preferrable way to do good in our world.

Why do we do good which we do? Many religious people do good for its own sake. This is the most admirable instinct of humanity. But I also fear that at least on a subconscious level, many people who are religious are only "good" because they feel that they will be rewarded either in this life or in another possible life eons into the future.

Religious people sometimes like to tell me that we have "free will", and that this is why there is evil in this world. Yes, there's evil because we "sinned", and thus brought evil into the world. The deity in charge (according to the story) allowed us to have a "sinful" nature, allowed us to bring "sin" into our world, because we have "free will". And why do we have free will?

Theists say we have free will, "because it is better for us to love our god of our own accord, and not through force or manipulation, as automatons -- to do so would not be true love."

And yet certain theists tell me that it's OK to do something good because of a forced system of reward and punishment? The concepts of heaven and hell, it has been said, are the ultimate bribe and threat -- eternal pleasure or eternal punishment: the choice is ours.

But is this system of "divine command ethics" really love for its own sake? If we have "free will" because we are supposed to love this creator for our love's own sake, but if we cannot do so because of a forced system of reward and punishment, then we are really incapable of love for its own sake toward any divine creator deity who would construct such a system.

Surely those theists who believe that we have "free will" because it is better to love for the sake of love would hesitate before contradicting themselves and telling me that a system of reward and punishment is really better than loving something for its own sake?

What kind of love is best -- a kind coerced or a kind given voluntarily? Have we still not made up our minds?

But people still say to me, well -- it's better that people are motivated to do good, even if the system is unfair or doesn't make sense.

That is still debatable. I don't know if people would be any more good or any less good without religion.

Personally, I think people would be just about the same. People who wanted to pass on moral values to their children would still do so - people who wanted to learn about morality would still do so. People who wanted to ignore morality would still do that, too, just as they do today. I don't see how much would change. The same things which motivate people to do good or bad now still motivate people to do good or bad whether there is a divine being overseeing us all or not.

Also, there are a lot of people who don't have ties to religion who do good things. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two of the most important and generous philanthropists of our time, are not religious. Bill Gates said that religion is "inefficient". I agree with him.

As the signs placed in Washington D.C. this holiday season by a humanist group suggest, "Why not be good for goodness' sake?"

I think we can all agree that this is the best kind of love there is.

Yes, sometimes religion does manage to overcome all of these obstacles and ultimately does become a positive force in peoples' lives. Sometimes religious communities form that don't criticize those who have a different interpretation of dogma and don't stigmatize those who aren't members of the community. Sometimes people are able to select the parts of religious tradition which they consider to be good moral guidelines and manage to have a positive impact on society by living through these principles. Sometimes people do good things for the right reasons because that's how they interpret religious teachings: many religious followers see the examples of Buddha, Guru Nanak, or Jesus Christ, and think that it really is more important to do something good for its' own sake rather than to earn a reward or avoid a punishment.

We know the good that religion can accomplish, and I strongly believe that we can still manage to accomplish almost all of this without the aid of religion. I know it will take a lot of hard work, dedication, and perseverance, but I believe we can do this. And I believe we should do this.

We can overcome the negative aspects of religion and we can emphasize the positive aspects of religion in our societies and in our communities and in our families, without serving a specific religious purpose.

I don't want religion to be eradicated. If religion can do the positive things which I mentioned, and avoid the pitfalls which I also mentioned, I believe that it can have a valuable influence on our world and should be allowed to fluorish in that form. However, I also believe that we can accomplish all of the positive things that religion does now more efficiently with greater impact if we're not hampered by a religious message or agenda.

Talking about atheism and the ethics of humanism is something positive we can do. If religion is going to be something we're not doing, it's going to take a lot of effort to do that.

I am absolutely in favor of doing something in order to not to do something so we can instead do something else. I am in favor of promoting reason and rationality and atheism so we can avoid the negative entanglements of religion and instead rely on secular ethics and the morality of empathy to form communities, establish a moral framework, and provide incentives for positive behavior.

What is the value of NOT doing something?

It's infinitely greater than the value of doing something harmful, or not taking something harmful which could be positive and turning it into a positive force, or not replacing something negative altogether with something less harmful and more beneficial to everyone involved.

"Why do you care about NOT having a religion: you wouldn't attend meetings for a non-stamp-collecting group, you don't read non-Twilight blogs, and you don't describe your hair style as a non-Mohawk, so why care about not having a religion?"

The value of not having a religion is measured in the absence of all the negative entanglements of religious belief and practice and by the accquisition of all the positive traits of a morality based on empathy and compassion. There are many ways to value the absence of a negative quantity.

Yes, it is not what we do not do that is meaningful; it is what we do that is meaningful. Not having religion means that I do possess the freedom to think about morality for myself and do good for its' own sake - it means that I do have the ability to research scientific phenomena without having to justify my discoveries through religious doctrine - there are plenty of things that I do because of my lack of religion that are meaningful to me.

This is why my atheism is important.

This Song Is Awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iPA8&feature=related

No further explanation necessary.

By the way, I'm thinking of a doing a parody of this video for Richard Dawkins. I already have lyrics. :D

This could be fun.

I Miss My Church, But Not Religion (Part One)

I miss my old church, the way it used to be. The way it was when I was a little kid.

It's at times like these I remember 1 Corinthians 13:11, when a passage attributed to Paul instructs people to put away childish things.

Now, it may very well seem out of place for an atheist to mention a Bible passage in his blog about atheism. I understand that -- but the context of this entry is my Christian childhood, so please take that into consideration before you condemn me.

Anyways...

I remember a lot of things about my old church as it was when I was growing up. I recall sunday schools and vacation bible studies. It was fun for me because there were all these kids in one place -- and the activities were always very structured. I was one of those children that thrived on structure and I was deathly afraid of having to interact with others on my own initiative. I didn't know how to interact. I was kind of developmentally delayed - not talking until I was in preschool and so forth. It took me years to become something other than a social pariah.

I loved going to church. It gave me purpose -- it gave me meaning. And most of the time, this had little or nothing to do with religion. It was just another place to be, another thing to do. It was a safe place for me, a place where I could be myself.

The elderly ladies of my church always lavished their attention on me when I was a child, and often times there were other kids which with I made friends and spent time doing things.

At one time in my life, my church was a very stable place for me emotionally, and it came as quite a shock when it ceased to have that role in my life, and practically became a destabilizing influence on me.

For much of the time which I attended, my church seemed to be cursed in one aspect or another. Whether it was the succession or absence of pastors, the reoccuring inability to pay the bills every month, or the steady flux of congregants who left our church due to job relocation or a change of denominations, it seemed that things were just going badly. In spite of this hardship, I still felt that it was a good place for me and it was an institution worth serving.

My earliest memory of church is tagging along with my mother to services and trying to follow her fingers through the lines of the hymnal book as we sang songs. I remember staring at the images of the cross, the ceiling lights, and the pulpit, wondering in awe what it all meant. I've always had an appreciation for the beauty of a church, even though the cost of that appreciation has been the decreased comprehension of many a sermon throughout my childhood.

Around age six, I had an enthusiastic, energetic sunday school teacher who was the first person to motivate me to be Christian. Of course, I had no idea what anything meant -- it's just that she was the first person to instill in me the idea that "Jesus loves you". She was a wonderful and engaging person; a wonderful teacher of children. I had a lot of difficulties in my life at that age, and her patience went a long way toward my early devotion to Christianity. Few people took the positive messages of Jesus of Nazareth more to heart than she did. Even though I no longer share her beliefs, I will be ever grateful for her benevolent and kind influence over my childhood.

I still didn't think about religion very much at that point. I did manage to progress slowly and purposefully. By age eight, I could follow along in the services without getting lost. I could sing songs without losing my place in the hymnal book. I was becoming a competent churchgoer.

It was at the age of eight that I first received the Holy Communion. I had to take a few classes on it, but I still had no idea what any of it meant. I think the Roman Catholics have a superior idea by waiting longer for the administration of Holy Communion. This is a reflection of my agreement with Richard Dawkins that it's unfair to force religion on children who have no way to properly analyze its merits or disadvantages. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to take children to religious services, as long as you don't push the faith on them aggressively.

After I received my first taste of communion (grape juice and a wafer - even most of the adults wouldn't drink the alcohol. After trying the communion wine as an adolescent, I don't blame them. I never touched the stuff unless we ran out of grape juice)...

After I received my first communion, I received my first personal Bible. It wasn't the Child's kind, containing mostly illustrations and only minimal substantive details -- it was the genuine article, Nehemiah and Colossians included.

I am a child of the spring. I have a birthday that is fairly late in the academic calendar year, so as a consequence I was also younger than most of my school classmates - which never seemed to help my social insecurity, unfortunately.

In April of that year, I had received my very own Bible from my parents, as a mark of my growing maturity in the Christian faith. That summer would become a very pivotal time in my life in terms of my relationship with Christianity.

After school ended for the year, I joined my church's youth group and attended a Christian summer camp for the first time (though I only went for three days instead of the full week since I was such a young tyke at such an unfamiliar place.)

I was more involved than ever before with Christians. We played games and ate food and did fun things; sure, we talked about faith a little bit, but it wasn't anything I hadn't experienced before. I'm not sure if I took the part about religion seriously or not. Sure, I didn't know what any of it really meant, but my faith had still become a major part of my life.

When I was nine, I finally opened that Bible my parents had given me the previous year. Unfortunately, I skipped to the end and read that just as children as prone to doing. (Who doesn't want to find out what happens at the end, right? I mean, imagine following Christianity for years, reading the entire Bible, and then finding out that Satan wins in the end. What a bummer that would be.)

Unfortunately, the first book I read from start to finish was "Revelations". Naturally, it scared the complete sh*t out of my nine-year-old self.

Of course I knew I was sinful - I'd disobeyed my parents before; I'd even acted up in school a few times (though I usually just quietly did what everyone else was doing).

At the age of nine, I had my first thought that this hell thing was actually real, and that I could actually go there. It was my first experience with a vengeful god.

At around that time, my mother was thinking about leaving our church. I mentioned all of the troubles our congregation had been experiencing. She was just tired of dealing with all that went awry. She put a lot of effort into supporting that church, and I think she was really burned out by it.

I thought we should stay. To my childish eyes, I didn't see a lot that was wrong with it, and it still meant a lot to me emotionally.

The Negativity of Atheism?

As I have repeatedly emphasized, I am an atheist.

I lack belief in the supernatural, in deities, in religion. I reject it.

Therefore, many people have accused me and other atheists of being overly negative. I'd like to analyze this sentiment.

On one hand, of course atheism is negative. That's the basic definition of atheism -- we don't believe in certain things. So sure, technically one would be correct to say that atheism is essentially negative.

However, I'd like to look at atheism another way.

Sometimes, not accepting a belief is ultimately positive. For example, I could say that Jainism is often positive because it doesn't condone violence. I also believe that my parents taught me a positive lesson by teaching me not to steal.

So what does atheism offer?

Atheism doesn't teach us that we are fundamentally bad people. Atheism doesn't teach us that believing something without evidence is virtuous. Atheism doesn't teach us that we are incapable of being rational moral agents - that we are incapable of behaving decently without the supernatural intervention of a deity. Atheism doesn't teach us that some humans will be condemned to eternal torture for offenses committed over a limited amount of time -- that morality by fiat is unacceptable except when condoned by divine scripture. Atheism doesn't teach us that some basic human instincts are reprehensible or should be avoided (humor, sexual urges, etc.). Atheism doesn't blame us for our own genetic predispositions and then condemn us for "sin" -- by saying that we have "free will" even though many critical elements of our lives have been pre-determined by genetics or circumstance.

Yes, atheism is negative. And I sincerely appreciate atheism for what it isn't.

Finally, I hope you all have a very Merry [Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Solstice, Humanlight, Eid, New Year]!

In Defense of Atheism

The following is a lengthy letter which I composed to respond to critics of atheists and atheism on another blog.

I have omitted the handles of those to whom I responded to protect their identity.

"Hi all…
(a): You said that there cannot be morality with a god. I disagree.
Let me ask you something: does your god declare something to be good because it is, or is something good because he declares it to be that way? If your god declares something good because it is, that means that there is a form of morality above and beyond your god, and therefore he could not be all-powerful or all-good. If something is good because your god declares it to be that way, then all of your god’s morality is subjective. Then how do you know that what your god does really is good?
Let me ask you something else: Who is more moral? An atheist who jumps in front of a speeding car to save a child, or a Christian who jumps in front of a speeding car to save a child? The atheist, who believes that there is no life after this one, is willing to sacrifice everything, but the theist believes that he will be rewarded in the next life for his actions. Isn’t the person who is willing to do something good without being rewarded more of a moral person? Are you really a moral person if you have to threatened with eternal punishment or bribed with eternal reward to do the right things?
(b): You said that if atheists were true atheists, they would have nothing to demonstrate or protest about.
I disagree. Atheists are not protesting something which we don’t believe in. If this were the case, I would feel sorry for atheists. However, you have been mislead. Atheists are protesting the actions of Christians and other theists. We protest the discrimination against atheists and other non-religious people in the United States and around the world.
Also, you say that atheists “don’t know god and hate him”. Do you even know any atheists? (b), atheists don’t believe in any gods. There’s nobody for us to hate. We do condemn many of the actions of religious people which with we disagree. However, it would be silly for us to hate something in which we do not believe. Also, I know a great deal about religion. I used to be a Christian; I was for most of my life so far. Then I asked myself “what if it’s not true?”, and then I examined the evidence for Christianity and for other religions, and I found it to be severely lacking. I enjoyed my time as a Christian. I tried to live my life according to those beliefs as best I knew, and I still think that there is a lot of good moral lessons in Christianity and also in other religions such as Buddhism and Jainism and Islam, and I try to live by my own interpretation of morality. You have to admit, almost all Christians do this, too. Do any of you take the Bible 100% literally? No? Then you are doing what I am doing. You live your life according to the sections of the Bible that you think are moral, and you disregard the other sections.
(b): Do you know what the First Amendment means? It means that our government cannot give preferrential treatment to any religion or to religion. That means that the atheists have every right to place a sign on public property if the government is allowing Christians to place a sign on public property. It’s entirely Constitutional.
(c): You say that an atheist “is the worst kind of moral vermin”. Hmmm….
I’m not sure how you can justify that statement. You’re the one who “mocks” atheists and insults us, too. I don’t insult theists just because I disagree with them on theological questions. Most of my friends and relatives are Christians. I respect them for who they are, even if our beliefs differ. Do you remember the Gospel passage where Jesus of Nazareth says “let the one who is without sin cast the first stone”? It’s John 8:7, if you want to look it up. Better yet, look up Matthew 7:5. “First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”. Your own beliefs condemn your vicious treatment of atheists and other non-believers. As I said earlier, most atheists know a great deal about religion. We’re not atheists because we know nothing about it; most of us have done our research and decided that it just didn’t seem to be true, or that there was enough evidence to prove its claims.
Also, you ask “what is good?” “what is morality?” “how can atheists explain the presence of good in our world, or morality, or both?”
My sense of morality is grounded in the human empathy I share with my fellow human beings. You ask if rape is just a matter “of human reproduction”. I would not want my daughter or sister or mother to be raped. It’s hardwired in our personalities that rape is wrong. We don’t like rape because we know it’s consequences, and we sincerely don’t want it to happen to others. Are there psychopaths who don’t share this hardwiring? Yes, and this is why we have police and a legal system. My basic code of morality is that I should always minimize both actual and potential suffering, while always maximizing both actual and potential happiness. It’s based on the Golden Rule, it’s based on our shared human empathy. Good is what increases our happiness and reduces suffering; evil is what decreases our happiness and increases our suffering, both in actual and potential quantities.
Also, I am not a “Social Darwinist”. You’re right to say that evolution inherently says nothing about morality. It is a description of the natural world, not a proscription for how we ought to behave as human beings. However, there are some things that have been developed by evolution in part such as our basic human empathy that do help tell us what is moral and how we should live as human beings.
(b): You wrote that a “moral atheist is an oxymoron” and asked why an atheist would do anything for his or her offspring, and why an atheist would even bother to have children.
(b), the only inherent difference between us is that I believe in one fewer deity than you do. That’s it. Atheists feel the same natural love towards other human beings which Christians and other theists do. I believe strongly that love is its own reward. That’s one reason why atheists have children. Is all of your satisfaction from being a parent contingent on the circumstance that there happens to be a deity in control of everything? I believe that atheist parents take as much pleasure in the mental, moral, and physical well-being of their children as theistic parents do. I am too young to have any children, but from what I have witnessed, there are many intrinsic rewards for parenting, and I’m not sure what believing in a god has to do with the benefits of raising children.
You also write that a “true atheist” would be “entirely self-absorbed”. Why? Atheists have the exact same incentives for loving others that theists do, apart from belief in a god. As I said earlier, our love and compassion for other human beings is based on our empathy, that is natural to all human beings, and which all of us share. Belief in a god has nothing to do with how we treat our fellow human beings. It is a non sequitor.
I agree with your basic assessment (taken from Geisler and McDowell), that there is one ultimate moral code. It is one based on our shared human empathy. This is why all of those cultures share some of the same values, and it has nothing to do with belief in a god or any particular religion.
(c): you say that atheism is “parasitic” on “theistic morality”. No, I disagree. I think “theistic morality” is parasitic on our natural human empathy and the concepts of morality which societies around the world have deduced from it, with or without your particular religion. People who are pagan, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Aborigine, Native American have all deduced these moral truths without the aid of Christianity. I believe that this is powerful testimony for those who say that belief in any god or in any particular god is necessary for morality. Some of the most moral religions in the world are thoroughly atheistic, such as Jainism. The Jains have some of the most powerful doctrines of non-violence in the world. You will struggle to find a religion that has a less violent history. Yet they have no god. I have studied Christianity as a former Christian, and I have studied many of the world’s other religions. Please try to explain away the existence of so many people who do not believe in a god or in your god who live such a moral life. Your premise is strongly called into question by their existence. Research Jainism. Research Buddhism. Both are strongly moral in their traditions and guidance, and both are inherently atheistic. Also, many societies in today’s world that have the lowest crime rates are predominantly or have very large numbers of atheists. Look up the statistics for Japan or countries in Scandinavia. Large numbers of atheists, but very low crime rates. There is no causation between morality and religious belief. None. Your argument is flawed. Atheists can be just as moral as Christians or other theists.
I have no quarrel with any of you, on a personal level. You have suffered because people have told you things that weren’t accurate about atheists and atheism. I came here, to your website, to help set the record straight. I am sure most of you are good, reasonable people. Even though we may disagree on theology, I hope that we can respect one another as people, even if we do not respect each other’s beliefs or lack of beliefs.
There are so many more things I wanted to say to you, and so many errors I saw on this website that still need to be corrected, but I have other things and committments which I must do and which I must keep. I encourage all of you to think for yourselves. Don’t take what I say or what anyone else said for granted. Check my facts. I easily could have misspoken about something. Think for yourselves. Thanks for listening to what I have to say.
I hope you have more positive experiences with other atheists in the future. Peace."

What are your thoughts on this? How did I handle the situation? Is there anything else I should have said? Is there anything I did say that I shouldn't have said? Is there something I could've said better?

Thanks for your opinions.