Well first off she started the sermon with a logical “proof” that was apparently self-evidently true.  “If there is an absolute good, then there logically has to be an absolute evil” and that is why we must accept that there is an evil “force” out there that is out to get us.  The problem with this is obvious first off, this only applies if you believe in an infinite good in the first place and there is no maxim that says there must be an absolute evil as an entity. As darkness is absence of light, evil could be the absence of good in this example; and it certainly isn’t sentient.  However, she labeled this evil as Satan as laid out in the bible and went through pains to show that god was “perfect” and Satan was created from god; therefore Satan is less than god and is not as powerful.  She reiterated this time and again most likely in case someone asked the obvious question: “if god is all powerful why does he suffer Satan or evil?” Well that question still stands, but we’ll get to some of the most grievous contradictions later, but for now we are supposed to understand that Satan is powerful, but not ALL powerful.  It’s “Common sense” as she says that Satan has to exist in this fashion.  Problem here is of course, we all accept that “Evil” or “Bad” exists….but not everyone attributes a sentience to that evil. That’s……weird.

But god made Satan.

Anyways, Satan is leading demons and is fighting a spiritual war against the forces of heaven. We poor hapless humans are caught in the cross fire and have to do what we can to defeat the demons. I know you’re probably thinking this is all figurative, but it doesn’t seem so. There are actually demons out there, they are actually cast out of people, and they are actively here to harm you and me. This is interesting stuff if we’re supposed to rely on evidence and be critical thinkers concerning the bible.

Evidence I ask? Well she’s got it in spades! The bible is our evidence for Satan, so we can easily prove the bible correct by using the bible.  No problems there. The other piece is its tradition. All Christian teachings throughout the ages have had some sort of devil figure either in literature or art that showcased the battle against evil.  If Christian theologian’s and writers believed in Satan during the Middle Ages and before, then obviously it must be true. Another bit was that not everyone believed in demons back during 1^st century Palestine.  She mentioned a ruling class that didn’t believe in the dogma of the religion, but ran the churches for profit. She reviled them as “Fakers” and since they didn’t’ believe in the devil (or god) then obviously Satan was winning over them. Evidence for this is in the bible which can readily be fact checked with the bible.  Really, this is the other piece of evidence, discounting that other more coherent and older religions have claims just as similar or different as you can imagine.  This one Christian doctrine is the True One.

Moving on to more relevant sources of evil, she mentioned that demons and Satan are constantly in action all around us! She used the example of the copying machines in the church.  Whenever an important outreach event is about to happen there always seems to be a problem with the copying machines.  There is no way it is a coincidence since it always happens whenever the church has need of them.  It’s not as if the additional use and constant attention have anything to do with jam-prone machines in the first place, no! It’s demons and/or Satan.  A Christian radio station wouldn’t show up in a woman’s car, as it kept fading out to icky talk radio. Again, Satan at work, trying to turn this woman away from god! Pornography shows up on a church members’ computer that he knows he never viewed (It was later found out to be a computer virus). SATAN put that virus there! You get the picture-anything that we don’t want to happen is Satan, anything we DO want to happen is god. Very, very flimsy stuff.

Now we move on to another part that I especially had to snicker at.  She warned against people turning away from god in a search for more power via the occult.  She mentions astrology, sorcery, witchcraft, wiccans; these are all forms of Satan that seek to take power away from god and into human (Satans!) hands via super natural methods.  She particularly pointed to astrology and Wicca as a very harmful thing and how it was a disgrace that so many young women in particular were turning to Wicca and that right here in Des Moines (!) there were these groups going on! She marked them all as evil and said those of us who may or may not have looked at the horoscope/astrology/Wicca/sorcery/etc. should pray for forgiveness. ?  I’d hate to know what she thinks of Harry Potter or World of Warcraft.

One example she gave was of a bright young woman who claims to be a “witch” and wanted to cast spells to help people.  She thought that it was so sad that this girl was so bright, yet was leading down a path of evil. I mean, we all know how fickle young girls are and they may be trying to do something “Good” and may do something bad with their spells! They should certainly stay away from this kind of thing, because sorcery in the hands of a young person is dangerous.  One question I wish I could have asked the pastor: How is that any different than prayer? If a young girl wielding sorcerous powers is so dangerous since she’s wont to use her powers for evil, how is that any different than praying to god for a boy to like her, or a Facebook post to be erased? It’s the same thing, just not the pastor’s flavor.  I don’t know what is more troubling the fact that this pastor thinks astrology and sorcery are a threat to her church as real things or that she can’t tell the difference between her prayer and another form of “prayer”.  Oh and she mocked the psychic hotline as people that are silly and are misled…kind of like calling in to BTN or Pat Robertson or any other Christian prayer group, don’t you think?

Ok winding down now, we go back to Genesis and the idea of original sin and how Satan is there to trick Adam and Eve.  Now I read some the wording here and god says basically “don’t eat this fruit, or you’ll die”. Then Satan the snake comes up and says “Hey Eve, you should totally eat that fruit because it’s good, etc.” So Eve does. And they don’t die. Did god LIE to them? Beh,semantics.

Anyway, the reason I bring this part up is to show how backwards this thinking is in the Christian religion. God made a tree that would doom Adam and Eve. God makes Satan, knowing he’s going to trick the humans, and has Satan go do his trickery thing. Then god punishes everyone, but it’s not a curse. He CURSES Satan by doing the snake thing, but here merely JUDGES the humans with all the original sin, etc.  So it’s a JUDGEMENT when god does something evil, but a CURSE when Satan does it. Oh sorry, you weren’t cursed with cerebral palsy, you were JUDGED! Get it right. One way to look at this scenario is that god created a situation in which he knew he was going to have to bring the pain down on Adam and Eve, and he conveniently made Satan his scapegoat.  Satan technically told the truth, eat the fruit and you will know right and wrong. They did, and it made them recognize that they were “naked” if you take the bible in its figurative language. Then they were punished for it. The reason this scapegoating type thing is important is because the pastor said that is what Satan does. He points fingers, he shoves the blame away, the same way a person does when they do something wrong. However, this is exactly what god has done if you are going to maintain an internally consistent story. He creates a no win scenario, blames it on Satan, beats HIM down, then smites some humans. Who is the real evil one here?

But we can all relax! All this is alright because Jesus died on the cross for all our sins. All the apples eaten, the demons in copier machines, the pornography on computers, and yes depression (she blamed clinical depression on Satan too) are all simply water under the bridge. Just arm yourself in the breastplate of righteousness, the helm of salvation; the shield of faith (No science and reason getting in here!), and the Sword of Spirit and you can never be defeated.

Or reasoned with as a rational human being, you take your pick.

Jason Benell

However, when it comes to religious sayings we have to take a second look at these things. Do people really mean “Oh my god, I hope you suspend the laws of physics so I can make this trick shot” or “Jesus protected me during the car accident”? Maybe, maybe not, but the point is that words and ideas do indeed have meaning and we recognize that every day.

Let us look at another example; a current presidential candidate, Michelle Bachmann.  She has said: “I will not seek a higher office if God is not calling me to do it. If I am called to serve in that realm I would serve, but if I am not called, I wouldn’t do it.” Do you think Bachmann really means that she won’t serve unless she perceives her god is telling her to? Now, when we consider religious sayings, these little things we say every day can start to have more of an impact.  Do we want someone in charge of things if they have to get an OK from a voice that only they can hear? I think not.  Granted, this is an extreme example, not everyone that uses these religious sayings can be put into such a controversial position, but the point still remains. Words have meaning.

If we look again and again at all of our societal norms and mores we have to consider what we are really saying. When we have a Medal of Honor ceremony, why do we have a prayer? What does that mean? Why do we need to invoke a god to celebrate a heroic soldier? Why do we consistently lie to our children about tooth fairies and Santa Clause?  Even when we tell children that Santa clause or the Easter bunny is real, what does that say about how much we value what is true?   When does it stop being a funny small saying and become a dangerous way of thinking? When does a child’s Santa Clause turn into Bachmann’s god?

The point of this rambling message is that we should take more care and notice when things happen in our society and even in our speech. If we as a people think it’s alright to discriminate against people based religion as long as it isn’t overt, then we are still saying it’s alright to discriminate. So let it rain cats and dogs, and go ahead and die for that drink of water, but when it comes to letting religion into your culture, hold your words to a higher standard.

Jason Benell

However, that wasn’t why I was there; I was there to see how the political process unfolds in our great state of states. I was also there to bring attention to the fact that religious ideology should not be the cornerstone of any candidate’s campaign.

You see, you can be a Republican, or a Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, or any other political ideology in between and still agree with a separation of church and state. In fact, it’s required; it’d be unconstitutional to have a specific religion favored over another. This also includes religion over irreligion, theism over atheism, and vice versa; it works both ways.  Keep in mind this is regardless of what any political figure has said in the past; this is a requirement of a free and equal constitution that contains a 1^st and 14^th amendment as we have in ours. I do indeed wonder why it was such a rough time for us atheists that were simply there to remind Straw Poll attendees that the 1^st amendment in fact exists.

When candidates like Michele Bachmann tell her supporters that she is called by god to run for an office, or when Herman Cain criticizes Obama for not mentioning God enough, these are not the qualities we should be looking for in a candidate. We should be looking for legislation based on the consequence of that legislation not on how a particular candidate feels about their religion directing their ideology. Imagine how horrible it would be if every person in power supported legislation not based on how it affected the citizens but rather how their religious training guided them. That would not be the kind of country I doubt anyone would want to live in, regardless of their religious or political beliefs. It’d be inherently unjust because laws and equality go out the window when someone’s personal feelings about religion begin to dictate law for all citizens.

So if you were out at the Straw Poll this last weekend and you saw us atheists and were curious to know exactly why we were out there, the answer is quite simple: We care about our state and we care about the Constitution.  We care enough that we don’t want our state to be represented by the candidate who can be the most Christian or who can be the most vocal. We want policies based on their results, not on their religious ideological basis, and we want the 1^st amendment respected by all presidential candidates.

Jason Benell

Press Officer

Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers

press@iowaatheists.org

For one, it makes our state look bad. It makes us look like a bunch of people that don’t care about other important issues like the economy or foreign policy, but that Iowans only care about social policies. This is obviously not true, and I encourage all politicians and media sources to stop feeding into this social policy war and focus on what Iowans really care about; making our state and country a better place to live. It also makes us look like a state that does not understand the Constitution.

The very real reason this needs to stop is because much of what is advocated is downright unconstitutional.  If we were to allow Christian teachings, or any religious teachings, over the teachings of any other religion, non-religion, or philosophy, we are tainting the very law itself. We are telling our citizens that our law derives not from the consequences of peoples’ actions, but from a specific religious belief that has been codified.  I can hardly think of anyone that would like to live under a law that tells citizens their religious or non-religious beliefs are illegal or at least not protected.  I think the vast majority of Iowan’s get this, but a very loud minority does not seem to and these are the ones being courted by Conservative GOP candidates. These people seem to think that if we allow THEIR specific religious beliefs to come into law that it is somehow a more just society or a society more in line with the “founding fathers”. This is definitively false, and we don’t need founding fathers to show us this to know that we must have a separation between church and state.

One point that has sprung up on this topic again and again has been the idea that “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. It doesn’t have to; it is self-evidently true that there MUST be a separation of church and state if we are to have a law that applies equally to everyone.  We could not have Christian law ruling in Des Moines and Jewish law in Ames and still adhere to a equal protection clause in the Constitution.  I mean, could you imagine the problems transporting pork and livestock between the two cities?  Let’s not even get into literature and other media, and woe unto any couple that wishes a divorce.  These are some silly examples, but very real examples nonetheless. We cannot have religious doctrine intertwining with civil law but rather the civil law must be, and generally is, created with the consequence of that law in order to further the happiness and productivity of all citizens.

I think most Iowans understand this point and strive to keep a rational head on our shoulders. Going forward, let us keep our law secular, the way it was intended and avoid being swayed by charismatic religious Conservatives looking for your vote. Go into the polls with a clear head and a rational mind, Iowa and prove to the country we are worthy of our political position.

Jason Benell

Press Officer

Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers

The belief in things without evidence, the idea that you “know” something because you simply “know” it and that this idea is unassailable and to do so is the gravest of insults, this is faith.  This idea of faith lies at the heart of so many bad decisions and actions throughout human history it’s ridiculous that faith isn’t an epithet in our modern vernacular.

Now, faith doesn’t have to be specifically faith in a religion to be harmful, faith is harmful in nearly all instances. How so? Well, let’s take a look at patriotism as a prime example. “America is the best country therefor our actions are justified” or “America is God’s country, therefor policy X is correct” or even “America is the land of the free and liberty is priority number one, so the US would never have used conquest, subjugation, or shady means to prosper”. These are all ideas that may or not be commonly held but that are actively harmful because they rely on a presupposition that the individual just “knows” their statements to be true.   They are actively harmful because they foster the idea that in this case America is the best and any possible evidence that violates these beliefs will become immediately suspect or outright denied because hey-this individual has faith that they are right.  You’re a fool to question their faith in this case.

This applies to anything though, not just patriotism, but rather, ANY –ism. Racism, sexism, capitalism, socialism, patriotism are all examples that can and have been taken to extremes, not based on evidence, but based on a blind intrinsic belief that they are correct.  So when I say faith, I mean it in a broad sense, believing something to be true without rational evidence based approaches and a presupposition of certain things to reach an end argument.

So to turn this back to why this is important for rational individuals to consider I will point out that rationalism is the opposite of faith. Why does a rational person believe something? Because they have evidence to show that it is more than likely true, not because they just accept it to be true alone and without question.  The reason the idea of faith can muddy the water when attempting to counter religious dogma is because rationally, atheists know that religious beliefs are fundamentally hollow. Since religious beliefs rest upon faith, but manifest themselves through religion, faith is the foundation of these dogmatic religious teachings. This is why we must separate the two if we are to make any progress in the long term against religious crusaders and bigotry. We must separate and discuss not only religious dogma, but faith itself.

Faith is the true problem in our church/state issue. Faith is the true problem with the same sex marriage attacks from the religious right. Faith is the true problem with the proliferation of AIDS and the withholding of contraceptives.  Faith is the true problem with the movement to deny women’s rights in concern to her own body. We can attack religious belief as long as we like, and we’ll be 100% correct in saying that the Bible or Koran or Torah is inconsistent and contradictory.  You will have no argument from me on the ridiculousness of religious belief. However, in order to actually make progress, in order to actually get people to see just how hateful or wrong they are, we need to not point out the flaws of religion, but point out the folly that is faith.

Believing in things without evidence is not a virtue. Faith is not a good thing; faith is a very bad thing.  Whether it is faith that your car will never break, faith that your favored political system is better than others, or faith in an old man in the sky, none of these are good things for the individual or society. Rationality and consequence based reasoning are the cure to this nonsensical approach to life. Otherwise why do people change their oil? March for social change? Not believe in ALL old men in the sky stories? Because we know that rationality is important, we’re just afraid to get people to apply it to their religious faith.  Faith is the ultimate surrender of your mind, the ultimate capitulation of reason.

So remember, pointing out the flaws in religion is necessary and important, but we must also remember to denounce faith as well. When someone says “just take it on faith” or “this is my personal faith”, you know that person has simply run out of answers and the willpower to find them. They’ve given up a bit of their personhood in order to feel better about themselves, and the sooner we end this nonsense; the sooner we end religious nonsense as well.

“Why does it matter to YOU what other people believe?”

But you see, I think this is phrasing it the wrong way. It’s like me accusing other people of thought crime and I will be swooping in to correct their “incorrect” thinking. That isn’t what being a vocal atheist is about at all. Rather, I’m more concerned with myself believing things that are true, and demonstrably true, versus things that simply make me feel good. This doesn’t mean that he, or she, or they have to believe the same way I do, but it does mean that I want to live in a society where we value things that are demonstrably true.

We live in a  republic so we all get to cast a vote and shape social policy to some extent, so by participating in a society with me and I with others, everyone makes policy calls based on what they believe.  If we think that smoking is bad, we make laws that curtail the negative effects of smoking without infringing on people’s ability to smoke as they see fit.  We look at studies using science and determine which things are harmful and make policies to mitigate that harm.  Now, let us move onto larger topics like justice, freedom, and the happiness of our population.

If I believe that the only way to be a good person and a functioning member of society is to believe in god, I’m going to vote that way. Setting aside Constitutional rights and things like that, at its most basic form it comes down to shaping policy in a way that is in line with my world view, which is what voting is kind of supposed to do. But what happens if that belief restricts other citizens’ freedom? What if it diminishes their happiness? Well, then we should do what we do with smoking, right? We should look at the effects of our policies and adjust course from there to ensure greater freedom, justice, and happiness for all citizens, right?

Well, just about everyone believes that is true in almost every case except a scant few-those pertaining to their religious belief.  Forget legality, forget justice and happiness, forget even freedom; this is one sector of policy for most people that the testability doesn’t matter.  This policy reduces the freedom of another group? Doesn’t matter, my religious beliefs are right and I need to be free to have them at the expense of others.  Voting this way is unjust to a large part of our citizenry? This law must stay in place because my religious belief trumps justice.  As you can see, when religion and faith are the foundation for policy and belief you inevitably run up against the edges of freedom, justice, and yes, even happiness.

So why are atheists so vocal about this? Well if anyone, even a theist person, takes time to think about their religious belief you can easily see how it will inevitably count some people “in” and some people “out”, and they have to figure out a way to make that work.  However, secularists and atheists have a better alternative than trying to make these things work within a faith-based framework.  Why not drop it all together and return to the consequence based reasoning we (try to) use in every other facet of our society? Why can’t we see faith and believing in things without evidence as inherently harmful and just ditch it all together so that our society can flourish for everyone?

This is really the fundamental reason atheists are so vocal about this. Setting aside the persecution, the derogatory remarks, the marginalization, and all of this, atheists are most upset about faith and religion being seen as exempt from serious consideration and somehow not responsible for their negative outcomes.  As you can see, other people’s religious belief can directly impact their fellow citizens, no matter their level of faith.   So yes, I’m vocal, yes I’m going to be out there, and yes, I’m going to ask people why they believe because as can be seen throughout the world, the less faith, and by proxy religion, there is, the more free people are, the more just a society, and the happier they may become. Knowing what is true is always better for everyone than just believing in what makes you feel good.

Jason K.

Last Week, Tom Short posted 25 24 questions for atheists in honor of National Ask an Atheist Day. These questions aren’t particularly profound or interesting by themselves, but they do deserve a response, and it’s an excellent opportunity to clarify some common misconceptions.

A disclaimer before I begin: I do not, and cannot, claim to speak for all atheists, or even all contributors to this blog, especially on matters of ethics and morality. I should also warn that these are as short as I could make them, but no shorter.

With that out of the way, let’s begin:

1. How could Nobody + Nothing = Everything?

No one is claiming that. You may be thinking of the Big Bang Theory, which states that the universe exploded out of a singularity, which is all matter, energy, laws of nature, and the very fabric of spacetime, compressed to a single point.

I’m not sure how you got from “absolutely everything” to “nobody + nothing.”

My own position is that I don’t know enough about the origin of the universe to have a coherent idea. Since atheism is the lack of a position, there is no burden on the atheist to explain the origin of the Universe. However, if you want to posit a god, there’s a burden on you to explain how it was done — and, for that matter, where that god came from.

2. Where did life come from? Do you honestly believe that non-living matter could produce life?

I don’t know where life came from. They’re working on it. However, from what I’ve seen, the theories of abiogenesis seem viable.

Do you honestly believe that this is so much more unbelievable than the revelation that matter and energy are interchangeable, and that there is enough energy in a walnut to destroy the world?

3. Do you believe Chaos + Time = Order?

You’ll need to define these terms much more precisely if you want a meaningful answer. What do you mean by “chaos”? It certainly seems that early stages of the Universe, and early stages of life, were more “ordered” in a sense — for instance, a cloud of lipid bubbles in the ocean is certainly more uniform than the diversity of life that exists today.

4. Why do human beings universally believe in some sort of god and an afterlife?

These are two separate questions. Not all humans who believe in a god believe in an afterlife, and vice versa.

Why do people believe in gods? The most likely explanation seems to be hyperactive agent detection. Consider our ancestors on the savannah. Those who don’t see a tiger when there is one get eaten. Those who see a tiger when there isn’t one are paranoid, but survive to reproduce. We’re the descendants of survivors — we see tigers when they aren’t there, but we’re alive.

Why do people believe in an afterlife? That’s a lot simpler: We don’t want to die. (Granted, the actual invention of the afterlife wouldn’t have been in a modern hospital, but it certainly could have been something like this.)

5. Do you believe in moral absolutes? If yes, where did they come from? If no, why was Hitler wrong?

Some atheists do believe in ethical absolutes, some don’t. My answer is a bit more complicated — I don’t believe that there are any axiological claims which are absolutely true, except within the context of one person’s opinion.

That is, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so are ethics.

So, why is Hitler wrong? Because he murdered millions, and his only justification, even if it were valid, was based on things which he should have known were factually wrong.

Why is it wrong to do that? Because I said so. Unless you actually disagree with me — unless you want to say that Hitler was right — I’m not sure I have more to say.

6. Why do all humans seek to love and be loved — especially when true love is often so self-sacrificial?

What kind of love are you talking about?

Romantic love is easy to explain — the need to reproduce and to care for those offspring. Love for your extended family would be because of kin selection — it helps if genes like yours survive.

7. Why does it bother you when you see another person — say some starving kid in Africa that you will never know — suffering or being oppressed?

Why does it bother me personally? Because I have a deep, visceral reaction to suffering, especially human suffering. I may never know that kid, but I wouldn’t wish what they’re going through on anyone. I don’t know that my basic human empathy towards another human needs a deeper justification than that.

It also bothers me in a rational sense, because I know that suffering and oppression tend to lead to more suffering and oppression. The children of the oppressed can easily become the oppressor. On the other hand, that suffering child is still human, still basically capable of the same things I am, given the opportunity.

8. Where did the laws of mathematics and science come from?

Humans.

A trivial example: Gravity is an inherent property of reality. The law of gravity is our description of it. I would argue that while reality is itself objective, it is somewhat subjective how we divide it into properties. For instance, classical mechanics has concepts of work and energy which are entirely artificial and directly derived from Newton’s three laws.

Mathematics is similar — we invented the laws of mathematics to describe how the universe actually works. Take consistency, or the insistence that P=P is true and P=¬P is false: We insist that a thing is what it is, and isn’t what it isn’t, because in the reality we find ourselves in, things never are what they aren’t. Yet paraconsistent logic exists, and may even be useful, it just doesn’t generally describe reality.

If you want to know why reality is the way it is, there are two problems with this question: First, do we really know that it could have been different? And second, why is God the way he is? If God was just the tiniest bit less loving, or the tiniest bit more jealous, we might not exist today, right?

9. Does it bother you at all that the worst atrocities in history have been committed by atheists?

It might, if it were true. I’m not convinced it is.

What would bother me is if there were a causal link between the two. You can’t get from “There probably isn’t a god” to “I should kill five million Jews,” and you certainly agreed with me when we spoke that Hitler wasn’t an atheist at all.

10. What would you accept to be legitimate evidence for the existence of God? What type of “proof” are you looking for?

That’s your job. I’m a bit surprised you asked a question like this, when you asked for short answers.

However, I can give examples of things which would certainly make me take a second look:

• The stars rearrange themselves in the sky to display some sort of message, in an event visible by everyone everywhere in the world that it’s night.
• Jesus just shows up, physically, and gives me the same evidence Thomas had — let me touch him, and let me see him float.
• Someone finally claims the James Randi Educational Foundation’s Million Dollar Challenge, and they do so using something directly related to their faith.

For a more complete list — not all of which would instantly convert me, but all of which are a good start — I would recommend this two-part series on YouTube: Part 1 Part 2

11. If you were to conclude there is a God and Jesus Christ is, in fact, the Son of God, how would your life need to change?

I would spend a lot more time investigating his life and his message. That’s all I can promise.

Right now, when I read the Bible, I see a petty, vengeful, jealous god who makes the Greek gods look like saints. I’d need a lot of questions answered before I decided to actually follow Jesus and God.

Before you rush to reply, consider: These are questions for after I’m convinced there’s a real possibility that there is actually a God. Many people I talk to get it the other way around, and as much fun as it is listening to someone try to justify God’s genocide, it’s beside the point. First prove he exists, then we can argue about whether he’s good.

12. Have you ever personally sought for God and, if so, how did you do it?

In all sorts of ways, and there is no way this can possibly be a short answer.

I sought God as a child — I built my own little Ark of the Covenant and my own Ten Commandments, and put them in my room. I didn’t so much pray as talk to God, and sometimes I imagined I heard answers.

I was Bar-Mitzvah’d, and while I remember a few difficult-to-learn bits of Hebrew, I don’t remember the particular Torah passage I read and explained.

As a young adult, I meditated, which I felt brought me closer to God and the divine. I suppose I prayed often, but unconventionally — I tried to keep it to the point, as I would imagine God would like to hear. Over a meal, I would just say “Thanks,” and hold onto that feeling of gratitude for a moment, imagining that God wanted my actual gratitude, not ritual words of praise recited so often they’re rendered meaningless to me.

I remember visiting the synagogue Frank Lloyd Wright designed, and saying to my father, “I think that God is here, and that this is one of his favorite places.” It was empty at the time, especially the giant upper sanctuary, which was normally closed because the roof was starting to fail, but I felt he was there.

I remember visiting a funeral of a friend of my father’s, and while it wasn’t God directly, I felt a sudden wave of sadness and love wash over me as soon as I stepped into the church. It was as if the entire place was filled with the love people had for this man, and I wished I had known him.

When I lost my faith, but still held onto the possibility, I often searched for an appropriate blessing, something like, “I wish you well, whatever form that may take, I’m not attached to who or what blesses you, interpret it however you like.” The closest I came was “Namaste.”

I no longer actively seek God. I still seek truth, and I try to do that with reason, humility, and curiosity — the tools of science. But so far as I can tell, God is a dead end. There is so much else to know, and only one lifetime to know it in! Why waste time on God?

13. In the past, in what ways do you believe God hurt you or failed you?

I don’t believe he exists, so how can he have done any such things?

There was no traumatic moment when I expected God to do something, and he didn’t. There was only the moment when I realized I could no longer justify my own belief.

14. Can you name a person who is more admirable and worth emulating than Jesus Christ?

If we ignore the supernatural aspect, Norman Borlaug. Among many other awards, his Congressional Gold Medal is for saving the lives of over a billion people. Suppose Jesus did somehow cure disease, blindness, etc — how many lives did he save? (Again, if we’re ignoring the supernatural, we must also ignore those he saves from Hell.)

If we allow myths and stories, then I would choose Prometheus. Jesus died for your sins, yes, and by some accounts spent the next three days in Hell. Then he returned to Earth for a bit, before ascending to Heaven to rule the Universe. Prometheus stole fire from the Gods and gave it to mortals, and in return, he was chained to a rock and has his liver eaten out by an eagle once a day, to this very day.

15. What do you believe to be your purpose in life?

I believe there is no absolute purpose, so whatever purpose I have is mine to choose.

My purpose, then, is to contribute to the legacy I am born into — of scientists, philosophers, and curious minds; to contribute something, no matter how small, to the knowledge of mankind; to live with integrity and compassion; to be the kind of person I can be proud of.

16. What do you think about when you gaze up into the starry night or stand by the ocean and watch the waves come in?

By themselves? I tend not to think, so much as stand in awe…

When I watch the ocean, I think of my grandfather, who loved to sail, and of my other grandfather, who loved to fish. I think of going sailing, or bluefishing, or swimming…

When I look at the stars — at the real starry night sky, away from city lights — when I finally catch my breath, I mutter, my voice catching with the beauty, “A still more glorious dawn awaits…” and chills run down my spine.

17. What do you think happened to the body of Jesus?

I’m not convinced Jesus existed at all — there are enough people I respect on both sides of the debate. Supposing he existed, I don’t really know — I would guess he was buried, but maybe he was burned at Gehenna, maybe he was left in the desert to die, who knows?

18. Why do you think so few people agree with you?

Oh, quite a lot of people agree with me on quite a lot of things. We both agree Hitler was wrong, for example. Around 1.5 billion Muslims agree with me that Jesus did not die for my sins, and that he was never resurrected, and that he was not the son of God, though they are convinced that he existed, while I am not.

If you mean atheism specifically, I answered this in question 4, I thought.

19. How well do you know and get along with your earthly father? Would your father say that you respect him?

I imagine he would, but I wouldn’t presume. I certainly respect him. Both of my parents, in fact — why is this question about my father, and not my mother?

It isn’t just that my parents are the reason I exist, it’s that my parents are, likely as you read this, working hard — both of them — to make the money to put me and my brother through college. They both know my opinions on religion and God all too well — they can’t get me to shut up about them — yet when they see me doing something in line with the purpose I outlined above, something that should make them proud, they support me, even if they wish I had chosen a different path. My father is the one who is still religious, yet he is the one who first told me about AAS at Iowa State.

20. Does the number of famous atheists who died in despair and hopeless concern you? What is it like for you to live with no ultimate hope?

Why would you assume I have no ultimate hope? And why would fame be relevant? Does the number of famous preachers who were later caught in profoundly ironic scandal concern you? (Ted Haggard, Kent Hovind, etc.)

I have all kinds of hope, it just extends beyond my own ego. I have hope for humanity, hope for the rest of the world. And I have hope for myself, for the rest of my life.

But I have so much more than hope. I have integrity, determination, and passion. I wake up every day excited about what I know that day will be.

And I know from my elders that this is not a young person thing.

21. When was the last time you personally read the New Testament with an open mind — and, more importantly, with an open heart?

This is a loaded question. Whenever an atheist mentions having read the Bible, the assumption is that they didn’t have an “open heart” or an “open mind”, or that some lessons can only be understood with faith. In other words, “Unless you agree with my interpretation of the Bible, you must not have read it, or you must have read it wrong.”

I have never read the entire New Testament cover to cover. I did read one book, in high school — I think it was the book of John — and I read the two stories of Genesis. Since then, I’ve read bits and pieces, whatever seems relevant, often entire passages.

The fact is, unless it’s the word of God, it’s not a terribly good book. I still intend to read it at some point, because it does have a massive cultural impact, but it just isn’t that interesting on its own.

22. If there is a hell, do you think you will go there?

I have no idea.

At one point, I would have answered definitively, “No.” I believed, then, that any god judging my entire life, my entire being, with full knowledge of my point of view, would see my side of things.

If there is a good God, I don’t believe I will go to Hell, because I don’t believe a good God would allow Hell to exist. But I have no idea what sort of god might exist, and I certainly have no idea what sort of hell might exist.

If there is a Valhalla, do you think you will go there?

23. If there is a heaven where God reigns and is worshiped, would you want to go there?

That depends — see question 11. Right now, if it’s the god of the Bible, or the Heaven I hear about most often from religion, I would not want to go there. I would not want to spend an eternity with the kind of being who allows babies to die in fires, who deliberately kills or orders the deaths of entire civilizations, and who has such a fragile ego as to demand eternal worship.

If there actually is such a thing as a good God and a Heaven in which he reigns, I imagine I would like to go there, though I’d still like to know more about that Heaven before making a decision.

24. If you are wrong, would you want to know it?

Absolutely. That is what learning is: Finding out when you’re wrong.

Oddly, Tom, your answer to this question was unequivocably “No.” You said, “If this is a delusion, don’t save me from it!” If you’re not willing to be proven wrong, how can we have an honest conversation? How can you ever learn the truth when you believe you have absolute truth, and by your own admission, you’re willing to hold onto that belief whether or not it’s true?

Why ask questions, if you’re already prepared to ignore the answers?

But that’s not me, not ever. AronRa said it best: “I would much rather be proven wrong than forever be wrong.”

This is why I advocate a trimming, if not abolition, of religion. I am a realist, I know religion would never be abolished, nor do I think it really should be completely. And of course, we mean religion in its broadest terms, there are certain specifics of theist religions that I think we agree SHOULD be abolished. However, we are at a point, I believe, where any concession to religious ideology or zealotry has long reaching and far flunt negative effects. Our civilization at this point literally has the power to change the world as we know it, to cure diseases, to feed everyone, and to leave our atmosphere. We can do so many amazing things and there are still people attempting to hobble our attempts at a more peaceful and just world. Not because they are explicitly evil or wish ill upon others (though some are and do).  But because of certain religious beliefs we see more harm coming to our fellow humans, for example, that two same gendered people don’t deserve legal protection. That women don’t have a right to their own body.  That scientific progress is inherently bad and should be discouraged. That their plot of land is better than any other plot of land simply by virtue of it being their plot of land.  The only answer to these kinds of harmful beliefs is first reasoned disapproval and then abolition of the foundation of such beliefs.  So perhaps it is not the abolition of religion proper but rather the abolition of dogma and faith that is my focus, but it is abolition none the less. Giving any quarter to these beliefs legitimizes them and gives rise to even further ridiculousness.

Now, when it comes to respecting religion as an means to good ends as Don references in disaster releif and charity, those are all great! Great things can come from religious groups and ideologies and we should not stand in the way of these efforts. What we should do is show how these efforts are not dependent on faith or religious ideology and can be had without any sort of dogma. They are separate and at times [i]despite[/i] their religious convictions that such good is done in our world.  The more we separate goodness and morality from religion by both example and activism the more we chip away at the idea that religion is inherently good or moral. Furthermore, it lays bare the fact that we can and do have goodness and morality without religion and we can show that much of the progression made in our civilization has been in spite of religion, not due to it.

Jason K>

First of all, and most importantly, I believe to be an atheist you are going to be somewhat of a skeptic.  An atheist is skeptical of claims without evidence. It is little wonder that organized religions such as Christianity or Islam are definitely outside the realm of evidence based reasoning for the atheist, but so are things like astrology or jingoism.  Most atheists require at least some kind of basis for the reason they believe in things whether it be gravity, a political ideology, or any new claims that may pop up in the news headlines. “A lady in Smalltown, Ohio developed a cure for blindness! CLICK HERE NOW?!” Not likely for the atheist because the atheist is skeptical.  This is what I would consider to be the most important quality for an atheist because the more skeptical you are of unfounded claims, the less likely you are to be taken in by a bad argument.  For example, the stars don’t dictate what kind of person you are, and no, prayer has no basis in healing people so I shall believe in nor put stock in either. This is not a malicious attack on astrology or prayer but rather a description of the way the world is where evidence is more important than wishful thinking.  It’s easy to see why such things as religious supernatural tales or even something as common as American Exceptionalism aren’t especially big things in atheist circles. Not because of some “attack” on them but because there is evidence actually against many claims.

Now, being a skeptic isn’t just about immediately denouncing any new claim as ridiculous or impossible, far from it. We don’t live in a vacuum and certain things are accepted by fiat like there being a tomorrow or that water will come out of the faucet when we turn it on. However, even these things aren’t taken without evidence, the earth has been around since as long as we can remember, the sun has always risen and based on our understanding of astronomy and physicist will continue to. Same goes for water coming out of the faucet or our car starting, they fit into our understanding of how the world empirically works.  However, it’s important to be critical of any claim not necessarily opposed to it. A great example is the latest one involving stem cell research and the recuperation of burn victims in the use of new skin grafting techniques.  This is pretty big stuff, and stuff that I’m sure most people reading this don’t have an intimate understanding of how it works. So, we’ll be skeptical for now and rely on other tried and true methods of measuring how accurate this new method is. If it is backed up by evidence and data then we can place more stock in it and continue to move it closer and closer to acceptance as an idea. The key isn’t to just accept it because we want it to be true, but to be critical of it and require that such a bold claim go through rigorous testing before it can be accepted.

A second and huge part of this is the idea of what constitutes evidence. Evidence has to be able to be weighed and measured for those that are supposed empirical claims, and have to be logically consistent for those that are not.  We know if I drop a pencil and it falls to the ground that is evidence of trial one. We can do it over and over again to confirm our trial and now we have evidence for what we call gravity.  Things are observable and repeatable and this is how we attain evidence. We do not wish or hope for evidence to be there. We can make conjecture on what an outcome may be using past experience (other evidence), but we cannot simply create it or will it into being. This is an important distinction for many atheists; if something is true no matter how much we dislike it, it’s still true based on the evidence, for example the fact that say people will get sick with the Flu.  We don’t like it, we don’t want it, we actually hate it, but it’s true.  However, the idea that the flu is created by some devil or some such is simply not observable or repeatable. This cannot be entered as evidence but as merely an idea for which there is no evidence.  As skeptics and critical thinkers we must dismiss this idea until some evidence to that effect enters the situation.

The last point I want to hit on is the overarching theme that we have seen in this so far and that is the theme of science. SCIENCE YOU SAY!? Yes, science. Evidence? Data? In line with other claims that have been supported by repeated similar attempts? Yes, science. Being skeptical is a key component of being scientific.  An interesting thing often happens when the idea of science comes up is that many theists often tout this as a smoke screen that an atheist puts up to avoid actually explaining anything, but that simply isn’t the case. Any theist can read over the past few pages and see that nothing posted there is anything that is specific to atheists alone. Everyone is skeptical about something; it’s just where that skepticism comes from and what it is applied to.  That is called being scientific and religious people are often scientific in everyday life, just not in certain things.  For an atheist, using science isn’t a smoke screen it’s just the admittance that we need to apply critical thinking and skepticism to everything in life, not just the things we don’t like. Ask any Christian whether Jesus wasn’t divine.  They cannot give you a scientific reason for why he is, but they can give you a scientific reason for why their computer turns on. Being an atheist means trying to be a scientist all of the time, not just some of the time, and applying that scientific outlook to everything in life.

So to wrap it up, to be an atheist is to be a scientist all of the time. It means to look at events and then measure their consequence instead of assuming a truth beforehand without evidence. To be skeptical of claims without evidence and in particular claims for which there can be no evidence.  Any person, regardless of their religious leanings, will demand evidence for nearly everything they do.  To be an atheist is to demand it for believing in things as well.

Jason K.

The reason I bring this story up is because we often hear of the forgiveness of the lord and the powers of compassion he has when we look at the Christian dogma.  However, when we look at Christian scripture we see several passages that claim that all sins are equally wrong and if this is the case, we have a problem.

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

So we return to our story of the church goer that was very excited to lead the church in prayer, but had broken one of the rules of the church.   If all sins are equal and god is forgiving, should she not be subject to the same reprieve as any other sinner? Let us compound this question and compare the sins to a supposedly “worse” sin of that or murder.  There are several reformed murders and criminals in our society that claim to have found god and become quite devout. Often times there are even religious leaders or activists that had troubles in the past but have since reconciled with their specific church groups. I wonder what this group would think of allowing a murderer to become their new Pastor? A thief? A coveter of….goats or something? The answer is surely to be no, especially if they would not allow a woman out of wedlock to even lead their church in prayer.

Now at first this sounds like a criticism of that specific church for not adhering to “good” principals, but it goes further than that. The way I see it the church has three ways to deal with this situation, and all other situations pertaining to the Christian faith for other churches.

First, they can stick to their guns and remove anyone that does not live a completely biblical life from their position of respect. Murderer, you’re out. Thief? You’re out too. Looked at the pastors’ daughter with covetous eyes? Back to the back row of pews for you.  Worked on a Sunday? Friends with atheists? Used the lords name in vain? Get outta town. So you can see the problem there, they wouldn’t have anyone qualified to be in the church since all sins are equal and everyone is a sinner.  It’s not very productive, but it’s consistent with the dogma of the faith.  Otherwise they have to let everyone in because Jesus has forgiven their sins, correct?  There should be no differentiation between the murder and the housewife jealous of the Jones’ new SUV.

Second, they can break the rules and lay claim that some sins are worse than others. Stole from the supermarket when you were 20? That’s alright; you’ve repented so you can hold a post. Had a kid out of wedlock? These things happen, go right in. However, as noted by scripture this is breaking the rules. It seems like a more realistic approach to the rules, as we all know; there are several criminals and less scrupulous people that run religious organizations today.  The problem with this is that its breaking scriptural rules. How can you lay claim to be a religious organization and then toss out most of the scripture pertaining to sin and the penalties there of?  You can’t without admitting that at least in some part the scriptures aren’t true and that the rules of day to day life take place over Bronze Age mythology.  This is actually the path that most churches use today; else we wouldn’t have any church goers.  Often appeals to Jesus are made to except everyone from judgment, but why some and not others?  Everyone would be sitting down in the back row like in the example with the singing lady above, so they have a tacit, and inconsistent, understanding that some sins aren’t THAT bad and we can skip over some parts of the bible we don’t like.

The last, and best option, is to look at the scripture, look at daily life and conclude that none of those things really makes any sense.  You had a kid out of wedlock? So what, as long as you are happy and can sustain the family there is no reason for anyone to poke their nose in at all.  Stolen things in the past? You’ve done a horrible thing, but as long as you own up to you mistakes and never do them again there shouldn’t be any beef once you’ve repaid your debt to society and the victims. We aren’t going to issue a maximum punishment for every single transgression because all crimes are not equal as sins are supposedly to be. We deal with these things in the methods we have today here and now and not in some superstitious rule book where we tally up your faults and render judgment on what you can do in your spare time.  When we look at the other two options the only consistent and really fair thing we can do is to dismiss the scripture for what it is, unrealistic and invasive rules that prohibit anything approaching a normal human life.  In the example above a woman has experienced more suffering because of some action she did that was arbitrarily decided by people much older than her to be unfit for leadership in their group.  If the group was to be truly consistent, they should cast her from the church all together because she is a sinner, and thusly on par with someone like Adolf Hitler or Jarod Laughner, unless Jesus saves people like that too.  This is a shining example of why this arbitrary morality shown in scriptures has to be refuted at every step.

So next time someone begins to discuss how much of a sinner each individual is, remember, that even within religious groups there is judging, inconsistency, and downright meanness based on individual members’ interpretation of certain rules.  Remind them that if all sins are supposedly equal,  why haven’t they thrown themselves in jail or banished themselves from their church group.  If they belief in the bible be sure to remind them what is written in Galatians 5:19-21

“fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like . . . “those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” -Galatians 5:19-21

In short, they’re just as screwed as anyone else, Jesus or not.

Jason K.