An Open Letter to Phil Robertson, and Every Other Person Who Thinks Atheists Don't Have Morals

Dear Mr. Robertson and other religious people who believe atheists cannot have morality,

      When I was nineteen years old, I freed myself of my faith after a long intellectual journey that began with me attempting to prove that the Christian god exists.  That journey caused me to read the Bible twenty-seven times, as well as sacred texts from other religious traditions.  I did not know any out-of-the-closet atheists personally, so I had to figure out for myself what was moral and what wasn't--but I found out that it was pretty easy, because I possessed a tool that almost everyone on the planet also possesses: empathy.

     The ability to put oneself into others' situations makes it easy to understand what will do harm and what will do good, and we may act accordingly.  In most cases, we will not even have to think about the other person's situation, because we instinctively act in a way that does not harm other people, if left to our own devices.  It's power, it's politics, it's ideology that causes us to do harm to others.

    Your Bible is full of things I would consider immoral.

• The genocide in the land of Canaan
• The advocacy of slavery in the laws of Leviticus and the stories in Genesis (rules about circumcising slaves exist in Genesis, as well as stories about Abraham using slave soldiers)
• The offer of Lot's daughters to the people of Sodom to rape
• The fact that every law involving the treatment of men and women in Leviticus and Deuteronomy has women worth half of what men are
• The practice of forcing women to marry their rapists, written to look like it's a punishment to the rapists to force them to marry their victims
• Corporal punishment for children 
• The practice of enslaving virgin girls from conquered cities
• The idea that one must shun one's family if they don't believe
• Death sentences for addiction, homosexuality, non-belief, adultery, and the completely fabricated accusation of witchcraft
• The flooding of the entire planet (which, of course, didn't happen, but it's in your myth)

The list goes on. 

My morality does not come from the book you hold sacred.  My morality comes from empathy, life experiences, and the examples of others in real-life situations.  I do not have to be commanded to be moral.  Do you know why?  It's because we evolved to be moral beings. 

It's hard to imagine in a world where we are at war so much, where there's so much murder, rape, theft, greed, and everything else we consider a harm, but we did evolve to band together in tribal units and defend the tribe.  In hunter-gatherer cultures, the tribe cooperates to find food and water, to build shelter, and to raise children.  

In a secular, industrialized society--like the United States is set up to be--we have set up laws and a justice system to enforce them.  Those laws come from the collective morality of the people, which I would rather see come from empathy than from religious edict.  Rule of law provides consequences for actions like the one you described in your horrific rape and murder story involving an atheist family.  

As the father and husband in an atheist family, I found your story to be a disgusting misrepresentation of how atheists view morality and how we live our lives.  We love our spouses and our children every bit as much as you love yours, and we would do everything we could to protect them from harm, because we can empathize with their feelings and pain when bad things happen to them.  Evolution has hard-wired us to do it. 

Sincerely,

Greg Reich, an atheist with a family

_________

This letter is in response to this article on Raw Story:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/duck-dynasty-star-fantasizes-about-atheist-familys-brutal-rape-and-murder-to-make-point-about-gods-law/#.VRG_JA7y7iI.facebook

An atheist wedding

I got married!  Here is the script of the wedding, in its entirety.

[DANIEL, OFFICIANT]

(opening)

We have gathered here today to witness the union of Greg and Jeanie. Thanks to technology, we in this room bear witness to this ceremony along with people from all over the world. On six continents, people who have watched Greg and Jeanie grow in their love are now witnessing their pledge to a lifetime of love and commitment to each other and their children.

(Daniel reads the essay on marriage)

Why do people get married? What makes a couple sign a marriage license and legally bind one person to another?

Sure, there are benefits and protections involved. It’s easier to do things in the name of your spouse. It’s easier to get insurance, it protects the assets you’ve built together, it assures that you have a say in medical decisions, and it makes any process involving children easier. It makes your taxes slightly easier to do.

It’s more than that, though. It’s announcing to society that you are committed to building a life together, that you are on the same page, that you have the same goals, and you are going to spend your life working to achieve them. It says to everyone you meet that you’re proud to call your spouse your husband or your wife.

It’s no longer “boyfriend” and “girlfriend”. It’s no longer “significant other”. It’s not simply “partner”, “love interest”, or even “fiancé”. You love each other enough to take the next step into the most challenging adventure of human relationships.

So what is marriage? It’s dedication and perseverance; it’s talking and listening; it’s helping and supporting and believing in each other; it’s intimacy and laugher; it’s learning to forgive, learning to appreciate your differences, and doing little things every day to build each other up. . As you begin your married life, it is my hope that your family gathered here, that your family not present today, and that your friends from all over the world will support your commitment and look to your love as an inspiration in their own lives.

____

Greg and Jeanie have prepared some words they would like to share with each other.

[JEANIE READS HER WORDS TO GREG]

Greg, how can I express how happy you’ve made me?

You make me feel safe. You accept me with all of my weirdness. You and I have similar goals and ideas, and that’s important when we’re staring a life together. We can always be ourselves with each other.

You don’t just say you care about me; you show it, and it’s not with expensive presents or over the top displays, but with all of the little things you do every day.

It’s when you stroke my hair and hold me close when I come to sit down next to you. It’s the times you say “I love you” out of nowhere. It’s you taking care of me when I’m sick or have a headache, doing the dishes without a word when I’m in pain, and when you kiss my nose to make me smile. It’s when you write expressions of love for me out of the blue and make me so happy, it moves me to tears. It’s when you stop what you’re doing to spend time with me, not because I complained, but because that’s what you’d rather do.

It’s always the little things that matter the most.

I promise to love, honor, and cherish you, as long as we live.

[GREG READS HIS WORDS TO JEANIE]

Jeanie, I fell in love with you early on, within eight days of talking with you. We talked almost around the clock for all eight of those days, learning a great deal about each other. The more we spoke, the more I realized that I could not see a down side. There were only positives. On day nine, I told you that I love you. I can’t tell you how elated I was to hear you say you love me too.

Words are words, of course, and no one can be sure until those words are tested. Everything I learned about you in words passed each test with flying colors. It did not take long to learn that you are completely genuine.

I never knew I could be so happy with anyone. I thought I knew what love was, but you proved that everything I labeled “love” in the past was a shadow of the real experience.

Love is not just a feeling. Love is a blend of emotions, trust, cooperation, affection, intimacy, and bliss. It is holding hands on car trips, cuddling on the couch during a movie, getting lost in each other’s eyes, raising children together, making long-term goals, building each other up, and growing old together. It’s making each other laugh and supporting each other through both good times and more difficult ones.

I promise to love you, cherish you, adore you, and never take you for granted. You make life better, and I promise always to strive to make life better, too.

[DANIEL READS THE VOWS]

Dan: Do you, Greg, take Jeanie to be your lawfully wedded wife? To have and to hold, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, to love, honor, and cherish for the rest of your life?

Greg: I do.

Dan: Do you, Jeanie, take Greg to be your lawfully wedded husband? To have and to hold, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, to love, honor, and cherish for the rest of your life?

Jeanie: I do.

Dan: By the power vested in my by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I now pronounce you husband and wife. You may kiss the bride.

On Chuck Norris

I know lots of people have fun on the Internet with hyperbolic jokes about how much of a bad ass Chuck Norris supposedly is, but I die a little inside every time I see a fellow atheist prop him up this way. An argument could be made that it's not really propping him up; the hyperbole could simply be satirizing how he's portrayed in the (bad) movies he's done, as well as that crappy television series Conan O'Brien likes to make fun of incessantly.

Whatever the case, it should be known that Chuck Norris hates atheists, that he believes separation of state and church is a myth, pushes for Bible curriculum in public schools, and is against vaccinations. Here is some source material to back up my claims:

An article by Chuck Norris himself, talking about vaccines causing autism:
http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2011/11/08/the_venom_in_feds_vaccinations/page/full

Another article by Norris, claiming that atheists are trying to revise America's history on separation of state and church:
http://www.creators.com/conservative/chuck-norris/atheists-in-the-capitol-s-foxhole.html

In this example, Norris says that he would "Tattoo an American flag with the words, 'In God We Trust,' on the forehead of every atheist.": This is an article he wrote himself:
http://www.wnd.com/2007/06/42010/

Here is Chuck and his wife, Gina, advertising for the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pnFg0Sp2Xw

On a final note, Bruce Lee was an atheist, and he kicked Chuck Norris' ass. We should kick his ass to the curb in pop culture, too. He's not just religious--he's a religious nut, and wants you to be one, too.

Comparing autism to atheism?

You know what's immoral? Worshiping a deity who punishes finite crimes with eternal torment. 

You know what's immoral? Shunning your family members if they don't believe as you do.

 
You know what's immoral? Turning your back on your child if it turns out that he or she is attracted to members of the same sex. 

You know what's immoral? Believing in a book that condones slavery, misogyny, and the death penalty for such "crimes" as blasphemy, drunkenness, getting tattoos, eating shellfish, wearing material blends, and premarital sex. 

You know what's immoral? Thinking it's okay to believe in a book that condones forcing rape victims to marry their rapists. 

You know what's immoral? Asking a father to sacrifice his son to you. 

You know what's immoral? Telling people that they are innately wicked, so you can sell them salvation from the wickedness you've convinced them is at the core of their nature. 

You know what's immoral? Using autism as a comparison point for anyone's immorality, as if there's something wrong with autistic people.

This video will stifle thinking

I'm sure some people will find the title offensive, but hear me out--or don't. I'm not sure I care at this point. If I don't lose a couple of friends on Facebook after this, I'll be surprised, but my hope is that I can tell my side of things without being limited to a few hundred characters on someone else's profile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JztnF0XpJ1Q

The above video offended me, but not half as much as the Facebook cause invitation that included it, nor as bad as part of the conversation with a friend of a friend after I commented the friend's post. Following me so far?

The cause that used this video as its rallying point was "Put Christ Back Into Schools". As an activist for the separation of state and church, this cause represents the opposition, and I definitely would never support it. The Founding Fathers saw religion as a matter of private conscience, not to be entangled with the state. James Madison, often called the Father of our Constitution, said on the subject: "Church and state must be kept separate to preserve the purity of both." He also labeled Catholicism the worst form of government, since religion and state were intertwined. He was not opposed to Christianity; in the same letter where he criticized the Catholic church, he labeled Christianity "the greatest religion"; he just thought it should be separate from government.

Many of our Founders were only nominally Christian--definitely not of the fundamentalist variety (Patrick Henry, a fundamentalist, was not invited to the Constitutional Convention, and Noah Webster had not yet converted), and the signers of our Constitution were overwhelmingly for separation of state and church. They only included mentions of religion in the Constitution to exclude it from government. In Article VI, they mandated that religious tests would be forbidden for "any office under the United States." They created the Free Exercise Clause, which must necessarily guarantee both the right to free exercise of religion and the right to opt out. They also included the Establishment Clause, which prohibits Congress from creating laws respecting the establishment of religion. The Fourteenth Amendment applied the Constitution's guarantees of rights to the States.

Schools are state institutions. As such, the state cannot use them to show favoritism to a particular religion. They cannot establish Christianity as the official religion to be taught in schools, and it would not be to the benefit of anyone to do so. There is no religious sect in the United States that represents a majority of citizens. Catholics represent the largest sect, but they fall short of twenty percent of this country's population. They used to exceed the numbers of Southern Baptists and nonbelievers, but given the loss of congregants after the pedophilia scandal in recent years, they may be closing that gap. Nonbelievers represented the third largest religious identity in the United States as of the American Religious Identification Survey of 2001, and follow-up surveys confirm that their numbers--our numbers, because I am among them--are growing. If we had the organization and enthusiasm of the religious folk, we'd be a political force in this country.

We nonbelievers pay taxes, just like the rest of you. Chances are, since we're statistically more likely to have college degrees and higher incomes, we're actually paying higher property taxes than you, as well, which means we are supporting the schools to a greater degree. Imagine our dismay when Christians want to put religion into the schools! My question to these Christians is: which religion do you teach? You do not believe the same way. Do you teach the contextualism of the Catholics, or the fundamentalism of the Southern Baptists or Pentecostals? There are several versions of the Bible; which one do you use in the curriculum? Any answer you give will displease someone, and chances are that the someone will be a Christian of a different stripe.

I live in the Detroit Metro area. This area has a large Muslim population, mostly to the south of the city. My part of the Metro area has a large Jewish population. Where do these populations fit into the picture of putting "Christ back into schools"? These aren't small populations of people, but they are much smaller than the population of nonbelievers. We nonbelievers represent one in seven people, most of whom will apparently only admit it to pollsters. We're coming out of the closet in greater numbers, largely due to socializing on the Internet, planning face-to-face meetings through email and various websites, and the courage of a few outspoken activists who don't mind being in the public eye. We have long been persecuted, and when we do speak out, the opposition often tries to shout us down. I was told by a Clawson, Michigan City Council member, "We don't need your particular brand of non-religion in our community." I had that message in email, and I kick myself daily for not printing it and handing it to the Detroit Free Press. After 90 minutes of deliberation and more atheist voices present than Christian, the Rochester Hills City Council decided to go forward with a religious display in one of their public buildings, based largely on a survey done by a fundamentalist Christian radio station, WMUZ (that couldn't be biased, could it?). We meet with all sorts of insults and demands for us to shut up, but I'm not shutting up. I have every right to opt out religion.

What bothers me most about this sort of campaign involves the expressions of persecutions Christians voice because they can't have their religion taught in public schools. Religious people have 350,000 churches (approximately) in the United States, representing 1200 Christian sects alone, let alone Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, and other sects in this country. Nonbelievers outnumber all but two of your 1200 sects, but since we're not as organized, we often find ourselves alone when challenging things that force our children into indoctrination.

Okay, I'm going to go back to the video for a second and get it out of the way. The video is a flash representation of an email that began circulating on the Internet in 1996, according to Snopes.com. I first received it in my inbox in 1998. The story contained in the video has some additional comments at the end, and I'll get to those, but basically, the video is the classing straw man fallacy. It creates a scenario that wouldn't happen in reality, then knocks it down with faux inspiration. There is an evil atheists professor, or at least a right bastard, whose "goal" is to make everyone into a nonbeliever by the end of this required course. It's a philosophy class with 300 people in it, which is amazing to me, given the size of my philosophy classes at Kent State, which doesn't have a small student body. I had that many in my Biological Principles class, and more than that in both my Psychology and Sociology courses, but in Philosophy? It's a general education elective that not as many students take as the alternatives. In any case, the "hero" of the story is this Christian freshman who has to take the class for his major. That's also amazing, since a core course at the freshman level is usually just a prerequisite, and won't go into anything like apologetics or metaphysics, other than to go over them briefly to get students acquainted with the material.

So our "hero" basically prays every day of the semester that his faith won't be shaken, no matter what anyone says. What bothers me about this behavior is that even well-known apologists (e.g., Thomas Aquinas) encouraged people to think about their beliefs critically--to question everything. If this course was required for this freshman, chances are that his major was actually Philosophy (forgetting of course that it's an urban legend with roots that go back many years before the Internet), so going into the major with no desire to think critically about faith seems like an exercise in futility.

Here are my several problems with this video:

• No professor should ever belittle the religious beliefs of students. At the very least, it invites lawsuits; at worst, it violates not only university policy, but also state laws.
• A student whose beliefs have been belittled should stand up for himself or herself; I would go right to the Dean if a professor had been belittling atheists for choosing not to believe.
• It's a completely unrealistic story that's being passed off as true. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" comes to mind here.
• After the video is where the real problems begin. First, it tells people to pass it to everyone they know, which makes it a chain letter, and therefore undesirable on email servers everywhere. Second, it asks people to pass on a blatant LIE as fact.
• The video asks: "Isn't it funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell[?]" I found this statement offensive, because this video is essentially blaming nonbelievers for everything wrong with the world. It's also claiming that the "world is going to hell", but there has never been a time when it wasn't, really. Things were worse during the Great Depression. Children who went to school for the first several decades after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki lived in fear of nuclear holocaust. Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were no picnic. The Dark Ages were full of war, persecution of everyone the Church didn't like, disease, famine...every time had its disasters and problems. We live in the most exciting--and scary--time in human history. We have a choice regarding whether to make things better or not--and it's not the Atheists getting in the way of it. Scientists are overwhelmingly in the Atheist or Agnostic categories, as are college professors. These aren't people who make war or plot to steal from unsuspecting first-time homebuyers. These are the people who educate others and invent things.
• Next, we get: "Isn't it funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says?" Well, no, that's not peculiar at all. Newspapers have pictures to back up what they say, and I'm still skeptical of the print. Newspapers do get it wrong sometimes, but they are reporting on what's happening in the here and now; they're not our only source, after all, and we can check their information against other newspapers, online sources, and television. I prefer to rely on NPR, C-SPAN, and the actual words of the named sources for my information. If I read a report on a major court decision, I can read the actual decision online after a simple Google search. As for the Bible, we're talking about different versions (the Catholic, the King James, or the NIV? Which one?), and we're talking about self-contradictory, Bronze Age myth, full of magical, mystical, miracles. Am I supposed to believe that a virgin gave birth to a baby boy, that a man walked on water, and that another man survived a few days in the belly of a sea creature without being digested? Am I to believe that there was no other way to get rid of all of the wicked humans in Noah's time than flooding the entire planet, taking all of the innocent animals with it? Am I to understand that all of the babies of all of the wicked adults were, themselves, wicked? We could go into my many issues with the Bible, but I need more than a blog entry--unless it's a novel-length blog entry.
• "Isn't it funny how everyone wants to go to heaven, provided they do not have to believe, think, say, or do anything the Bible says? Or is it scary?" Okay, there is a law someone just brought up to me today regarding rape victims. If a girl who is not already engaged is raped, the rapist (if caught) must pay the girl's father a fine, then marry the girl and never get divorced. That's in the Bible, along with a large number of laws we don't follow today. There's another law that says if you have a drunken, unruly son, you are to take him to the elders and have him put to death by stoning. There is still another law that makes women unclean for three weeks out of the month, basically. Women are unclean for twice as long when they have female babies as when they have males. In the New Testament, women aren't allowed to teach in the church. Do you really want to go there? I'm not saying there's no good stuff in the Bible--Jesus had some good things to say (none of them original to his teaching, except the doctrine of hell)--but even Jesus commanded his followers to hate their families if they don't believe. I'm so glad my family doesn't hate me. By the way, those of us who don't believe in the concept of heaven don't have a desire to go there.
• "Isn't it funny how someone can say, 'I believe in God,' but still follow Satan?" Huh? I don't say I believe in any god, and I definitely don't follow Satan--I don't have a believe in him, either.
• "Isn't it funny how you can send a thousand jokes through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing?" Yeah, well, sometimes you get these emails in your inbox at work, and you don't think it's very professional to pass them on--or, at least, that's what should cross one's mind when receiving emails like this at work...but that's where I first saw this message. Even if you're not at work, you should understand that not everyone believes as you do, and you may offend someone who had no quarrel with you in the past. You have a right to your beliefs, but your right to believe ends where it gets pushed onto me. Do you think I've never had Christianity shared with me? The person who sent me the invitation went to Catholic school with me. What she doesn't know is that I gave up Catholicism even before I entered college, and that I sought out Christianity in different forms until I realized that it was all myth, no different from any other mythology I had studied in the past. I did tons of research, and I read the Bible twenty-seven times, cover to cover, in a few different versions, with thousands of references back to various verses over nearly two decades of discussion and debate with Christians. Reading the Bible for comprehension was probably the single biggest contributor to my rejection of faith.
• "Isn't it funny how the lewd, crude, vulgar, and obscene pass freely through cyberspace, but the public discussion of Jesus is suppressed in the school and the workplace?" Now, this argument represents the logical fallacy known as the "red herring"; it misdirects the attention of the reader away from the real issue. News flash: the "lewd, crude, vulgar, and obscene" do not circulate at work or school--or they shouldn't. You can get in big trouble circulating material like that through either of these places. By the way, if you think the Bible is free from these things, you have not--HAVE NOT--read it. There's sex, genital mutilation, incest, genocide, animal sacrifice--it's full of blood, violence, and mature sexual content. Reader discretion is advised. It's not what you've seen on television.
• "Isn't it funny how someone can be so fired up for Christ on Sunday, but be an invisible Christian for the rest of the week?" Wasn't there something in the New Testament that went something like, "Pray not on the street corner as the Pharisees do; nay, pray ye in the closet, that is in secret." Also, wasn't there something about living by example? In any case, I have no problem with you living the example of the Jesus character in the Bible, but I do have a problem with you shoving it in my face constantly, as if no one has ever done that before in my 19 years as an Atheist (16 out of the closet--well, 9 to my immediate family, but 16 to my friends and co-workers).
• "Isn't it funny how when you go to tell someone this, you won't, because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for telling them?" Okay, here's the deal: if I was bashing your religion, which I haven't before this invitation came to me, I could understand you standing up for it, but what this video is asking you to do is some unsolicited, unwelcome preaching. That's very different from standing up to persecution (and you Christians are so very far from persecuted in this country--try walking a mile in an Atheist's shoes--and an outspoken, out-of-the-closet one, not someone hiding in the closet). Never mind that what you're passing on is a complete fabrication.
• "Isn't it funny how I can be more worried about what other people think of me than what God thinks of me?" And here's where we come to why I don't like evangelical Christianity: there is no empathy involved here. You have no consideration whatsoever for other people; you can't live and let live. You could very easily live the example of Jesus, only sharing when people ask you about your faith, or you could post your profile comments and inspirational (to you and other friends of yours) messages, but to actively pursue me to join a cause that you know--or should know--that I won't support, then proceed to tell me how we all need faith, how our children need faith--that's another thing altogether. I live fine without faith, thank you very much.

People probably think I shouldn't be offended by this video, and you know what? I would have ignored it completely if it hadn't been for the invitation to join the cause. In any case, it got worse after I commented. I sent a private message to the person who invited me, but then I posted a reply to another friend's post. Here are the points brought forward, and the counterpoints to them:

"This was a video to give people the chance to think about what they believe in...real or not, it makes a good point."

If the point is to stand up for yourself when others put you down, fine, but that's not the only point that was made, and some of the other points were quite offensive to me.

"...that is fine we all have our own beliefs..."

And yet, you posted a video that invites people to preach to others, not bothering to care at all what they think--that's the same kind of bullying the fictional atheist professor was engaging in during the story.

"My beliefs are VERY STRONG, as I'm sure everyone elses are...no matter what they are!!! MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL."

Actually, I live without faith. I don't find it to be a value. It's arbitrary. Some people have faith that includes discrimination against homosexuals. Some have faith that interracial marriage is a sin. I can't respect that kind of faith, and I don't see faith itself as a value. I consider the actual values you practice as the measure of your character, not simply what you state your faith to be, because faith not only is it as varied as believers are, but it is also not always consistent with a person's actions. The parting shot wasn't exaclty welcome, either, but it wasn't offensive as, say, blaming Atheists for the "world going to hell".

Enter a friend of the friend, to whose post I replied. She finds the video unrealistic, too, but still thinks it's a video to get people thinking. I disagree wholeheartedly; I think it's a video to get people to act without thinking. I think the main message of the video is to tell people to preach their Christianity to other people without consideration of the beliefs of others--even the differing beliefs of other Christians.

The friend of a friend goes on: "This country was founded by Christians, who believed that people have the right to practice their personal beliefs and religions without persecution...and to protect you in your beliefs as an atheist."

Atheism isn't a belief, but a rejection of it. I digress.

"The majority of the people of this country do believe in a god, so why should the majority suffer because of the minority?"

Suffer? Suffer?! Are you kidding? You have strong social networks, you have churches, you have your own houses; you can meet anywhere outside of work or school; you could preach from the streetcorner legally, and yet you want to have a captive audience to whom to preach your beliefs. That's what you have in the workplace and in the schools. Why should I be subjected to your preaching where I work? I'm there to do my job, not to worship with you. Why should my child be indoctrinated into your faith, or even bother learning about it, when she's only five and can't understand it? You are welcome to teach your own kids what you want, but leave mine alone.

Also, as I've pointed out, you are in a minority sect, no matter which sect is yours, from Catholic to Seventh Day Adventist, from Lutheran to Pentecostal, from Episcopalian to Presbyterian, you are in a minority. Whose religion do you propose we put into the schools? It's either going to be some generic, watered-down version that trivialized what you actually believe, or it's going to offend more than just the Atheist parents. Most separation lawsuits--I may be repeating myself here, but it bears repeating--have been brought forward by religious parents of students who were part of a captive audience at school.

"Maybe it shouldn't be taught at school, but kids should not be punished for praying at school either!!!"

Um...if they are disruptive to the learning process, they most certainly should be. They can pray silently at any time. "Pray not on the street corner..." They can pray at home, they can pray at church, they can pray before and after school, and at during lunch. Why do you want them to pray aloud and have everyone join in with their ritual? News flash: students who want to do this are in the minority. We had them in two of the three high schools I attended, and they were a small group in both cases. Most people thought they were too self-righteous to hang around.

"I know my next comment will upset you and I truly mean no disrespect, but what is so wrong with your children being exposed to spirituality?"

My child has autism. Exposing her to spirituality is like exposing her to nuclear physics; she won't understand it and won't bother with any part of it, except as part of maybe a scripted act. Even if she was neurotypical, I would not want her exposed to religion any more than she already is. I don't care if she sees someone praying, but getting her to join in is reprehensible to me, until she can comprehend what's going on and decide for herself. If she does decide to embrace faith, I want her to be thinking for herself, not having someone else do the thinking for her.

"They should be able to make their own decisions, especially when they become adults."

Do your children live without rules? I doubt it. In my house, no one is exposed to religion unless they can first comprehend it.

"I am not mad at you for being an atheist and I would never insult you, I just feel sad that you do not seem to be open-minded regarding it. You don't have to believe, but I am tired of the minority wanting to have God's name removed from so many things because of the minority!!! That is not right, either. Maybe next time, just delete, if you are tired of seeing it...that is what I do, or turn the channel, etc. God Bless you."

Do you realize that "God Bless you" is actually insulting to Atheists? In any case, I do not have an open mind to exposing my five-year-old daughter to something she cannot possibly understand at her age and with her special needs. I did approach religion with an open mind, and I came to the conclusion that it's not for me. If and when my daughter does get to the point where she is an independent thinker, I hope she learns everything she can about everything she wants to learn about--I'm not going to restrict her exposure then. At this point, it would just be imitated acts and scripted speech--does that qualify as spirituality in your mind? I doubt it.

As far as having your god's name removed from things: do you realize that the Pledge of Allegiance and our paper currency didn't have "God" until the anti-communist hysteria of the 1950s? That's right: in 1954, when McCarthyism was in full swing and religiosity was equated with patriotism, "God" was added to the Pledge ("under God" was not part of the original) and to our paper money (it was added to the coins in the latter part of the 19th century, but by a stealth maneuver on the part of two members of the National Reform Association, a group that failed to add an acknowledgement to Jesus to the Constitution).

This post wasn't as insulting as the next from this friend of a friend. I'm not going to go through the whole next post from the person who sent me the invitation. I just want to comment on one part of it:

"...for those who don't believe that's fine too...just don't try and change my beliefs either..."

Have I ever sent you an invitation to an Atheist event? Have I ever tried to go over my problems with the Bible before now? Have I ever posted a link on my profile that indicated that I thought religion should be abolished, that you're a fool for believing, or anything of the sort? Have I ever invited you to join a cause that had to do with Atheism? No. Why? Because I figured I'd respect your right to believe as you do. It's obvious that you find your faith important in your own life, and I can deal with the posts regarding your own opinions or feelings on the matter, but when you invite me to join a cause that clearly rolls over atheists and their children, how do you expect me to react?

This next bit is where it gets really offensive to me. The friend of the friend steps back in:

"Greg, is there a particular reason why you don't believe in God? Is that to [sic] personal to share? Sometimes I am ashamed of myself, because I do not proclaim Christ as my savior enough. I resent people thinking that my belief in Christ is some sort of crutch, or an ignorance...or that I am a 'sheep' in a herd of blind mind control, fairytale, etc. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, and no I do not think anything was lost in translation, the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that. Greg, please do not be offended, I am not trying to change you...it's just tha tI have found most people that don't believe were 'abused' by someone with religion, etc. and of course being a Chrsitian, I would love for you to find the joy and love of God! plus, you kind of started it by disproving the truth in the video! :) Isn't this fun? lol"

I'm sure some atheists have insulted you, especially if you've argued with some online. I try to tell my fellow Atheists that ad hominem (personal) attacks do not help our reputation or help us to make our points; they only serve to make people angry and make us look angry ourselves. I have not insulted you. I have only pointed out that a video posted by two of my Facebook friends--that I would have, again, ignored if it weren't for an invitation to join a cause--was nothing but an urban legend. I find it incredibly odd that anyone would support the distribution of a video that passes off as fact something that is demonstrably false, but that aside, I did not, at any time, call any Christian a fool, part of a herd, ignorant, or anything else as part of the posts I made.

No, this is not fun for me, but I am making a stand because I want to make it clear why I'm offended. Telling me that most atheists you know have been "abused" by religion in some way belittles the intellectual journey many of us have undertaken to get to where we are, philosophically. It took many readings of the Bible, a great deal of research, a great deal of reflection, and many, many civil debates and discussions before I finally let go completely. I didn't want to reject my faith when I first understood the Bible to be fiction. I went to Bible studies. I sought preachers and people I found to be good examples of Christians. I went to various churches. It was inevitable, though: the more I read the Bible, the less believable it became, especially in light of extrabibilical research I'd done. The religion of the Hebrews was no different from that of any other surrounding culture, which made me wonder why the Hebrews considered them to be pagans or Gentiles. I found many contradictions, even within the same books of the Bible. I came to understand that even the evidence for a historical Jesus is flimsy at best. I don't go around trying to destroy the faith of others because of what I've found, but I expect others to leave me to my intellectual freedom.

The most common follow up questions are these two:

1) Then how did we get here?

I don't know. The difference between you and me is that you've created an answer or accepted an answer; you don't really know, either.

2) Where does your morality come from? The assumption here is that there can be no morality without gods--or, more specifically, the Christian god. I consider all gods to be myths.

My ethics come from empathy, which is innate in humans, as is altruism. We're an empathetic and altruistic species from an early age; we learn to go against this nature.

Putting words into the mouths of Atheists

A long time ago, I voted Republican. I actually voted for George H. W. Bush (not his idiot son) twice. It's a decision I regret, and the words in the image above that I saw on RepublicanOperative.com reinforced the reasons why I regret that decision. George H.W. Bush once said that he considered atheists neither patriots nor citizens. If I could retroactively take away my vote, I would do it for that reason. I haven't voted for a Republican since.

Theocrats have taken over the GOP completely. They're the reason I never registered as a Republican, and they're the reason I will probably never vote with the GOP again, even if they do get rid of their corruption problems, their lie machines, and their ideology of supply-side economics. They obviously don't want the likes of me under their political tent.

That said, let's parse this statement, shall we?

"Atheism: the belief..."

No. Atheism is not a belief. It is a reaction to beliefs. Atheists do not accept the claims of theists. That is all that atheists have in common. There is no system of beliefs. There is no requirement to know anything about the origin of life or of the universe. All that is required is that we do not hold the beliefs of theists to be true.

"Atheism: the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to
nothing..."

No. Atheists do not have to believe anything about origins at all. We don't have the answers regarding how the universe came to be. We don't know anything about what happened before the universe began to expand. I argue that theists do not, either, but they fill that gap in their knowledge with a god or gods. Atheism, again, is simply not accepting the claims of theists. All I had to do to become an atheist is read the Bible, do some research, and realize that the book is not consistent with reality. After I was through with the Bible, I examined other religions and found them equally lacking in substance. It's all about faith at some point, and I have not found faith to be a useful tool in my life. What I have found is that faith keeps some people from accepting empirical evidence, requiring them to have a separate set of facts from everyone else.

"...and then nothing magically exploded for no reason..."

No. Theists believe that nothing magically exploded. Theists--well, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theists--believe that their god magically spoke the universe into being. Yes, he spoke, and the universe came to be, according to their mythology. If that's not magic, I don't know what is.

The "no reason" part is about right; unless someone can prove the existence of gods, I'm not seeing a point to the existence of the universe. It just is, and I'm in it, so I deal with it the best way I know how.

"...creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged
itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned
into dinosaurs."

No. There's no magic necessary. All life took was carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and a few traces of other elements, plus energy, plus time, to exist. Theists believe life came about through magic. Humans were created from clay and life was breathed into them, according to the theology of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. That's magic. According to evolutionary theory, life changed over time, present life had common ancestry, and life is very, very old. Dinosaurs didn't come along until well after the first life. The first life was present around three billion or so years ago, and it didn't even become multicellular until around six hundred million years ago. That's a very long time for genes to recombine and mutate, and for genetic material to be added, which happens with each reproduction. Again, however, atheists don't have to know anything about evolutionary theory. All atheists have to do is not be convinced by the mythology that life magically came into being after being formed in clay. Well, human life, anyway. How the rest of life came to be, their holy books don't say. They just say that they were created.

"Makes perfect sense."

What makes perfect sense is to say that I don't know how the universe came to be, I don't know exactly how life began on this planet, but I do know that I don't have to accept theistic explanations that clearly do involve magic. To recap, theists believe:

1. Their god spoke the universe into being from nothing.


2. Their god breathed life into a clay statue of a man and caused it to live.

Theists absolutely must believe in magic to believe these things to be true. Atheists merely have to say that they have no evidence for magic, have no conclusive evidence regarding origins, and have no reason to accept the claims of theists as anything other than myth.

A Message To Ray Comfort re: Richard Dawkins

Dear Ray,

I am probably not the only atheist out there saying these words to you in one way or another, but I have to get this off my chest and out in the open: there is a huge difference between someone not taking you seriously and someone who is afraid to debate you.

It has long been the policy of Richard Dawkins and other luminaries in the field of biology to refuse to debate creationists, because meeting creationists in the court of public opinion gives the appearance that there is an actual conflict in the scientific community between evolution and creationism, and there's not. It confuses an already woefully scientifically illiterate community, and it does not do anything to advance the knowledge of anyone. It's a colossal waste of Richard Dawkins' time to meet you on your terms, and worse, it could do more harm than good for the scientific community, especially in the United States, where there is a constant political push to take the teaching of evolution out of biology classrooms.

Come on, Ray, admit it: this whole thing was a ploy to grab publicity for your new book, right? It's pretty transparent to me that no matter what happens, you have gained more free publicity from this stunt than you ever would have if you'd simply have stuck to the Christian radio and television circuit. This story brings your book into the mainstream, whether Dawkins debates you or not. I wonder if you researched anything about Dawkins before you challenged him. Why not Hitchens? He engages in debates all the time with Dinesh D'Souza, for example; he'd probably debate you. You picked the famous atheist with the no-debate policy instead. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not, but you do have a history of insincerity.

I remember well your debate with the Rational Response Squad members on national television, if I can even call it a debate. You used the time to preach and quote from the Bible, rather than doing what you said you came to do: use science to prove the existence of your god. That move wasn't surprising to me; after all, I was one of many atheists who watched that banana video of yours, where you demonstrated clearly for the world that you don't know the difference between natural selection and human cultivation. You got one thing right: the banana as you described it and demonstrated it is intelligently designed; you just got the designer wrong. Humans made the banana what it is today, as is true with just about every crop we now consume. We did similar things with dog, cat, horse, and pigeon breeds. I mention pigeons because Darwin mentioned them in his book to explain how we can modify species through artificially selecting out traits we desire in that species, then going into how nature selects for traits by limiting the ability to survive to reproductive age.

By the way, I have a bone to pick with World Net Daily and everyone who has repeated their announcement that you bumped Richard Dawkins from the number one spot on Amazon. First, Dawkins' bestseller was there for how long? Since it came out? How long was your book in the number one spot, Ray? I went to Amazon to check the rankings, and by the time I read the article on WND, your book had fallen to number five. Not that it matters much to me, but it's just something that people keep repeating, and it didn't last long--although I wouldn't be surprised if all of this free publicity helped keep it close to the top longer than it would have been there otherwise.

I have to hand it to you, Ray: you know how to market yourself well. I have to say that I'm personally insulted by the title of your book, and when I read the sample page, where you say that atheism is the epitome of stupidity, I was rather disgusted, and certainly wouldn't buy it after reading that little piece of incivility.

I'd still debate you for ten grand, though. I could put the cash to good use.

Sincerely,
Greg Reich

Ray Comfort Offers Money to Debate Richard Dawkins?

Ray Comfort offered Richard Dawkins, who has quite a lot of money already, to debate him in public.

It is my opinion that Ray Comfort does not sincerely want to engage Dawkins in a formal debate. Oh, I'm sure he wants to appear in public with Dawkins, but I'm dead sure he doesn't actually want to debate him.

The last time Ray Comfort offered to "prove" the existence of his god in public, it was in a debate on ABC with two members of the Rational Response Squad, Kelly and Sapient. Comfort promised he would only use science, but what he did when he came up to the podium was preach. That's it.

Ray Comfort has proven himself to be someone who is only seeking to promote himself and his material, and he is using atheists to do it. When he had the chance to engage in a sincere debate with atheists in front of a national television audience, he chose to forego debate and engage in proselytizing.

I am still of the opinion that the Rational Responders should have walked off in disgust, but it's easy to talk from the peanut gallery. I've been on television and on the radio, and I can tell whoever will listen that it's so much different when you're actually there. And hey, Kelly was just...okay, I'm gonna stop there before I get in trouble with my wife.

I hope Richard Dawkins flat-out refuses, and makes a statement about Ray Comfort's track record of insincerity when it comes to debates. It's a ploy for Comfort to make more money, and nothing more.

I'd debate Ray Comfort for $10,000 dollars in public, but that would be to my benefit, not his; he's actually famous. I'd give him a taste of his own medicine, though: I'd shamelessly self-promote. Why bother trying to engage the guy in serious debate when he's just going to preach?

On Faith and Values

Faith is not a value.

The reason faith is not a value is that people can have faith in anything they accept without evidence (or in spite of it). Faith can lead people to believe anything that many people would value or few people would. They can believe in peace and love, but they could also believe that homosexuality and adultery should be punishable by death, for example.

Faith has been on all sides of every issue at any given time. During the anti-communist hysteria in the United States of the 1950s, the focus was not on the totalitarianism of the USSR or its forced economic ideology, but on its "godlessness". It was during this period of American history when "In God We Trust" was adopted as the national motto and placed on our currency. It was at this time that the Pledge of Allegiance--already illegal for schools to make children recite because of freedom of speech issues--began to include the words "under God".

During the period of our history when slavery was legal, abolitionists and slaveowners alike used faith to justify their positions. There are rules in the Bible for slavery, and the slaveowners would cite these rules as justification for their practice. The abolitionists would focus on the New Testament, where wealth was condemned, equality encouraged.

The Irish Catholics and the Southern Baptists fought each other for decades, often violently, during the 1800s, all over which version of the Bible to use in a public school setting. It's one of the many reasons both sides began to accept separation of state and church as a good thing, especially in public schools.

Faith can lead to delusion. Some people believe so strongly in their chosen ideology that they will ignore even the strongest evidence against their faith-based convictions. Biblical literalism is one example. No matter how much it is pointed out to biblical literalists that the Earth cannot be six thousand years old, that there was no global flood, or that human beings can't survive in the digestive tracts of sea creatures, based on scientific observations, they will dismiss the science, often demonizing it in the process.

Since faith is subjective, it leads to arbitrary values. Believers will often argue that moral relativity is the hallmark of atheism, and that it's a bad thing, but they never seem to analyze the moral relativism inherent in faith. Here is how religion is divided around the world:

• Christianity: 35,000 denominations, most under eleven sects
• Islam: Three major sects; twelve denominations (at least); various schools of thought under each
• Judaism: At least seven, with various schools of thought under each
• Hinduism: 3 major sects with several denominations under each
• Buddhism: 3 major sects with many subdivisions
• Shintoism: 25 groups
• Thirty-four other major religions with thousands of subdivisions and cults.

Faith does not lead everyone to the same end; if anything, it divides everyone. It is not the only thing that divides people; economic and political ideologies also make their contribution, but these are also a brand of faith, complete with their own apologists and preachers.

I am not going to tell you that dropping faith will lead to worldwide unity. I doubt that it would. What I would like to explore is what values might be considered universal, and why.

What seems to be almost universal to human beings is empathy. According to research in neuroscience and psychology, empathy is at least partially an automatic response. There are exceptions, such as psychopaths and sociopaths, but empathy does appear to be something that the vast majority of humans the world over seem to have.

To what values can empathy lead? All cultures have laws against homocide; people do not want to have their lives taken from them, so they see it as wrong when someone takes a life from someone else. There are shades of gray here; some people would include termination of pregnancy as the "murder" of the unborn; most people would allow a justification for self-defense; some would justify execution for certain crimes (especially murder). In any case, murder is outlawed universally to some degree.

In light of the universality of the outlaw of murder, how can anyone justify war? My personal take on war is that the instigator must be a sociopath, a psychopath, or paranoid-delusional. That opinion comes only from the idea that in order to send soldiers to kill and to die, a person must not have much empathy, if any, or must be so scared out of his (or her, I guess, but I can't think of a female instigator of war off the top of my head) mind that he imagines threats or creates them, then works very hard to draw everyone into his delusion and paranoia.

The next near-universal value based on empathy is the idea that stealing is wrong. There are shades of gray and different schools of thought here, too, but for the most part, people don't want other people to take their stuff, and most won't take from other people as a result. I think people feel less empathy when shoplifting, because they aren't thinking about their theft in terms of doing harm to another individual; they see a business making profit, and their petty theft isn't going to hurt, they believe. They don't think about how the reduction in profits will cause an increase in prices for honest people; they don't think about how when insurance covers stolen items, premiums go up for everyone contributing to the pool.

Charity comes from empathy. People want to to good for other people, not only because it feels good, but because they would like other people to do good for them.

The willingness to pass knowledge to other people can come from empathy; people who want to learn will share their knowledge in return.

Empathy is not relative like faith. Perhaps if people went with their empathy instead of faith, they would get along to a greater agree.

Questions That Atheists Should Answer?

I use Google Alerts to get news about subjects that interest me. One of these alerts is a search for "atheist", because, in case you don't know already, I am one. I do see a lot of news articles, but the search also includes blogs. I have toyed with the idea of excluding blogs from the searches, since many of them are just people like Ray Comfort, painting caricatures of atheists with their outrageous stereotypes, putting words in our mouths that many of us--the atheists I know, anyway--would never say.

In any case, I ran across a video from a young man who had five questions he believed atheists should answer. He wanted a YouTube video response or a response in his comments, but I don't think my responses would fit in one comment, I don't want to post several, and I'm definitely not doing a video at this hour--but I thought I'd answer his questions. I will be posting this link in his comments, so I hope he'll run across this page.

Question 1: "Atheists believe that the universe began millions and millions of years ago. Now, how would you know this for a fact, or is it just a guess?"

Greg's Take: Let's parse this question first, because I have some issues with it.

First, there's the "Atheists believe" part. I have been hanging with Atheists long enough to know that we're as diverse a group of individuals as any other group can be; the only thing we have in common is our rejection of theism. There's no worldview that you can assign to all atheists. Some Atheists know very little about cosomology and don't care. Many Atheists don't know a thing about evolution, either, and don't care. They leave these things to astrophysicists and biologists, respectively.

Secondly, there's the word, "believe". Many of us reject the word, "believe", for its implication of acceptance without evidence. I know I do. I have no place for faith in my life, and "believe" is something I'm trying really hard to remove from my vocabulary, because it doesn't do justice to the amount of research I put into the things I know.

Thirdly, there's the idea of the universe beginning. Scientists don't know if the universe had a beginning. They don't. Seriously. All they know for certain is that the universe expanded. How do they know? You know that famous telescope named Hubble? That telescope was named after the scientist who, through the discovery of a phenomenon known as red shift, found out that everything in the universe appeared to be moving away from everything else, and on a certain trajectory. Everything seemed to be moving away from a center.

Fourth of all, it's not "millions and millions", but "billions and billions". The universe started to expand about 13.7 billion years ago.

Finally, no, it's not a guess. Red shift is real. The universe is expanding and has been. Scientists--notice that I didn't say "Atheists", because not every Atheist is well-versed in physics/cosmology--know that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old because a) the speed of light is a constant, b) we can measure the distance from Earth to the stars we can see with Hubble, c) light had to travel the distance necessary for us to see it, and d) no plausible alternative explanation backed by evidence can explain how light could reach us without traveling this distance. In order for light to be here from where the universe began to expand, it would have had to travel faster than light. I repeat: light would have to travel faster than light.

Question 2: Why are atheists like Richard Dawkins actually afraid of admitting to the fact that they could possibly be wrong and that there is a god?

Greg's Take: Let me begin by answering that there are no Atheists like Dawkins. He's an international Atheist celebrity. He's a household name. There are a few with his level of fame: Hitchens, Harris, Madelyn Murray O'Hair, some comedians (e.g., George Carlin), but not many with his knowledge of biology, his soft-spoken manner, and his intellect.

I would argue that Dawkins would say--actually, he has said--that he is 99.9% sure that there is no designer, like a good scientist would say about anything. He also says he's 99.9% sure there are no fairies. Scientists do not rule out possibilities, but science deals only with what can be observed and quantified, so things people accept on faith are outside the realm of scientific thought.

For my part, I say that the burden of proof is on those making the claim that their god exists. Bring on your evidence, because I haven't seen any. It always comes down to faith.

Question 3: Why do atheists think that it is illogical for Christians and religious people to believe in god, because they can't see him, feel him, hear him, et cetera, believe that we don't have proof of god, when apparently, atheists believe and have faith in the big bang theory and evolution? Atheists love to preach it and teach it in schools, so wouldn't that make atheism a religion?

Greg's Take: We come back in this question to the mistaken noting of Atheists believing things. Think of it more like this: Atheists, for the most part, from what I've seen and experienced, trust scientists. At least, those among us who know science (or are scientists ourselves! Not me--I'm an IT professional) trust scientists, because scientists deal in what is observable, quantifiable, and verifiable. I will admit that many Atheists get overzealous in their defense of evolution and the big bang (which I prefer to refer to as the expansion of the universe as we know it) and go a little far, taking liberties with what science is actually available, but as a former biology major and someone who really enjoys science, as someone who reads journals and science news, I can tell you that evolution is a fact, that it is inevitable, and it takes more knowledge than I can impart to you in this blog entry to understand how it works.

To simplify evolution as much as I possibly can, it's all in the genes. To expand just a little, I can say with certainty that during reproduction, a little bit more information is added to DNA. This addition is an observable, verifiable fact. With additional DNA, there is a possibility that different genes will be active in the next generation of a species, which explains population genetics, but I won't go into that at the moment. What I can say is that when you add mutation (which is the only mechanism creationists seem to think exists for evolution; it's not) and gene-crossing to the mix, you have all sorts of possibities that open up.

I can expand and expand and expand, but unless you've taken a few courses in biology at the college level, you're not going to get it. Evolution is a fact; it's the theories regarding evolution that are not 100% proven--but they are 99.9% there. Evolution has so much predictive power in science. For example, you know the flu vaccines that are administered every year? Scientists know how to make these vaccines because they can predict the evolutionary path of viruses--and it is a statistical fact that people who get flu shots are less likely to get the flu, and more likely to recover faster from it if they do get it.

I already touched on the Big Bang theory, so I won't go over it again. I would just advise you to think of it as an expansion of the universe, because nobody knows what happened before 13.7 billion years ago. Nobody. There are some educated guesses, but there is no certainty.

Oh, and no, atheism is not a religion. If Atheism is a religion, bald is a hairstyle. The reason evolution and the Big Bang are taught in schools is because science must be taught in science classrooms. It is unfair to students who want a career in the sciences to waste time in science class on things that are not science. Creationism is a matter of faith, and does not belong in a biology or physics classrom. What you learn in science classes has everything to do with the body of knowledge that scientists have built, and has nothing to do with popular opinion or debates between people of faith and people of no faith.

Question 4: If the big bang theory were true, then how did everything in the universe come to be designed the way it did? Like for example, how could the Earth be in the perfect position for the sun to give it light, and if it moved by an inch or so, we wouldn't have light like we have now, and the Earth is the only planet with supplies for human life? [I tried to correct for grammar here, but you get the gist, right? I gave up because I hate playing the grammar police.]

Greg's Take: First of all, the Earth moves much more than inch toward or away from the sun, depending on where it is in its orbit. Secondly, how do you know that Earth is the only planet that can support human life? It's a big universe out there, and there could be thousands, millions, or billions of inhabitable planets in it. We just don't know. The odds are good that there is some more life out there in some form, given the number of stars, and given the number of solar systems with planets astronomers are now discovering.

Life has always been a struggle on Earth. While life begets life, life also eats other life. Life has to contend with climate changes and natural disasters, geographic separations and limitations on food sources. Species after species forms and dies. Warm-blooded species last an average of twenty-five million years; cold-blooded species last around three hundred million. I should say that the genus lasts that long, because there is a blurry line where the species becomes so different that it can no longer breed with creatures like its ancestors. Given what geneticists know now about the amount of information that is added with reproduction to DNA, enough change will occur over a twenty-five million year period to make the descendents become very different from their ancestors.

To say that this life is "fine-tuned" for life (which is how it is usually worded) is to have it backwards: life struggled and thrived due to adaptations that allowed it to live under the conditions that existed already. This planet was uninhabitable 3.5 billion or 4 billion years ago; whatever the first life was had to have the correct adaptations to allow it to survive under the conditions that existed then. I am fairly certain that more than one combination of self-replicating proteins appeared, but only the combination(s) producing the characteristics giving it survival advantages thrived.

Question 5: When Christians like my brothers and sisters in christ and I spread the word of god in a loving and perfect way, why do you have so much hate towards us when we share with you about the gospel of our lord and savior jesus christ, when he came to this world to save sinners, he died on the cross for our sins, and was risen from the dead?

Greg's Take: I can't speak for all Atheists. No Atheist can. What I can say is that I do not hate you. I don't know what reactions you're receiving that you translate as hate, but I can guess, because when I first rejected religion, I was angry, frustrated, and alone. I knew a precious few people who were Atheists, and when I came out to my Christian friends, they just wouldn't leave me to it. They felt that I was "lost" and that my "soul" needed "saved", but they--and you--have no idea how condescending that sounds to someone who has just undertaken an intellectual journey away from religion. I read the Bible at least twenty-seven times through during my life, referring to various versus hundreds, perhaps thousands of times during the course of my journey. I studied ancient religions, I studied philosophers and apologists--rejecting faith wasn't something I came to lightly. For people I once considered friends to treat me as though I was being foolish, going through a phase, or as if I had lost my way somehow was disheartening and annoying. That's probably one of the perspectives you're meeting.

I'm well beyond that point now. I'm not angry as much anymore, though I do get passionate about defending kids from being ostracized from their religious classmates, or when a town turns against a family for wanting to keep religion out of government, or when Atheists are painted as hateful, bitter, morally corrupt people. In any case, toward individual Christians, I am pretty much done being angry, but it can get a bit annoying, hearing the same thing over and over. Having debated with Christians since 1991, I can tell you that I haven't come across anything new in about ten years. Sure, there are new spins on old arguments, but it always comes down to the same thing: you have faith, you have ancient texts, and you have artwork. You have no real evidence to prove that your Bible is true, you have no evidence that your god exists, and Jesus is just mythical as any other figure in your anthology of myths. You truly believe that Jesus performed all of those miracles, that he was born of a virgin, that he rose from the dead; I can't buy into any of it. There's scant evidence that he was even a historical person, let alone this magical man-god that your Bible makes him out to be.

Do you really believe Jonah could have survived in the belly of an ocean-dwelling creature? He wouldn't have drowned, asphyxiated, or been digested over the three days he supposedly spent in there?

Don't even get me started on Noah's flood. If you believe that story, please build me a boat with those dimensions that will float--without steel supports, entirely of gopher wood (whatever that is). The longest wooden boat ever built without steel supports was less than three hundred feet long. The reason why was a phenomenon known as "keeling". Essentially, the wood would crack and the boat would sink. Never mind explaining how all of the salt water and fresh water life survived, how algae could have survived without sunlight for forty days and nights, or any other of the long list of things in that story that just aren't possible.

I don't hate you; I just get a bit annoyed by the constant attacks on physics and biology by people who have, at best, a limited understanding of the subjects. Do you know the complexity of the math involved in physics and biology? Have you taken an advanced chemistry class? These subjects aren't ones just anyone can take; science involves heavy mathematics and logical thinking. It's not surprising that most people aren't scientists, but it is surprising how many people reject science out of hand when they haven't taken even the freshman level courses at the college level, if they even took the very basic high school level ones.

I don't hate you, but your Bible bothers me. I don't like being called filthy, foolish, a liar, and an antichrist. I don't like the execution orders your Bible gives regarding Atheists in at least four verses. I don't like how your Bible treats women as the property of men. I don't like its support of slavery. It bothers me that the only way your god character could think of to absolve human beings of sin was to make a humiliating blood sacrifice of his only begotten son (if I would even go as far as to accept this myth, which I don't). It also bothers me that this concept of original sin was born of a myth about a man and woman who didn't have the knowledge of good and evil, but were expected to know that it was evil to disobey your god when they were punished for eating fruit (!) that somehow gave them this knowledge.

Conclusion: I hope I've answered your questions to your satisfaction. Feel free to ask follow-up questions.