Mere Atheism: Why Atheism Is No More Valid Than Religion

Great paragraph here, terrific imagery:

"Organized religion is a plague on the face of the world. It smokes and writhes through human history leaving death, destruction, hate, fear and oppression in its wake. Nothing can withstand it. It despises reason, it hates anything that is different than itself and it will do whatever necessary to survive."

I like the conclusion also.

Scrib,
That is my favorite paragraph too. Believe it or not it came out and needed not a single revision. I LOVE IT when that happens. It feels like, well, the hand of God.

So you're a deist, like our Founding Fathers. Cool.

I've never heard anyone articulate exactly how I feel so succinctly before. Thank you for saying what I'm sure so many of us feel. If more spiritualists weren't afraid to leave the support of the church and stand on their own, maybe the lunacy of religion wouldn't control world politics the way it does.

Great! Another idiot who thinks he knows what atheists are about.

slim-

I invite you to show me where anything I said about atheists was inaccurate.

Thank you apoplexy.

greg,

Not really. More of a spirtualist.

Christianity has a bad rap due to people and organization claiming to be one and acting in the opposite way. Real Christian live like Jesus Christ and follow His teachings. Everyone has free will and that should be respected. Love is the foundation of Christianity and love does no harm to another.

I think Mr. Kumm is, as usual, right on the money. Based on this posting and everything else I have read that he has written, I think he has the clearest judgement and the most wisdom of anyone I've come across. I hope he keeps expressing his ideas. The world could use a few more of him.

Atheists are not closet spiritualists. That divine spark that you're so excited about is something that atheists share in the form of secular humanism based on our shared existence and common hopes and fears. What you call spiritualism, is really just a form of irrational aestheticism - the placement of emotion above reason. That's fine, but it says more about our human limitations than the actual universe. I don't think you can explain quantum weirdness by assigning emotional motivations to sub-atomic particles, however poetic that might be. Secondly, spiritualism refers to 19th century religious belief that mediums could speak with the dead, so you need a new term. Thirdly, spiritualism as you describe it is essentially devoid of any content. You're saying you believe in something, but you won't say what. Virgin births? Transmigration of souls? What exactly are you claiming? Finally, Atheists do not believe you can reference God, gods, or anything supernatural to explain natural phenomenon and that's pretty much the end of the story. They will acknowledge that scientific knowledge is always incomplete and highly improbable things are still possible, but that doesn't leave the door open for plainly impossible (and factually irrelevant) things like supernatural beings. I understand your desire to bring the rational and the emotional into balance, but you have to remember that these are strictly human qualities and it would be a fallacy to try to project them onto the natural world.

religion or not, read "Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation" by Ian Stevenson.

Nice post Andrew!
You have read with experience and care and concluded accurately. I'm surprised at the praise Mr. Kumm is being awarded. In a debate, his arguements would not hold up for a moment. Come, atheists, you really are a spiritualist simply because an idea, indoctrinated since birth wouldn't shock you upon learning of its reality?

Let's TRY to make logical sense when you are TRYING to come to a final conclusion (no hubris there). "So, atheism doesn't make any sense." should really follow a line of reason that is more than 'the religious don't like the word'. And just because reality is complex doesn't mean it isn't rational. String theorey comes from mathematics, not a bad acid trip. The same basic reasoning as ever leads you to your spiritualism: if it's difficult to understand, it must be explained using the unnassailable 'other' notion. I ain't no spiritualist and I certainly am not religious!

Brandon - buy a dictionary and look up the meanings of words before using them incorrectly or redefining them. Atheist is the correct use, not meant to inflame anyone. It means "against theism" which is the belief in god. I am an atheist, not a spiritualist, not an agnostic. There are many of us out there. You are incorrect on many points in your article. First, I am an atheist and in no need of believing in gods or spirits since there is no evidence of either. It is irrational to believe in things which have no evidence for their existence. The point that you made about not having evidence that there is no gods or spirits is an illogical argument and not being able to prove a negative is a valid argument. If you understood the principles of reasoning, you would know that. There is no evidence for spirits or people having a spirit - no one has ever found one even after many many attempts. Therefore, spiritualists are irrational because they belief in something where there is no evidence. Spiritualists, by the way, belief they can contact the dead - is that what you really are or are redefining the word again? As for the dark matter and black holes point, you are incorrect once again. You are using the word "rational" incorrectly here. Quantum fluctuations are incapable of being rational or irrational since they do not have mental functioning, they have no brain. Humans have brains - at least some of them do. Your list of scientific discoveries have observable evidence for their existence. Scientists didn't just make them up, like spirits and gods. One more problem with your article - creativity and ethics, thoughts and beliefs all reside in the brain, not a spirit. We have evidence in the existence of brains. People with brains - atheists like myself can be creative, have ethics, thoughts and rational beliefs without being spiritual, religious or agnostic. One has nothing to do with the other. I do not simply believe this, I know it. And I also know that your article is drivel and if someone has paid you to write it, they are behaving irrationally.

Andrew pretty much said it all, although I would add that your comment about the debate between whether you can prove a negative or not is not pointless. You can't prove a negative, atheists win the argument (as asual) and the fact that religionists don't care about facts is a mark against them, and does not constitute a draw in the debate.
It is understandable that religionists would hold so tightly to their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I would too if I believed that I would spend eternity in bliss for believing the absurd and suffer an eternity of torture if I thought for myself.

kihsdoifhjsdoifh

Andrew and others:

I value your comments because I feel they will help make me a better writer. However, your comments are based on a knee-jerk reaction to things that you read, perhaps without fully comprehending what was being said.

This process begins with the title of the article: "Why Atheism is No More Valid Than Religion". The title was written in a particular way to elicit a particular response from atheists. It has obviously accomplished this.

I especially like the way that people have focused on one of the very things that I said was pointless, proving my point wonderfully. Whether or not you can prove a negative is not in any way really relevant to the point that I was trying to make, but the reaction to logical fallacy (barely) of proving a negative has demonstrated the point better than I.

As for some of the more angry things that have been said, I would ask you to examine why it is necessary for you to attack someone who stands to do you no harm? I am not religious. I 'push' my beliefs on no-one, so why the anger? And mostly from atheists? Just think about it.

Your arguments are slightly better than Scott Adams, which is not saying much. It's always refreshing for someone to tell me I'm not really an atheist, but a closet spiritualist. Show me a spirit and I'll convert. Otherwise, I'll remain an atheist while you spend your time personifying inanimate processes.

I don't understand your anger, but as you will. I do appreciate your comments.

It is one thing for a person to say that they do not believe in god (an atheist), it is quite another for a person to say that they don't believe in any kind of human potential that can not necessarily be defined.

You are stuck in the definition of the word spiritual that has been poisoned by hundreds of years of religion.

Brandon:
Unfortunately, many of the negative posts are because of your liberal (not meant politically) re-definition of key terms. These are the definitions that I learned, I present them because they seem to make sense, not because I think yours are necessarily wrong:

Atheist: without belief in God
Anti-theist: against belief in God
Agnostic: without knowledge of God

Similarly, Asexual means 'without sex', not 'against sex'. The prefix a- is for without, while the prefix anti- means against.

From my observations, most atheists are NOT anti-theists, though they are much more likely to be anti-religious. Most self-proclaimed atheists (and if they're using the term on themselves, it's probably the right term in their minds) don't care if others believe in God, what they have a problem with is the perversion of Religion to do evil or encourage ignorance.

Chris --

I did use rather liberal definitions of the words, but I'm trying to make a point apparently I'm doing a poor job of it.

Thank you for your comment and thoughts.

Mr. Kumm makes many false and misleading assertions apparently based in a bias against "religion." Here is one of the most blatant and ignorance-based assertion:

"I believe that the scientific method has done more for the betterment of the human condition than every prayer ever uttered."

Are we talking about the "scientific method" that brought us the atom bomb or the hydrogen bomb? And when it comes to prayer and the betterment of the human condition, it seems quite presumptuous for anyone to make such a wild claim that has no hope of ever being verified by empirical data. I am just ONE person in one place in history, and I know the effectiveness of prayer that has helped save lives and keep people from getting hurt, sometimes by me. But let's move on to the next irrational comment:

"Religion has poisoned even the day to day discourse among rational people and continues to be a force for retarding the gowth of technology and science."

This is an ignorant rant probably based on limited experience with a little special pleading mixed in. This assertion assumes that you can't be "religious" and rational at the same time. Non sequitur. And if you knew even the most basic facts of history and how "religion" has contributed to "science and technology" (remember how Gregor Mendel, father of modern genetics, was an Austrian MONK?), you would not have made such a fallacious and historically bankrupt comment.

Now this one really gets my goat, because I've heard it so many times from atheists that I now call it the atheist montra. Yes, I know you say you're not an atheist, but it IS their montra:

"While it is true that there is no evidence for a god or gods..."

Wow, is it really "true" that there is "no evidence" for a god or gods? Let me make this plain. There is more than enough empirical, verifiable evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God that only the very irrational can deny it. But what people do is irrationally dismiss the evidence and then proudly repeat the montra: "there is no evidence." NO, what you mean is, I don't accept the evidence or I refuse to accept the evidence or I haven't carefully and honestly searched out any evidence. When people dishonestly deal with the evidence, like Holocaust deniers, then of course you can deny anything, from a round earth to a blue sky. So let's stop with the "there is no evidence" montra games.

I'll give you props for also saying that there is no evidence to the contrary. However, it is a fallacy to argue that you cannot prove a negative. Only the misinformed make such an argument, since it is possible to prove a negative; it is just notoriously difficult depending on the KIND of negative you're talking about.

There's more irrationality I could answer, but that's all I will do for now. My earlier post may not have gone through or may have been deleted. But hopefully my free speech will be allowed here.

Wow Brandon,
If you think these posts are angry, then you haven't blogged enough. These are relatively tame, and I don't think I actually read any that ATTACKED you. You hid your point so that we all get to argue over what it actually was. I followed from your title, and your conclusion, that atheism is bunk and we're all misunderstood/misunderstanding "spiritualists". You also deviously told us we ascribed to an immature doctrine, and that we might grow up eventually. Well, call a careful customs officer a racist and you might get the same or worse reaction. We know what we are and screwing around with words and poor logic neither instigates intelligent discourse nor does it prove any of your points. Your "spiritualism" is simply an internalization of the concept of God. It's probably NOT the next wave in world religions.

I should also be said that Atheism is no less valid than religion. It's certainly more rational.

“I have seldom met an intelligent person whose views were not narrowed and distorted by religion.” –James Buchanan

The self-perpetuating rant of secularists that organized religion has done nothing but foster hate, death and destruction is contradicted by the historical evidence and the present contribution of Christians and those of other faiths to contemporary society. But I suppose if you tell people what they want to hear they'll keep on applauding. If you can read, if you have ever benefited from a hospital or a university, you are in debt to religion. Try reading a little less Dan Brown and get onto amazon and order something written by Prof. Rodney Stark.

I THANK GOD I'M an ATHEIST!!!!!

You are angry and you will thus burn in hell for eternity. Get some education.

As a christian (not a spiritualist) i agree with some of what you're saying. Obviously im not a fan of atheism or agnosticism, but "Religion" is also a dumb idea. "Religion" is just a system of rules and regulations one must follow so that they feel accepted by #1 "God" and #2 the leaders of their religion (whether thats a pastor, rabbi, or even the pope!). Modern westerners have twisted christianity into a mere system of rules, or a "Religion". but its really not that at all. Yes, there are certain things that you cant do (such as murder, commit adultry, ect.) but thats not the basis of the Christianity. instead, its faith. the belief in a God who wants to have a Relationship with humanity. Christianity (in my mind at least) is more rational that Atheism or any other belief system. the only problem is, most christians in the western world dont use their God-given brains! The Bible actually says that christians should always be able to "give an answer" about what they believe, even scientifically. For some odd reason, Christians think that science is of the devil and shy away from it. instead the christian church should be hard at work scientifically proving creationism and not telling evolutionists they're wrong just because that's what they believe. even more embarrassing is that christians dont even know what they believe about christianity. they just believe what their pastors tell them and not what the Bible actually says. some actually pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to believe, but condemn others for adding or taking away from it. I cant claim that I'm completely innocent of these things but I am making an attempt to be a true follower of Jesus Christ and not a "christian", someone who just goes through the motions and doesnt give a crap.

Try this one guys and girls: It just depends on what your definition of is,IS.

Peter Canadian:

How is my logic poor? If you don't like the word play or the changes in definitions or the style or what have you, then I would suggest that you need to do a little more reading and a little less ranting.

Since you seem to be having difficulty with my logic, here it is in a very simple form. There are virtually no people on the planet who have not at least contemplated the existence of a deity or higher power or animist or multiple deities or on and on. Thus, if you have contemplated the existence of god and rejected that FOR WHATEVER REASON, that is a belief. Further, almost every atheist I know, including many in these posts, have admitted the possibility exists (however remote) that god, higher power, does exist. Do they believe in little fairies or sprites or angels or ghosts or any other of that folderol? Of course not, but any doubt as to the existence of god makes an atheist an agnostic.

Now, you can label yourself however you choose, but don't get all bent out of shape when someone calls you what you are. Being an atheist is no more of a badge of honor than being a Christian. It just is.

I believe that spiritualism (not supernaturalism) is an acceptable way that will let us all practice in peace.

Arthur--

I don't even know where to begin.

Pray the lights on. Go ahead, heck, get your family, heck get your whole neighborhood and pray the lights on. It's okay, I've got time, I can wait. No really, it's no problem, you see I can just reach over here and turn on the light switch so I don't even have to sit in the dark like you. Get those lights on yet?

Science: 1
Prayer: 0

Okay, for our next test, say my son has fallen badly and broken both his leg and his arm. Now, I'm not going to screw around with his health, but I'll give you and one hundred of your best prayers a shot at healing him. Come on, you'd better hurry the ambulance is on the way. No, you can't do it. Funny, three hours later here he is smiling and laughing with his arm and leg in a cast.

Science: 2
Prayer: 0


I can keep this up all night.

Have you read the comments? This was supposed to be a piece (apparently written in the worst way imaginable, with shoddy logic to boot) on why atheists need to shed the term atheism and realize that their rabid defense of atheism is no less crazy than talking to a Christian who believes that God created the world in six days. Suddenly, it is a free for all where I'm getting it from all sides, in every way imaginable. You don't think religion has poisoned discourse? Take a look around.

Oh, so then you trot out Mendel while churches and church members in several states in the US actively oppose the teaching of science to children. Trot out Mendel when it took the Roman Catholic Church 400 years to apologize for putting Galileo on trial. Forgive me if I don't find your argument very convincing.

There is no direct, empirical evidence for the existence of god. Period. Full stop. If there ever were it would be the greatest discovery of all time and the world would stop. Hasn't happened.

However, thank you for recognizing that you can indeed prove a negative.

What do you think has kept the moon orbiting the earth and the earth orbiting the sun for millions of years in spite of occasional hits by asteroids? The laws of physics (science) would result in changes in the mass and kenetic energy of each that would have upset the extremely delicate balance between centrifugal force and gravity long ago. I believe God has compensated for this with a little push in the right direction once in a while. Could this be conclusive eveidence that there is a God?

Brandon, your logic boils down to what's called the god of the gaps. You say "Atheism also doesn't make sense in the idea that there is nothing other than what is "rational". Quantum physics and Quantum mechanics are rapidly showing us that our limited physical ideas of space and time, what we would call the "rational universe", is just a tiny part of what is actually happening. Dark matter, dark energy, Superstings, quantum fluctuations in space-time, the Hubble constant not being a constant at all, but an ever increasing rate of expansion, multiple dimensions, black holes and the very nature of space-time itself all show that our "rational universe" is not very rational at all." Just because science doesn't have it all figured out yet and maybe never will does not mean in any way that "spiritualism" is the answer. You wouldn't know squat about quantum physics if it weren't for rational thinking and the scientific method. There's also a lot of talk here about not being able to prove a negative. That may be true, but you can pare the odds in favor of the atheist with a little thing called Occam's Razor. All evidence being equal, the simplest explanation is almost always the correct one. So what's simpler? That the universe came into being itself through humble beginnings, or that an infintely complex god (who appeared out of nowhere) made the universe? Now you'll say, "Well if you're right then the universe came out nowhere, why can't god? Here's the catch people: there's plenty of evidence for the universe, there is none at all for a god. So why dream one up if you don't need one? You seem to fall into the same mind trap as many of my agnostic friends.
"I don't believe in god, but I believe in something bigger than us." That's nice for you. The problem is you don't know what the hell that "something bigger" is or even if it exists. You can say "God is energy". Does that mean a lump of coal is god? You want to get rid of the whole "father in the sky" type of god, but you can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that there isn't a god at all. Reason has nothing at all to do with faith by definition. Please quit trying to shoehorn it into "spiritualism" or any other "woo-woo".

I was raised Catholic, even considered a vocation as a priest, but finally walked away from the whole doctrine (though I still bear scars). The key element was the church's teaching that I should examine my conscience as I asked for forgiveness for my "sins". The examination of conscience was like a slow virus that killed my faith in "organized religion", and, ultimately most religious concepts. "Conscience" freed of dogma turns to the rational and the scientific, but like the agnostic, it acknowledges that there is so much that remains unknown, so if I believe it is in the struggle to know, and in the infinite of the unknown. "Spirit" to me is that which drives us to know.

Apoplexy (#4) comments: I've never heard anyone articulate exactly how I feel so succinctly before. Thank you for saying what I'm sure so many of us feel.

I completely agree with this - well done Mr. Kumm - by the way is that your real name?

Jason,
I do not believe in a personal god. I do not believe in the personalization of god. I believe in something larger than humanity as individual. Is that something sentient? I do not know. Is it even alive? I do not know. And I do not pretend to know. I will not stand here and tell you I do know, but I do believe in a connectedness that is, for me, a spiritual kind of thing. Not supernatural, but special.

I 'believe' in science. I 'believe' in progress. I 'believe' in the intrinsic value of a human being. What I do not believe in, is the twisting swirling name calling and finger pointing that goes on between atheists and those of a religious bent. It solves nothing and is made even more pointless by the fact that neither side can 'prove' a thing.

You are defining spiritualism in a very narrow way because it serves your purpose and (as I tried to make the point) any hint of weakness, any hint of spiritualism (the way I mean it) on the part of an atheist is seen as a sign of weakness. I think that's a mistake. But, I could be wrong. It's happened before.

Seriously, I suggest everyone read "Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation" by Ian Stevenson. He is a methodical, rational scientist who has studied thousands of such cases over the decades and had exercised a practical skepticism toward each case. He, and I draw no grand conclusions from his work, but it deserves serious consideration.

Through all the argumentation above, one fact stands out -- nobody knows how life originated, nobody knows the roots of our consciousness. All else is assumption and rationalization. Life is a mystery. Consciousness is a mystery. The existence of the universe is a mystery (Big Bang? Where did the Big Bang come from? Nobody knows). Science cannot answer these questions. It seeks the answers, but has not found them. That is not to say that I reject science. It is extraordinarily valuable for what it can do. But it has its limits, which most often are silently ignored by scientists.
Unless a person is insane or extremely close-minded, he or she admits that the fundamental questions of existence have not been answered, and may never be answered.
People who live without a sense of the mystery of life are cheating themselves of a large part of life.

I like to think of myself as a humanist, rather than the other labels. So many negative connotations that lead to assumptions and vicious wars of words and laws have left me frustrated with 'religious', 'agnostic', 'spiritual', and 'atheist'.

I find it amusing how we care so much about where we come from while other species only care about surviving. Goes to show how different our brains are from theirs.

In the movie Dogma, one of the prophets say that 'ideas' are better than 'beliefs' because ideas are flexible. I like to think it as that.

Excuse me but there is a huge diference between:

I don't believe in god

and

God doesn't exist

You say atheists believe the latter, I don't agree in that. When somebody says "I don't believe in God" or "I don't believe that God exist" the assertion is relative to the person in question and implicitely accepts that the existence of God is a personal belief.

The problem emerges when somebody tries to generalize and create a knowledge theory out of God existence. That is just ridiculous! and that is Religion!

And Brandom, you are doing exactly the same thing, trying to generalize a belief (yours) as if it was scientific knowledge; completely misleading.

Cheers,

Alejandro

Brandon,

You mention the analogy of praying the lights will turn on. That is an irrelevant desire, since all I need to do is turn the lights on with my finger. My faith is that I can move my body, control my arm, and it will obey. We take that for granted because most can do it without problems, but tell that to a schizophrenic or epileptic and it may be a test of faith.

What I am trying to say here is that the faith and evidence of miracles are in the things that cannot be readily explained. Let me provide an example:

In the New Testament, John chapter 11, it speaks of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. When he arrived at the tomb, three days had passed, indicating according to Jewish law that the deceased was really dead. He commanded the rock be removed from the tomb, and called Lazarus to come forth. Now he easily could have raised the rock in a fantastic way, levitating it away from the tomb, but he did not; why? Because it was not necessary. He only did what was necessary by His own power, called the priesthood. Everything else was performed in a natural, common way. Why is that?

I just want to clear up some of the misconceptions that the normal, everyday occurrences that we see can either be accredited to happenstance, coincidence, or a miracle. It all depends on your perception.

Interesting article, though. I am impressed by the deductive logic.

For me, you veered way off course and discredited yourself by taking this: "While it is true that there is no evidence for a god or gods, there is also no evidence to the contrary." as your premise. This is a false statement. There is all the evidence in the world that there is no God. In fact, the entirety of scientific knowledge refutes the point. We have diverse, overlapping, multi-disciplinary evidence demonstrating not only no role or need for supernatural beings, but no way for such a being to have to sort of attributes assigned to him by his believers. To create a working model of the world that excludes such an all-powerful being is, in fact, evidence contrary to his existence. Yes, there are gaps, there a problems, there are unknowns, but just as the gaps and unknowns in the fossil record do not argue persuasively for 'creation science' to replace evolutionary theory, so does our imperfect knowledge of the world not open the door to the existence of absurdities such as gods.

#34 SDMPE states:

"What do you think has kept the moon orbiting the earth and the earth orbiting the sun for millions of years in spite of occasional hits by asteroids? The laws of physics (science) would result in changes in the mass and kinetic energy of each that would have upset the extremely delicate balance between centrifugal force and gravity long ago. I believe God has compensated for this with a little push in the right direction once in a while. Could this be conclusive evidence that there is a God?"

You may have an excellent point there, unfortunately it will never be proven, disproven, or believed, because people choose to believe what they want. I do agree with you, because the delicate balance of nature does not self-correct and entropy claims order will tend to disorder.

Something I had always thought about were the Saturn moons Epimethius and Janus, which share the same orbit and will switch location every few years. To me that is too incredible to be chance or simple physics. IMO.

The only people I'm sure are right about religion are those who admit they don't know everything. Ancient people when asked the wonders of the universe had answers for young inquisitve minds. Were they right? No. The Hebrew army had God stop the sun in the sky. He should have mentioned to them we're traveling around the sun,(at 68,000 miles an hour), instead of the sun moving around us. Adam named all the dinosaurs and they had to be on the ark. The book of Job offered, chapter 40, great beasts walking the earth but not all dinosaurs were great beasts. I can see light from distant galaxies that has traveled for billions of years to reach my eyes on an earth created less than 10 thousand years ago. If there is a supreme being, I wouldn't know one way or the other,it isn't the one of the holy bible. Incidently I hope the Hebrews got a firm grip before God slammed the brakes on.

the controversy continues- I see allot of folks making claims they cant back up - this is funny to me - I am agnostic - I know you cant prove your point - thus I don’t flip of flop - the atheist and theist do all of that - then get mad. LOL nice article against the absurdity of people that are against something they know nothing about.

This article articulates perfectly what I've believed for a long time, kudos.

Expect the world to hate you now, the world isn't ready for it, may never be. The people who refuse to take a stance on any particular belief will likely be the martyrs of the next age, who knew...

If we don't wake up to the reality of what our religions are doing to our world (everything going on in the middle east ring a bell?), then there really is no hope for us as a species. I can't really say that I believe religion is not evil, but what evil people do with religion is what makes it evil.

I say let's all sit down with our drink of choice, and discuss why it's so hard for us to accept each other for what and who we are, then maybe we might start getting somewhere as the human collective.

At first I thought I was going to post a rather trite reaction to what seemed to me to be an assault against atheists, but then I realized that there is no insult intended or implied in this article. Brandon is most certainly right in one thing- our knowledge is incomplete, and it is difficult to claim to know anything about what (if anything) occurs beyond death. Do I think I should be called a spiritualist instead of an atheist? No. I like things simple most of the time, and simply speaking I do not believe in God- or gods for that matter- so I am an atheist. I believe in humans, and the power of the human drive to achieve, so humanist might possibly work. But I think that ascribing things to spirituality, happenstance, and magical mumbo-jumbo such as is featured in the Bible cheapens our world. I think it makes it all the more wonderful and spectacular that all of this happened on its own, free of any sentient influence.

I'm not going to argue the point too stringently, however. There is no point. I do not seek to make others believe what I do not believe (or to not believe at all for that matter), as that would make me as bad as any of the Evangelical Christians. I do dispute that atheists should not engage in debating or "finger-pointing" as you call it. It seems to me that there are two kinds of debating: the kind that seeks to change the others view to that of your own, and the kind that merely seeks to stop the others view from influencing- or more accurately in this case, damaging- your own. Many of the arguments I've seen erupt between atheists and Christians have been over perceived injustices to non-Christians by the holier-than-thou believers; religiously influenced law always comes to mind. These are perfectly valid fights to pick; we will always have the right to defend our freedom to believe as we will, and to not have Christianity's steel fist clamp down over our free will. But I believe you were probably talking more about the "I want to convert you" type of argument- and in this I agree completely. Why the hell would any atheist ever want to convert anyone else? Who cares what everyone else believes? As the Wiccan creed says (a religion I can get along with a little better than Christianity, most days), "If it harm none, do as thou wilt." As long as the religious zealots are not attacking you, there is no reason to attack them.

Oh, and awesome article. It has definitely inspired some intelligent- and not so intelligent- debate. Debate of course generally gets people to think, and very occasionally to examine one of their conceits and change their held-in-concrete opinions. There is nothing wrong with that. If nothing else, we get to see a few of the wonderfully ignorant with replies bordering on the preschooler level of understanding of the world around them- which is always good for a laugh or two. Even if it is a nervous laugh as you realize that these sort of people may one day be in positions of power, lol.

Ps 14:1-7

1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.
2 The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God.
3 All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.
4 Will evildoers never learn-- those who devour my people as men eat bread and who do not call on the LORD?
5 There they are, overwhelmed with dread, for God is present in the company of the righteous.
6 You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but the LORD is their refuge.
7 Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! When the LORD restores the fortunes of his people, let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad!
(NIV)

There is a fundamental and crucial distinction between the theist and atheist. The atheist does not have to believe in things which appear to exist only in the imagination. He/she does not have to be concerned with a life to come but can concentrate on making this one the best possible. He/she does not have to discern realms which it is claimed exist in another dimension which has never been seen yet alone verified. In proposing these imagings the theist must, in order to be consistent and avoid hypocracy admit any and every Meinong construct that can be dreamed of. A thoroughly confusing and cluttered reality is what the theist offers; that and the tradition of hatred which has sustained it through the slaughter of millions down the ages. Religion throws up (and I use this term deliberately) such paragons as Jerry Falwell who advocated “Nuking” Iran and Pat Robertson who suggests assassination as acceptable behaviour. What lurks beneath the veneer of ‘religiosity’ put up by these leaders is evil pure and simple. The religious have always supported human rights when those rights were theirs – as far as anyone else is concerned your life is on the line.

In anthropology the only common trait of humans is belief in a supreme being. We need to believe in something.

Symbolic logic and probability theory say that we (humans) cannot know truth! Absolute truth that is. We have only existential truth. That means we have to learn all we can and keep changing or truths to keep them up to date.

The problem is DOGMA!!!!!!!!!! The Catholic church still has Galileo Excommunicated and I'm not sure if they have accepted that the universe does not revolve around the earth. Churches must renew their dogma or lose converts. Also, beware of scientists, they also create dogma!

I can outline a physical model of reality that accommodates all of spirituality, simplifies our model of early cosmology, explains dark energy, and encompasses the existence of gods. Where would that put all of you?

Miguel de Unamuno stated it most clearly (I paraphrase): "We create this God of love and eternal life by believing in him - and He, in turn, helps us to become better people" (A Tragic Sense of Life). He also explains atheists fairly clearly (again paraphrasing): "Reason kills, because it cannot countenance ambiguity, and Life is full of mystery." There is a space of relation that involves the joining of our wills to a common purpose. Until the analytical mind understands the mechanisms of that unification, it will not and cannot accept them, and so rejects spirituality.

Science is a relatively new phenomenon - only 400 years or so. Spirituality, in the form of the philosophical teachings of the Hindus, Confucians and Greeks, goes back thousands of years. The whelp would never have been birthed if not for the work done by religions in moderating the violent passions we inherited from Nature.

You can't understand where we're going unless you know where we've been. Read "ideas: a history of thought and invention, from fire to freud" (Peter Watson), and any text on ancient history that goes beyond pretty pictures and actually describes the standard of living in ancient times. Then try processing Teilhard de Chardin's "The Phenomenon of Man"

THE EVOLUTION OF RELIGION

IN THE BEGINNING OF CIVILIZATION EVERYTHING WAS NEW AND
AWESOME TO THE HUMANS WHO INHABITED THE EARTH AT THAT
TIME.

THEY LIVED IN FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN, THEY WERE AT THE MERCY
OF THE ELEMENTS, THEY HAD NO WAY TO KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE
WOULD BE OR IF THERE WOULD BE A FUTURE FOR THEM.

THERE WAS NO ONE TO TELL THEM HOW TO CONDUCT THEIR LIVES OR
OR NO ONE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE TO TELL THEM THE TRUE MEANING
OF LIFE. THEY WERE LIKE BABIES WHO WERE BORN ON A BIG SCARY
PLANET FULL OF AWESOME GRANDEUR.

GODS WERE CREATED BY THE ONES WHO WANTED TO RULE AND
DOMINATE THEIR FELLOW MAN. THEY USED THINGS LIKE THE SUN
OR THE MOON OR SOME OBJECT FOR THEIR GODS .

NEXT CAME THE KINGS OR MONARCHS OR EMPEROR RULERS WHO
MADE THEMSELVES GOD.

FINALLY, THE OPPRESSED WHO WAS FED UP WITH THE LIFE OF A SLAVE
TO THE GODS, CREATED THEIR OWN GODS. THESE WERE THE MOST
FEARSOME OF ALL BECAUSE IT WAS CLAIMED THEY WERE THE DIRECT
DESCENDANTS OF THE ONE TRUE GOD. TO TRULY BELIEVE IN THESE
GODS TAKES A LOT OF FAITH.

I DID NOT WRITE THIS TO DEBATE THE EXISTENCE OR NON EXISTENCE
OF GOD OR GODS.

EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER LIVED ON THIS PLANET HAS HAD THEIR
SHARE OF PROBLEMS, SETBACKS AND ALL AROUND BAD THINKS
HAPPEN TO THEM IN THEIR LIFETIME. I KNOW I HAVE.

I CANNOT TELL YOU WHY I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE BORN HERE
OR WHAT MIRACLE MADE THIS HAPPEN. I CAN ONLY SAY THAT I AM
TRULY HAPPY TO BE HERE AND I HAVE LOVED EVERY MINUTE.

"I find it rather amusing actually to sit back and watch the atheists hammer away at the religious for their lack of faith, when there is faith enough on both sides to go around."
-You were just being smug yourself when you ridiculed atheists for thir smugness. I've talked to a lot of atheists, and while that "smugness" is present in a lot of them, every one of them acknowledged that it was in fact a belief. It's just that everything in nature and beyond has been explained more believably by science than religion, and test after test has corroborated evidence of the true age of Earth much better than a monk ever could. Christians and atheists alike have admitted that there is a chance they COULD BE wrong, they just don't believe it's likely.
Also, you make agnostics sound like they don't if there is a god(s), but they yearn for one. This is simply gross overgeneralization. I myself am an apathetic agnostic. I don't know what's out there. I've read books on religion and and cultural belief systems, but I don't care to pick out a god or gods to worship. To be honest I lean more towards being atheist, but I openly acknowledge that I simply don't know, and others are simply more sure than I am of their rspective beliefs.
No offense intended, but your entire article sounds like it comes from limited experience & knowledge on this topic, and I think you should talk to more people before making these assumptions about them. Not all atheists are smug know-it-alls, not all agnostics are looking to believe.

Brandon;

Can't understand why atheists out there might appear angry? You have redefined our lack of belief for us!

Here, let me make this easier for you to understand. You say you are a "Spiritualist" (the most mature of beliefs, I am told.) I don't agree, really, with your definition. I would change the definition of "Spiritualist" (actually you changed it first, as has been pointed out in previous posts) to mean "confused pseudo-intellectual." You don't really believe in spiritualism, you are truly just a confused individual trying to make logic of bits of info that don't hold together.

Now imagine that a majority of the population holds this definition to be true. And NOW another nuckle-head has insisted this is the definition of "Spiritualist."

You proved your confusion by insisting I (and other atheists) deny the existence of God. I don't--I simply don't accept the assertion of a God. I have nothing to prove, because I have not made an assertion. That's like saying I need to prove I don't believe in the Stay-puffed Marshmallow man (which incidently I am more likely to believe in than a god, seeing as how I have seen the Marshmallow man in a movie.) I never claimed the Marshmallow Man doesn't exist--I just don't accept the assertion that he does. What you have done is created what is known in logic as a staw-man--changing the claims of the person you are debating in order to win an arguement. Actually, in this case, you used a straw man to CREATE an arguement that doesn't exist in the first place.

I'm sorry if this all sounds nasty. I don't really think you are a pseudo-intellectual (I do think you are confused though.) Now you may understand why atheists might appear angry when someone misrepresents them, as you have done.

If it means anything, I used to believe as you do.

"While it is true that there is no evidence for a god or gods, there is also no evidence to the contrary."

A statement that drips ignorance. And some wonder why Americans have been called "eternal adolescents".

Really interesting observations, I hope and suspect that our belief systems will reach maturity when we recognise that the only salvation we really have lies in each other.

I hope all people will rise above the core beliefs of the religious, the aethiests, the agnostics and the spiritualists and become humanists without fear or prejudice.

God must be very much amused by this discussion... :)

Kevin post 57.

Thank you for your informed, wonderful and thoughtful analysis. I especially like you epithet at the end.

If you feel this piece 'spread the hate' well, then I'm sorry, that was certainly not my intent.

Have a wonderful day!

Alexi post 45

Wow! What impressive logic and amazing rhetorical skill you have. I'm sure your mother is very proud.

Wow, those Vulcans you mentioned love to defend their territory, no? With emptiness and hubris and the lack of understanding synonyms. I wholly agreed with your article, laughed at the knee-jerk reactions you got from the others. I am surprised at how patient you are with the Children of Emptiness. I have been described as spiritual, taking what ideas and aesthetics from whatever belief system and living my life. I am not skeptical, because I am too curious. I believe the laws of time, space, the mind, and nature go far far beyond any human understanding. It's more than some disgruntled individual going, "Unh! Judeo-Christian thought BAD!"

If all the atheists here want a challenge - prove to me that the supposed lack of evidence for God's existence that they keep talking about is enough to support a lack of belief in God. What lack of evidence? I guarantee you that theists could come up with just as much evidence to support belief, and reasons that are just as valid. Which may be the point the author here was trying to make but didn't quite make.

The problem with engaging atheists is that they all don't agree on things either, as we've seen here in this discussion. There are the "I don't accept God" atheists AND the "God does not exist" atheists. Some just don't believe anything and others believe there is no God (although most of them will not cop to having any beliefs because they instinctively know they are crucifying themselves logically). I could argue that not believing in God is a belief in and of itself but I am sure they would argue with me on that. But as far as I'm concerned the lack of anything is never a real concept. The lack of something is always the possession of something else. On the flip side of any negative is another positive somewhere. I agree that the atheists that say they just don't accept belief are really closet agnostics, but I am not going to get into any arguments about that since they will believe what they want to believe about themselves.

Atheists are always pointing out that science doesn't know everything yet and that if it did we wouldn't need to drag in a God of the Gaps to explain things. I see it as just the opposite - well, sort-of. I think that the more science uncovers the more we will see that this universe and even other universes that possibly exist alongside it (or came before it) are not self explanatory and come from another source. Nothing in reality is self generating or the cause of itself, but eventually there has to be an end point to the process, or at the very least an explanation of its sustained existence. What keeps it going? Where is the ultimate energy source? Aren't these valid questions? Don't we want to find ways to answer them? I personally don't find an infinite regression satisfying nor logical, nor even scientifically viable and I think the buck has to stop somewhere. Even the most self sustaining stars burn out eventually. And so would the multiverse if not coming from some unified source and ground for their existence.

Wherever the buck stops, there you find God, and not a God of the gaps either, because it's a God that's a part of the Multiverse, not necessarily some purely supernatural being. It's a God that science can appreciate and see reasons to accept, in just the way scientists infer processes that must exist to explain phenomena. Do we have first hand knowledge of them? No, but we inferred them based on the outcome. Did we observe supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies? No, but we inferred them. Note that this does not involve "faith" nor a denial of any lack of evidence. This is a purely logical and intellectual concept, much like Aristotle came up with his "Prime Mover".

God can be seen as a principle devoid of any anthropomorphic attributes. God does not have to be seen as an old man sitting on a throne passing down the 10 commandments. We need to grow up in our view of God and dispense with old prejudices against the concept. God can be a part of the natural reality, not some ghost divorced from the process. I would agree that traditional models of God are immature. I think most atheists have it in them to be Scientific Pantheists ala Paul Harrison (do any of you know his site?) if they were to get over their biases about the concept of God. I myself am a Panentheist but I have great respect for Pantheists of all kinds because I feel that they at least have part of the story right and are on the right track. I am especially impressed with how they see the divine in the natural world. OK, fine, if you have to identify the natural world with the "divine" then do so. I am totally down with that! I won't call it "God" and offend you, I promise, LOL. ;-)

I will also note that as far as I can tell I am the only woman entering into this discussion. I am used to that with regard to philosophical and theological discussions, but I often wonder why more women aren't into it....I know I am not typical, but still....No offense to the men here but in the 30 odd years I've been reading you all discuss these topics, I've see you guys run into the same intellectual blind spots over and over again that seem to be no brainers for most of the women I know (which may be why they don't bother to enter into these discussions, LOL). I think we could benefit from a female point of view on this.

I have a confliction of emotions with this article. At first I thought it was going the route of not placing labels on people because there are many facets and degrees to any human thought. I'm all about not labeling myself as an atheist but it seems to be the closest thing. My issue is that I'm not an "atheist" because I feel there is proof to the contrary of religion, more of a lack of proof for it. I do not feel there is a greater power but do not close my mind to someone proving me wrong. I guess the issue I have is at the end when you narrow it down to only two classifications of people. I would never refer to myself as a spiritualist only because I feel that would be an insult to people who are spiritual. Im just a girl who does'nt believe in god, heaven, hell, or even the personified soul. May I just be that girl without having a fight of being seen ignorant or uninformed: without having classifications thrown in my face? Let's just be happy with other peoples ideals and let them call them whatever they feel proper.

I am an atheist. I believe that there are no Gods outside of manifestations in the mind. I further believe that this is a personal faith that I hold. Faith does not imply religion.

I am an agnostic. I cannot prove (using reason and evidence) either that there is or that there is not any God.

I believe in macro-scale causality: That the statistical integration of quantum phenomena always represent measurable and predictable effects from a measurable cause. (Yes, I believe in quanta, mesons, neutrinos, atoms, photons, and other "things" that are only "seen" by their effects and are predicted by mathematical models.)

I believe in the scientific process, that the result of carefully measured, reasoned, recorded and verified experience will lead to the best possible understanding of the physical universe. That is, what it is, how it was, came to be, and will become.

I ultimately believe that the majority of the world population would rather give up their lives than their invisible friends, especially if so inspired by religious leaders.

If you liked this article then you should check out a book "Beyond Good and Evil" by a certain famous philosopher. It talks about the origin of religion and its implications.

Personally, I don't believe in religion but I sure do like my Christmas holiday season.

Brandon:

I do know where to begin. With prayer that God opens your eyes, since it is obvious that you are blinder than a bat.

Your little diatrible about "pray the lights on" and so forth was not an exercise in "science" verses prayer or anything else. It was an exercise in your foolishiness attempting to make an invalid point. There have been double blind prayer studies showing the effectiveness of prayer. I have had specific prayers answered, both small and great over a period of 20 years. That, my friend cannot be rationalized away. And, I might add, I am just ONE person.

Prayer wins over flawed attempts at "science."

Yes, I have read the comments. I forgot to applaud you for recognizing the fallacies of atheism. Yet you also fail to see that in your other argument you parrot their little montra, "there is no evidence." No, there is evidence but you dismiss it irrationally so that you can have the invalid excuse to be able to claim there is none. There is a difference.


And what's so "crazy" about accepting what the Creator said, that He made the world in six days as we know them?

And no, religion has not "poisoned" discourse. People like yourself play special pleading games by bringing up how the Church dealt with Galilleo, and you forget all the good that people of the Church has brought to the world of literature, science, social services, care for the sick, human rights, etc.

I could give you a long list of scientists besides Mendel who were either Christians or who were heavily influenced by Christianity so that this influence helped them positively affect the world.

Even with your writing you expose the fallacy of special pleading and distortion. No one is opposing the teaching of science to children. We are opposed to teaching pseudo-science as if it were pure science to children without giving all the facts to them.

Ever heard of the story about the high school biology teacher, Roger DeHart, who lost his job because he dared to teach any flaws of evolution (and no, he is no Christian "creationist"). What were they afraid of? Please. Give me a break. Who's poisoning discource now?

And there is direct, empirical evidence of God. He said so in Ps. 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20. Even unbelieving scientists are coming out and saying the world looks designed. Anthony Flew, former atheist, was convinced by the SCIENTIFIC evidence he saw, as especially the Greek of Romans 1:20 makes clear that what God created is objectively and empirically verifiable. So if you want to claim that, go right ahead. It simply means that either you have not honestly looked at the evidence comprehensively, or you have dismissed it so that you can have this excuse.

Truth: 2
Dishonest claims: -0

Arthur --

Oh, where to begin. If you feel that you must pray for me, please feel free to do so. It can't hurt.

If god exists and answers the prayers of the faithful a simple thing like turning on a light should be no problem for an omnipotent and omniscient god. If you argue that 'god doesn't do that kind of thing' then are you suggesting that your all powerful deity has limitations? Wait, I've heard this one too, god doesn't do it because he limits himself. Riiiiggghhhht. Bogus.

What studies? The most recent study on intercessory prayer should that patients actually did WORSE when prayed for, than when not. So, whatever study you are referencing is almost certainly an older study that may have been flawed in some way. You've had prayers answered? Really? Have you ever sat down and tried to figure out if you got something you wanted without praying for it? One of my personal favorites: "God answers all prayers, but they aren't always the answers we want." Gobbledegook. That doesn't MEAN anything.

More later.

"Atheists would have us become Vulcans. Rational, analytical and without that "divine spark" that fires the imagination of a Beethoven or a da Vinci. "

This is an absolute load of rubbish - where is the evidence for this statement? This is such an awful and - more importantly - completely false stereotype of atheists. Irrational beliefs are not the source of our personality any more than they are the source of our morals. It suggests that you need religion to have emotions. How misguided can you be?

Citing the fact that past musicians or artists were religious (as were the vast majority of the population) proves nothing. Nature itself is beautiful enough to inspire. It is ability and hard work that leads to great accomplishments. Imagine what mankind could have achieved both artistically and technologically if it had neer been hindered by religion.

"Ah, the agnostics! This group takes the weakest way out in that they believe that there may be a god or gods, but they're just not sure. Mostly, these are people, like me, who have rejected organized religion, but still want the comfort that the belief in a god or gods can offer"

This is dead wrong. Agnostics are people who posses the intellectual honesty to admit that they don't know. The only people who "know" are dead. Every living person is agnostic, some people have enough integrity to admit it.

Todd,
I'm not assaulting the intellectual honesty of agnostics. Most of the agnostics I know also go to church, temple or whatever. They neither believe nor disbelieve, they just don't know. They don't like organized religion, necessarily, but they like the comfort of the Big Daddy in the sky.

I completely concur that everyone is agnostic, in that they are not sure. Certainty, implies belief and faith, especially in reference to this subject.

Have a great one and thanks for commenting!

religion is great because how else would we keep the weak minded people in line they are good for one reason if they do bad deeds they will be in hell forever but if they knew if there was no god they would be doing evil deeds.

I have just spoken to God and He informs me that some of you folks are full of crapola. He was laughing when He said it, so no need for anyone to worry...