This is a great idea for a quiz. Both South Park and Christopher Hitchens are often highly controversial and anti-religious, so can you sort the South Park quotes from the Hitchens quotes? Some of them are obvious, whilst for others you will have had to either watch the South Park episode or listen to Hitchens on television.

I managed to score 18 out of 25, can you do better?

H/T to Friendly Atheist

Possibly Related Posts:

• Big (Kinda) Fat Atheist Quiz 2008
• Big Fat Atheist Quiz Of The Year 2008
• YouTube Thursday – Faith, Derren Brown, & Bibleman
• YouTube Thursday – Mr. Deity, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Richard Wiseman
• YouTube Thursday – Edward Current

As I have previously mentioned, I was sent a signed copy of Ray’s latest book, and over the next few weeks I will be going over it chapter by chapter; reading and debunking its content so you don’t have to. For now though, I thank Darrin for agreeing to this interview, and for his thorough answers to my questions. The interview is pretty long, so it’s below the fold of this post.

• Since reading Ray’s book, you say you have backslid to agnostic. Could you expand on your beliefs a bit further? Are you using the more modern definition of agnosticism as being “unsure”, or are you more of an “agnostic” atheist as defined by Thomas Huxley?

I have indeed “backslid” to agnostic, as Ray wrote on his WorldNetDaily article, although Ray did not indicate in the article the exact position where I ended up, nor did Ray directly link my reading of his book with the cause of this backsliding. So, in a sense, Ray is absolutely correct, but in a way that’s completely misleading. I wrote him to thank him for the copy, as he and Kirk took their time to sign it for me, but I had just received the book in the mail and had not had time to read it yet. My “deconversion” from atheism came before that time. I mentioned my newfound agnosticism and asked if we could speak on the phone again, but he said he was busy with sixty-odd interviews or something. That response was quite terse and unconcerned compared to the previous times we’d spoken, and that was the end of our contact.

There are certainly many different definitions and breeds of agnostic. Many agnostics (and a few Deists, for that matter) come across as poorly as many of the atheists that I address in the foreword for Ray’s book, and express a wish to do no more than troll Christians, ignore their responses, and fail to check any arguments, so they can simply get a rise from believers.

I am not one of this breed; if I were to specify with an exact label, I’d call myself a “searching Agnostic” – although my personal research is currently centered around the validity and consistency of the Christian faith in particular (I plan to begin studying Islam and Judaism soon, as well), my main focus is discovering for sure the basis of it all: whether or not a creator God exists. All further questions regarding whether such a being designed this hypothetical “spark” of creation and cared about us humans that followed are also routinely considered, but my main focus is currently on all arguments for God’s existence (excepting the Ontological Argument, which has been, even in Plantinga’s stronger formulation, decidedly refuted, and also excepting the Teleological Argument, which begs the question).

I turned agnostic because I recognized three points following a personal meeting in November with Dr. William Lane Craig, a prominent Christian apologist and debater:

(1) As mentioned, I have not reflected adequately upon the arguments for God, with the greatest strength weighing on Bill’s (Dr. Craig’s) “Kalam Cosmological Argument.” I had heard this as an atheist, and simply recycled such soundly refuted counters like “who made God?” and positing such things as cyclic models of the universe and inflationary models and all that. After discovering that such responses are long in their graves, I’ve moved onto Dr. Morriston and Dr. Quentin Smith’s counters to Kalam, and even after reading those, I still find myself questioning and inventing counterarguments against both sides. This fence-sitting contributed to my agnosticism.

(2) My worldview neither entails nor denies that God exists. I found this out on personal reflection, and since this would take us too far off-topic, I will withhold further comment on this matter.

(3) Most importantly, I discovered that my reason for maintaining my atheism – namely, that “no proof for God is proof against God” – is a logical fallacy. One cannot reach “no proof for X, therefore not-X”; that’s a fallacy called (formally, not pejoratively) the argument from ignorance. I’ve been offered by Dr. Richard Carrier that such a position was, in fact, valid and *not* the argument from ignorance, and I will follow up on the evidence for his saying that (we did not have time before his debate with Craig in Missouri to address it in full personally), but until then, I can neither say God does or does not exist, specifically because I am exploring whether the Universe was or was not created – or, more broadly in the since of Aquinas, at least necessary proceeding from such a being.

• I think most atheists probably know Ray Comfort for his “banana argument”, his new argument that claims “An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything.”, and his ignorance on the theory of evolution. Why should atheists listen to Ray when he misrepresents both us and science so much?

Curiously enough, I did not know Ray Comfort that well when I did the intro, and had discovered his link somewhere in the maze of the blogosphere. Noticing the large amount of comments under his top few articles, I figured he was some type of apologist. I’d seen references and Googled links to this “banana argument,” but did not find them worthy of my time, being that his association with my old childhood hero Kirk Cameron piqued my attention more. I did not properly research the man beyond some street-preaching videos on YouTube.

I wrote the introduction shortly thereafter, within a commentary thread linked to a blog post requesting atheists to write potential introductions. I was fresh off of a fight with a YouTube atheist whose name ought to go unmentioned, and still had a bitter taste in my mouth from some comparatively poor “new” atheist arguments I’d read in the popular literature and seen on the Internet (with the bottom of the barrel being the faulty Horus-connection Christ Myth theory as presented by the worst film ever made, “Zeitgeist”). Perusing the other “introductions” in the thread yielded one or two decent ones out of dozens of outright insulting polemics, and I blew my top and wrote what I did. I figured by the spirit of the book that Ray would have chosen one of the many angry polemics to back up the title he had planned, so I was shocked when I received the message that mine was chosen over the others in the thread for printing.

That intro was sparked by anger, but the words weren’t caused by it – I felt the same way while I still held to atheism even after my anger subsided, and I still feel the same way today, so it’s not simply some fire-starting David Berlinski-esque trolling. Like Tony Flew, I’m pretty mad at the state of skepticism today. Thus, in the intro, I invited atheists to read and refute Ray’s arguments, and even though I later discovered that they were not particularly strong, I doubt many skeptics read anything beyond the first chapter available on Amazon.

It may not be worthy of the work to refute even a sentence, some may say, but Ray is a popular voice, and that alone validates some kind of action from the atheist and nonbeliever (I will put in a few of my own counters here, myself). The Rational Response Squad, with whom I’ve disagreed on many occasions, offered a relatively patient response to Ray on national television, and none of them exploded in rage like many of Ray’s readers do.

Rationally tempered frustration for Ray, especially when he does not listen to matters about evolution, is valid, however; but, if Ray does not change and show a willingness to learn, one must (to paraphrase the “Good Book”) simply dust one’s feet and walk to someone more willing to stick to the arguments, as cursing obviously does no good. If Ray is not worthy to argue against, then in your view, wasting too much time on Ray and not approaching the caliber of the works from an Alvin Plantinga, say, will do nothing but further distort your view on the stronger arguments for Christianity that will at least give you a greater respect for those who hold the religion and practice it in a consistent and open manner.

As for the Banana Argument – well, people have to understand something about Ray. Many do not know this, but Ray is being groomed by Calvinists, including the popular speaker Paul Washer and the knowledgeable debater and podcast host Dr. James White. Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis, and the hyper-Calvinist Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr. are quoted on his back cover, and Ray’s book teems with typical Calvinist approaches (for instance, Ray refers to John 6, a popular Calvinist passage, in his answer to the question at the bottom of page 45 in his book).

Ray himself told me he was “on the fence” about Calvinism – which, for those who are unfamiliar, is a minority, albeit vocal, Christian worldview that holds that man doesn’t have the free will to choose God and that the “truly saved” are chosen by God – and shows nearly schizophrenic signs both for and against the position on his blog and in his book. I don’t know how much he actually knows about this subject (he calls Arminianism, or the general name for the majority of Christians who do hold to free will as commonly defined, “Armenianism” somewhere in the book), but the coaching from his Calvinist friends is clear throughout. Odd, really, given Kirk’s participation in “Left Behind” – a movie series based on books to which Calvinist eschatology (loosely meaning “end times” Biblical interpretation) stands vehemently opposed.

Presuppositional apologetics, a methodology of some subdivisions of Calvinism, is a way of delivering the Christian message without calling you to convert to God, since due to their belief in God’s sole choice in saving one cannot come to believe on evidence or old time “Pentecostal Sunday conversion.” Thus, the presuppositionalist presents Christianity in a way that demonstrates how, if taken as a presumption, “life, the Universe, and everything” is explained. In the (paraphrased) words of my Calvinist friend Ben Maas, presuppositionalism simply says “this is what your worldview says about this matter, and here is the way Christianity explains it. Now isn’t that simpler and more consistent?” Dr. Greg Bahnsen, the late apologist who clashed with Gordon Stein in the 80’s, is perhaps the best known practicer of this method, and used the foundations of logic as his centerpiece for his presuppositionalist take on Christianity.

With that background in place, let’s take a look at Ray’s infamous crown jewel. Unfortunately, the Banana Argument is not as well thought-out as Bahnsen’s position, but when I saw the video I knew exactly what Ray was doing, especially considering his presuppositional Calvinist background that his friends no doubt have given him.

Ray is explaining from the Christian position how the banana was designed to be eaten, so as to better allow for the survival of all the species that God supposedly created with a diet that included that fruit (namely, to Ray, humans who have the means to utilize the “tab”). Now, if I recall correctly, the banana in that format was actually developed by men to be that way, and I still think the example itself is VERY weak despite this fact, but I might be one of few skeptics who know what Ray was attempting to demonstrate. It wasn’t a “proof for God,” and cannot be; as above, it was supposed to be an example on Ray’s part of showing how the presupposition of God’s design better explains the existence of such a fruit rather than supposed “random, blind evolution.” It fell flat, and I’m disappointed to see him call his own argument a joke in his book after he got called out on it – that does nothing more than openly demonstrate that the man’s embarrassed.

Does the Banana Argument stink? Yes. But if you see it from the above approach, it at least demonstrates that the man is not totally insane. Ray has a talent for speaking, as his introductory speech in the RRS debate shows, but (as that speech’s content and his book in general likewise shows) his arguments need strengthening. Listening to his opponents who behave rationally would be a good start for him, but in many cases he ignores these opponents, and many opportunities I witnessed in later viewings of his site, which tackled tougher questions than those which do appear in his book, have been ignored.

• What arguments do you think Ray uses that would most likely convince a non-believer, i.e. what are his most powerful arguments in the book?

None. Ray bases the bulk of his arguments in his book on the Bible, reflecting his aforementioned presuppositionalist grooming. I am not particularly a fan of this method; even from a believer’s standpoint, it drives the nonbeliever absolutely nowhere unless it’s presented in such a way to spark his or her interest in the Bible (negatively or positively). After all, if it is God that does the work, presenting the Gospel the way Ray does is all that’s left for the apologist to do.

I suppose if I were forced at gunpoint to answer, I would say Ray’s “nothing created everything?” argument against atheism, but it is flat-out invalid the way he presents it, since he keeps insisting that, according to atheism, there must have been some big black extant “nothing” (like in the Neverending Story or Heidegger’s depressed writings or something) that pooped out a Universe. But there is no “before the Universe,” since time began with the Universe, and there is no existent state of “nothing” – even an unstable vacuum, which is not the case sans the Universe, is *something*.

• You mentioned in the foreword that most new atheist books demonstrate a “lack of both logic and knowledge” when talking about Christianity. Which atheist books do you think do this the most, and which books would you recommend as good critical reading?

I would like to preface this by stating that I deconverted in the Sagan/Randi/Penn and Teller era, before the “new” atheists were anything more than Richard Dawkins’ (wonderful) book “Blind Watchmaker.” There was still a shred of respect in that era, as Penn’s recent “Gift of a Bible” video demonstrates – a video all skeptics should watch and consider, by the way, before yelling at the next person offering them a New Testament with kind words.

I will not go deeply into this, but like my fledgling days as an atheist, these books typically demonstrate an inadequate consideration of Christian arguments before launching into diatribes. I have not yet read Dan Dennett’s book, but as for the other three “four horseman,” they are not of much comparative worth despite their popularity. Harris has much to say (including a very good establishment of morality very close to my own convictions on the subject), but I believe his attacks on modernism in religion and its enabling of extremism are unfounded, and the book ends on a very sour note with some sort of mystical consciousness-denying exercise.

I suppose Dawkins’ book is the strongest of the three I’ve read out of the “Four Horsemen,” although many books on the back shelf of philosophy and religion are much better and do not reuse many of the old canards that Dawkins states (example: “the even more complex designer” argument). Compare that last parenthetical argument of Dawkins’, for instance, with its fellow arguments in “The Improbability of God,” and you can see how weak the New Atheists’ spokespersons actually grasp the philosophical considerations needed to properly address the reasonable and well-learned believer’s arguments.

Vic Stenger is commonly regarded as another horse, and although “God: The Failed Hypothesis” soundly refutes the Argument from Design, it fails on many other counts, including a well-refuted pile of counterarguments for the nonexistence of God. If you want a New Atheist book to get, though, I guess I would say this would be the one to pick up to begin wading out of the shallow end of the pool.

I’ve saved Hitchens for last for a reason – he’s a hilarious polemicist and probably a joy to meet in person, but after watching his debate with Turek and seeing that he was unprepared for many of Frank’s arguments, I would like some kind of stage here to warn him that his debate in a week and a half with the aforementioned Bill Craig will be much more challenging (even many atheists I know concede this). Craig is no Banana Man and does not launch into the polemics of a Dinesh D’Souza (who Chris did effectively debate). The Hitch needs to do what he can in the time he has remaining to prepare – read some debates Craig had with Quentin Smith or Ray Bradley, for instance, as they are the only two people I’ve seen in many debates who actually beat Craig. I don’t like some of Hitch’s tactics, but I like the guy in general and do not wish to see him embarrassed. I am not joking at all when I say that he will belly-flop resoundingly if he comes ill-prepared.

And as for good material on the atheistic side, pick up “Improbability of God” or “The Empty Tomb” (both various authors) from Amazon. Richard Carrier’s “Sense and Goodness Without God” is a philosophical guidebook that can establish a reasonable philosophy behind the rampant so-called “scientism” today. For the theistic side (and yes, all skeptics ought to at least familiarize themselves!), get “Reasonable Faith” by Craig for the best overview of the arguments, and “Debating Calvinism” by Dave Hunt/James White for an introduction-by-proxy to the depth of the two prominent opposing Christian worldviews today. For good overviews from authors with whom you can easily interact, try “Why I Became an Atheist” by John Loftus, opposed by “The Impossible Faith” by his (equally famous) opponent J.P. Holding, both of whom I’m proud to call feisty (but helpful!) friends. Oh, and YouTube the Greg Bahnsen/Gordon Stein debate I mentioned above before you run headlong into the “Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence” – if you’re an internet atheist, and you don’t know what this means, believe me … you will eventually!

Every nonbeliever, by the way, should read the Bible and understand exegesis and Christian interpretation. Reusing old canards will get you nothing but disrespect, and coming unprepared and angry will get you nowhere. If this is your approach, take up gardening and stay far away from the subject. Nobody should engage in controversial study if he is not willing to at least learn what the “other side” thinks.

Finally, keep away from the Christ Myth and all of its various forms. They are weak, loosely linked, and very obviously designed to do nothing but provide the frothing atheist with nothing but a “Ha! Ha! Your beloved Jesus didn’t even exist!” nose-thumbing type of argument. It’s horrible, it’s invalid, Jesus existed in history (read Bart Ehrman’s chapter on this subject in “Jesus: Interrupted”), so get over it.

• You are a member of the Debunking Christianity blog team. Have you thought more critically about your rejection of Christianity since reading Ray’s book? Would you say you are more open to religion now?

I am not “open to religion” specifically – rather, to be intellectually honest, I am open to facts, and if that necessitates the existence of God, or even of the YHWH of Christianity, so be it. I’ll act accordingly; what is true comes first, and how I act proceeds.

My friend John (DC’s site owner) knows I differ from him on the “Debunking” standpoint, and yet has kindly provided me a platform to critically explore – I come from more of a “discussion” approach, and the only Christianity I wish to debunk out of existence is the Fred Phelps type and those advocating the top-down approach to theonomy and dominionism. My main beefs with Christianity aren’t even religious – they’re political (see: evolution and creationism in schools), and one thing I’ve learned in my studies of the religion is that a good Christian does not have to be a good Republican, as well; in fact, many Christians – including fundamentalists! – vehemently are *not.*

That’s about all I have in response to your thought-provoking questions. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my position on Ray and with this whole ordeal, and to let me stand on my own streetcorner for awhile and preach a little at your blog. All comments and criticisms are welcome, but as my parting message to all the New Atheists, don’t engage in polemics when talking to a Christian who is attempting to be rational and is doing the favor of leaving politics out of the discussion. Return the favor and listen to the response, or just take up a new hobby or something. To echo the misquote attributed to Joe Friday, “just the facts, ma’am.”

Possibly Related Posts:

• Jesus Week
• Questions Atheists CAN Answer
• A Fundamentalist Christian Answers The Atheist Thirteen
• The Children of the New BHA Billboards Are Not ‘Christian’
• Church of the Smashing Orangey Bit Responds to Atheist & Christian Billboards

Now I know about Quibblo and other interactive quiz makers hopefully this year’s quiz will be a bit larger! You can’t blame me for trying though, especially with my laptop blowing up.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Big Fat Atheist Quiz Of The Year 2008
• Who Said it? South Park or Hitchens?
• Questions Atheists CAN Answer
• The Benefits Of Atheism
• A Real Fundamentalist Christian Answers The Atheist Thirteen!

How much of it can you remember?

The “Big Fat Atheist Quiz Of The Year” will test how much people have been paying attention in regards to the blogosphere and the news. It will consist of an undecided number of multiple choice questions, presented in an online format on 31st December 2008.

Of course due to the nature of the quiz and people’s dishonesty, there won’t be any prizes, but it should be a fun thing to do. People can certainly brag about their scores (whether real or not).

The questions will be compiled over the next 2 months, and this is where I need some help. Obviously I can come up with a load of questions for the quiz, but if anyone can think of some good ones, please submit them using this online form.

Name / email is only neccessary in case I need to contact you. The “Source” should be a link to a webpage that contains the story relating to the question. For example, if you write a question about the PZ Myers “expelled from expelled” controversy, a link to the blog post by PZ Myers might be a good idea :D

The 3 false answers are entirely optional for you to fill in, but they would help me out a bit later on. If you do include false answers, remember make them a bit challenging!

…and naturally, please submit as many questions as you can!

Possibly Related Posts:

• Big (Kinda) Fat Atheist Quiz 2008
• Who Said it? South Park or Hitchens?
• Questions Atheists CAN Answer
• The Benefits Of Atheism
• A Real Fundamentalist Christian Answers The Atheist Thirteen!

I took one look at the document in my hand and saw the word “God” mentioned a couple of times. Together with the picture of the sunset, I knew I was dealing with a religious guy. My mind worked through several scenarios; I could stay and talk to the man, telling him I don’t believe, and be late for my friends, or I could go be sociable. I chose the latter (mainly because of the aforementioned rush I was in), thanked the man, and went on my way.

Of course, I’m not going to let the questions in the document go unanswered…

Does God really care about us?

No, because there probably isn’t a God, and if there were, does it really look like it gives a shit?

Will war and suffering end?

No; humans are very social creatures, but we tend to subscribe to different types of society. Unfortunately, these societies do not like each other very much. Major suffering might end when we cure all major illnesses, but that doesn’t stop new illnesses, inflicted wounds, etc.

What happens to us when we die?

We rot in the ground, although I personally want my body donated to medical science and then the remains cremated and scattered somewhere (waste not people).

Is there any hope for the dead?

Is there any hope for other inanimate objects like spoons? No.

How can I pray and be heard by God?

Once you accept that you are talking to yourself, I’m certain you’ll be able to hear.

How can I find happiness in life?

Try new things, find out what makes you happy. Pursue it.

You might also notice none of my answers involve believing in a ridiculous doctrine made up by men thousands of years ago who thought the sun was magic. It’s a slight bonus.

I do hope the Jehovah’s Witnesses come round again; I’ll be able to give them my answers!

Possibly Related Posts:

• What Would it Take for You to Believe in God?
• Damn You FOX!
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Interview with Darrin Rasberry
• What The Bible Really Teaches About Hell
• Atheism > Jehovah

1. What was in the beginning?

If we assume there is a beginning to reality (not just the universe) then it is probably some form of singularity or something else. We’re not entirely sure, but these are good predictions based on the evidence. Of course, we know so little about time that it is possible there was no beginning.

2. How will life on earth end?

Given that life consists of every organism, it would be very unlikely for any natural event to wipe out every example of life on the planet. Single-celled organisms will probably last until the Sun dies.

3. What happens after death?

Our bodies decompose like everything else that dies. Seeing as death happens when electrical activity in the brain ceases, and it is those electrical signals that power our consciousness, there is no evidence to suggest we can think after this event, let alone have an “afterlife”.

4. What is the purpose of existence?

There is no purpose other than the one you give yourself. There is no grand plan for any of us. We have to make our life choices ourselves, and do what we want to do in life.

5. Why there is order in all of creation?

Give me an example and I might be able to comment on it. However chaos theory pretty much destroys all arguments for order. Nothing in the universe is deterministic, and everything tends to chaos.

6. Why there is morality in every civilization?

Because morality is the active conscious extension of basic instinct. Any social animal has a form of morality. Ours has advanced because of our high cognitive abilities.

7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?

They don’t. Just look at Sweden.

8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?

Emotions and reactions of people are very easy to read in the same species. A person who has had no human contact will still understand basic emotional concepts merely because they will have, at some point, had the same feelings. Case note: We all smile, laugh, cry, etc. There is variation in all these emotions, but not enough that you cannot tell them apart.

9. How did nothing create everything?

It didn’t. You are the only person who has claimed this. Atheists do not believe this. We have mentioned it before but you never listen.

10. Which came first–the chicken or the egg?

The egg. Although the mother looked very similar to a chicken of course. You’ll probably claim something like the “Chickaroo” existed though.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Church of the Smashing Orangey Bit Responds to Atheist & Christian Billboards
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Interview with Darrin Rasberry
• How Should Atheists Respond to a Christian Bus Advert?
• Jesus Week
• 101 Christian Quotes

I have a new book coming out soon. There will be a chapter on atheism. Tell me, what do atheists (officially) believe about:

God:

The Bible:

Heaven & Hell:

Sin:

Salvation:

Jesus:

Firstly, unlike Christianity we don’t have a doctrine telling us what to believe, so I can only answer the first of that list definitively. The others are down to personal beliefs, and I shall define my own.

God: All atheists disbelieve in all gods.

The Bible: I think the Bible is simply a book of stories and rules, written by man. It has no divine meaning (see above point about God). It was written to try and explain the unexplainable, but also to control people and make them easier to govern, using the threat of death and hellfire. In a modern society it should not be taken literally at all.

Heaven & Hell: I do not believe in either because I don’t think there is any valid reason why we would have an afterlife. However, I know some atheists who do believe in an “afterlife” of sorts, citing that the conscious mind could go on after death. I don’t think any atheists believe in Heaven & Hell in the Biblical perspective, because it goes against the point about God (again, see above).

Sin: I do not believe there is such a thing as sin, mainly because I do not believe that the Bible is anything other than a load of stories. If there is sin, then there must be moral absolutes, which do not exist because our stance on morality has changed over time. Homosexuality was originally thought of as fine, then the Christians decided it was evil, and now most of us think it is fine again. A continually evolving morality does not have sin, unless the sin were to evolve with it, which makes the entire point of it useless.

Salvation: Seeing as I do not believe in an afterlife, the concept of salvation seems ridiculous and unnecessary to me.

Jesus: Whether Jesus existed or not we may never know. I have mixed opinions on the subject. If he did exist then I think he was probably a very good teacher, who had interesting philosophies. If he claimed to be the Son of God then I would think he was mentally unstable, and probably got a load of followers the same way modern day “messiahs” like Michael Travesser do.

So there you go Ray, I have answered your questions. Feel free to put my answers in your book. My only demands are that I am fully cited (the entire url to my blog post in a footnote or something), and if possible, a free copy of your book when it comes out. You can contact me here.

Possibly Related Posts:

• YouTube Thursday – This Has to Be a Joke…Right?
• (Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Interview with Darrin Rasberry
• What The Bible Really Teaches About Hell
• Would You Like To Know The Truth?
• Questions Atheists CAN Answer

Why you decided to become an atheist..? WHAT gives you benefits to become an atheist? does it makes sense? what if you died and you proved that there is hell, eternal death in hell and the only way to go to heaven is to believe to Jesus, what would you do? will you repent?

I don’t know if “decided” is the correct word to use. I would have said it was more that I “realised” I was an atheist. I did so because I saw that whilst I had believed in God and Jesus for many years, I didn’t have a valid reason for believing in them. There was no evidence for God existing apart from in a book which is claimed to have been inspired by him. Such circular evidence went against how I came to know reason. I also saw problems with the whole form of a God that created the universe, because it doesn’t answer the questions about what created God. Why did something so natural like the universe have to be created by a non-natural phenomenon, especially when there have never been any recorded supernatural phenominon in science.

I guess the major benefit to being an atheist is the freedom from the constant worries about death. I believe that when I die, that will be it. My mind will cease to function and I will become a non-concious entity. This is actually one of the hardest things to wrap your mind around, and I think it might be why some people have problems with atheism. Trying to imagine no life after death is akin to trying to think what “not thinking” would be like. It is a mental impossiblity to do because such an action is a contradiction of itself.

A universe existing without a God, and without any form of afterlife makes most sense to my brain. I do understand how it does not for a lot of people though. At the end of the day, I guess some people like having a security blanket of belief wrapped around them, reassuring them that death is not the end. I oppose such a view because it makes life look less spectacular and important than it really is. No person should live like they have an eternity ahead of them, but like they have almost no time at all. The phrase “Live today as if it were your last” really should be at the top of people’s priorities.

So now we move onto doubts and correctness. This is a wavy area, because on one hand I would love to live forever (who wouldn’t deep down). On the other, if I had to believe in a God of the Bible to get it, I might have to reconsider some things. I don’t think, faced with a choice between Hell and eternal bliss by worshipping Yahweh, I would be able to choose immediately. I would certainly have to ask some questions of my new God before I could justify worshipping him.

1. Why does the Bible claim homosexuality is a sin when we know it is perfectly natural?
2. Why does science continually disprove Biblical statements?
3. Why do you create humans with free will and then demand to be worshiped by them, given that you gave them their skepticism in the first place?
4. Why did you create the universe in a small number of steps and then make it look like everything came about naturally?
5. If you intervened once before with Noah’s flood, why did you make a stupid promise to never do it again when you knew fully well that the world would get messed up even more in the future?

I could probably ask God questions until the end of time, keeping myself in purgatory for eternity (at least it would be better than Hell). Of course, being an omnipotent being he probably has the answers, but if even one answer is not satisfactory I would have my doubts about worshiping such a being.

If anything, it would prove that his creation turned out better than the creator. Our morals are so much better than those written in the Bible, and so is every aspect of our species compared to the humans written about. Perhaps the Bible was right all along in Genesis, where the snake says that by eating the apple, humans would be “like Gods”.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Why I Rejected Christianity: Sexuality
• Council For Secular Humanism Calls For Rep. Monique Davis To Resign
• A Conversion To Atheism
• What Would it Take for You to Believe in God?
• The People Who Left Wesboro Baptist Church

Here is his response.

Q1. How would you define “atheism”? A branch or another name of the religion, Secular Humanism.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition? I was raised in an atheist’s/atheistic home.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word? “vague”, I prefer ‘Biblical Creation’

Q4. What scientific [endeavor] really excites you? Discovery of any kind, without the subjectivity of scientists that are atheists.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why? Their belief of no God. Why, because of the end result on Judgment Day.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response? I would ask to be more specific. A bishop or minister? If his soul couldn’t live without anything else then he would have my blessings. If he means priesthood in the RCC (Roman Catholic), I would ask why he would want to be a part of the largest pedophilia group/society in the world. I would ask why does he wants to help people into hell. I would rather him be an atheist.

Q7. What’s your favorite theistic argument? Anything Jesus said, like the sermon on the mount. He is the pro!

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” viewpoint? That a building or Church isn’t necessary for Salvation and/or denominations are man made.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favorite, and why? Dawkins, putting his foot in his mouth in Expelled. The Movie was hilarious. Why, because Dick makes me laugh.

Q10. If you could convince just one atheistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be? My Dad

I also posed three extra questions that were more suited to his theism:

How would you define theism? a polytheistic way of claiming a belief in god(s). Christianity, on the other hand is the more accurate description of a belief in our Creator (Monotheistic)

How would you describe Evolution? George Simpson described it best when he wrote “…On this subject, by the way, there has been way too much pussyfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be the descendant of any living ape—a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility—and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous (cowardly) if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.” Formerly Professor of Paleontology at Harvard university. “The world into which Darwin led us,” Science, 131:405:966

Why don’t you believe in it? Because it’s false and will probably be mankind’s biggest blunder/mistake of all time. Hitler even tried to breed apes and humans to make a superior race because of evolution. Give me a break!

Make of it what you will. I personally think it shows a great insight into the workings of the theist mind. Blind ignorance would be another word…

However, Dan respectfully adhered to my wishes, and asked:

Now since I answered everything and played along nicely, I believe now you owe me and should place me in your atheist blogroll. I have earned it.

I think he did earn a place in my blogroll because his blog is about atheism, however wrong it is. Theists who come to this site will click through to his and remain convinced of their delusions. Atheists who come to this site will click through and have a jolly good laugh.

Welcome to my blogroll Dan, and thanks again for answering the questions!

Possibly Related Posts:

• Answering “ed”
• A Lesson on Definitions
• The Atheist Alphabet Meme
• Church of the Smashing Orangey Bit Responds to Atheist & Christian Billboards
• Atheist Nexus Has a New Chat System

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

Atheism is the philosophical view that there are no gods. Whether you class this view as a belief or disbelief is up to semantics. I personally refer to it as both.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

I was brought up in a Christian family with my father, mother, sister, and grandmother. I went to two Church of England primary schools as a child, although I don’t remember visiting church much at all. One humourous story is that when I was 3 my grandfather died, and I asked my mother why he wasn’t coming back from hospital. She told me “he’s gone up to heaven”. I apparently remarked “Well can’t we just get a really long ladder and visit?”. The first stages of rationalism or a cute response? You decide.

At age 11 I went to a grammar school that is situated outside the tallest cathedral in the country. It was there that I shook free the chains of religion.

Out of the remaining family (my gran died 3 years ago), my mother is still theist and she works at the cathedral in the education centre. My sister could be described as agnostic / apatheist, and my father has only just revealed to me that he is also an atheist / agnostic.

That was a rather long answer wasn’t it.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

I hate to copy people, but there really is only one word for it:

Creationism

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

Artificial Intelligence, especially in robotics. A few years ago science got a robot to teach itself to walk, and there was a great video from last years TED where Hod Lipson shows off his “self aware” robots.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

Make us evolve into a species that have wings so we can (a) have the irony of looking like angels to all the theists, and (b) give them a visual example of “macro-evolution” which they’d have to be completely ignorant to reject.

Plus, we’d have some kickass wings.

In all seriousness, I would prefer it if all the atheists in the world came out and voiced their beliefs. Whilst some people in certain areas feel threatened by theism and do not wish to reveal their true nature, it’s not going to get any better on it’s own. The only way to get people to understand is to get out there, reject gods openly, and prove that atheists are good moral people.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

“Does this mean I have to start celebrating Easter again?”

In short, I’m not sure what I’d say. Hopefully I’d keep an open mind about the entire thing.

Q7. What’s your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

Pascal’s Wager, since it comes up in every single conversation even though it’s so easily refutable. In most cases it works out better to be an atheist anyway. I don’t think I have to tell anyone reading this how to refute it, but if you still think it’s a valid argument watch this video by Atheist Experience.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

I got a lot of negative responses to my argument that atheism was both a disbelief of gods and a belief in no gods. I still stand by it since I think it is both correct and logical, however it does depends how you define a number of things. Other than that, I got a few negative comments for my defense of Rob Shermer when he supposedly made racist comments.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Out of the four, I have books from three of them (Dawkins, Hitchens, & Harris), however I have only read Richard Dawkins’ books and have yet to read the others, so I’m pretty biased in that respect. I do like Harris’ arguments in “The God Who Wasn’t There” though.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Pat Robertson since he is probably one of the most powerful attackers of atheism / secularism out there, although it would be humourous to convince Fred Phelps.

Now name three other atheist blogs that you’d like to see take up the Atheist Thirteen gauntlet:

Kieran Bennett, Drunk in Ontario, and Friendly Atheist (assuming he hasn’t been tagged before…he hasn’t answered the questions on his blog so I assume he wasn’t…)

Possibly Related Posts:

• Why I Am Offended When Told I Am Going To Hell
• A Fundamentalist Christian Answers The Atheist Thirteen
• God Is An Atheist
• The $64,000 Headache?
• Council For Secular Humanism Calls For Rep. Monique Davis To Resign