Read the letter.

Update: A commenter helped us calm down a bit by revealing that the letter is a hoax. Which is a good thing. But there are two reasons I’m not completely placated: a) Although this letter is a hoax, I’ve seen many along the same lines (and heard people say such things in person), so it’s a little too real to be funny, and b) The Snopes page linked by in the comments mentions that the letter drew a lot of correspondence from the paper’s readers before the hoax was discovered, and I’m willing to bet that not all of that mail was against the letter’s contents (although I’d be very happy to be proven wrong on this).

Hello to the site host and his dedicated readers. I have taken an interest in your site and wanted to contribute some. After browsing through some of your posts and other “atheist” blogs (you’ll understand the quotations later), I thought it may be appropriate to help define the terms by which many of these debates, conversations, honest questions are being posed. Many individuals claiming to be atheists may want a little primer in the very definition of the word. It may seem elementary at first, but stay with me.

The word Atheism is composed of the Greek words Alpha, meaning “the negative” and Theos, meaning “God, or deity”. The very word means “there is no god”. It is not saying “I do not think there is a god”, nor is it saying “I do not believe there is a god”. It is affirming the non-existence of God. It affirms a negative. A basic course in philosophy will tell you this is a logical contradiction. How can you affirm a negative in the absolute? It would be like me saying, “there is no white stone with black spots anywhere in all the entire universe”. I would need infinite wisdom of the universe to prove this. To affirm an absolute negative is self defeating, as it means you are saying “I have infinite knowledge to say to you “there is no one with infinite knowledge”. A little silly, eh?

Now, as the well respected apologist Ravi Zacharias points out, even the die-hard philosopher Bertrand Russell recognized this and did a quick little switch to agnosticism (where all you have to prove is you don’t know ;) . I Recognize it is also foolish for me to say “I know you cannot know”, b/c that is also self defeating. But if you are willing to honestly study the evidence and wrestle with the philosophical issues, and then say, upon doing so say “I don’t believe it is really possible to know with certainty that there is a god”, then that is a kind of stance worth respecting and honoring. Different than saying “you know” (thus, mislabeling yourself as an atheist).

My point in raising this issue is this:

Consider two educators from Cambridge University:

Dr John Polkinghorn, who is considered the worlds greatest quantum physicist and Stephen Hawking, who holds the Lucasion chair of mathematics (the famous position once filled by Sir Isaac Newton), are in two different camps. Polkinghorn is a committed theist, while Hawking is an agnostic. There is obviously intellectual material on both sides in order for two brilliant men to come to 2 different conclusions. So for anyone to say that he has avowed or disavowed it, purely for intellectual reasons, betrays a prejudice and lack of understanding on the subject.

My personal belief is that there is no one single argument that is 100% irrefutable by either side, and at some point you will need to make a leap of faith in what you believe. Do you not owe it to yourself to seek the truth as best you can? I hope this helps.

Thanks for reading, and hopefully we can converse further.

I am a great believer in defining terms, so I welcome your correspondence. However, I believe you are incorrect on a number of points.

When defining atheism, you say that “a” means “the negative” and “theos” means “deity,” combining to mean “there is no god”. Rather, I’d say it means something more akin to “without god” (and the dictionaries I just checked back me up on this). Looking at this prefix used in other contexts, I assume that you would not argue that someone who is “amoral” does not believe that morality exists, or that someone who is “atypical” does not believe that anyone is typical. And one can certainly be “without god” without stating definitely that no deities exist, just as one can say there is no proof of intelligent life in other solar systems without saying that there is definitely no other intelligent life out there.

But when you get right down to it, this is really not relevant. What is relevant is how the word is used in modern English, and atheist is commonly used to mean “someone who is without god”. It is also — and perhaps even more commonly — used to mean “someone who believes there is no god,” but both definitions are in use. Again, a variety of dictionaries back me up on this, as does quite a bit of atheist literature.

Some people call atheists who state that there definitely are no deities “strong” atheists, and atheists such as myself “weak” atheists. I don’t personally care for those terms, but they are in use.

I don’t know that, as you say, a basic course in philosophy would tell me that affirming a negative is a logical contradiction. There are many negatives that can be affirmed (e.g., “I am not you”). However, I understand the point you are trying to make — one cannot prove that there are no deities. I agree with that statement, although I would note that it may be possible to prove that certain types of deities (that is, deities with certain qualities) are possible to disprove.

I’m going to skip over the paragraph about Polkinghorn and Hawking, as I consider it an irrelevant appeal to authority.

You are right that people owe it to themselves to seek the truth as best they can. I’d probably disagree that there is not 100% irrefutable argument on either side of the discussion of whether or not God exists — for example, I believe that the argument from personal revelation for the existence of God is irrefutable, although it is not compelling to those who did not receive the revelation. I also would say that my statement “I am not convinced any deities exist” is 100% irrefutable. I would agree that I have not seen a compelling argument for the nonexistence of all deities, but such an argument may be possible if it can be shown that there is something logically contradictory about deities as a concept.

I am not an agnostic. I do not believe that it is, in principle, impossible to prove that some kind of god exists. (We can discuss possible proofs, if you like.) However, I have seen no proof for the existence of a deity that I find compelling, therefore I am without any deities, therefore I am an atheist. To say that I am an agnostic would be misstating my position.

I would hardly expect any competent scientist to agree with you regarding the simplicity of the universe. And since you confess inadequacy in biophysics and biochemistry, you may want to prepare yourself better for a discussion of these topics which are at the base of your being able to discourse at all. You may also prosper by reading current literature on newer findings in cladistic and dna studies in evolution. I would imagine it easy to be an atheist if one ignores the deeper unanswered complexities of the universe. It seems impossible for atheists to think of the possibility of a creator without thinking of an old man in white robes on a golden throne in Heaven. They just can’t get it.

My position is that the universe is not so complex that it couldn’t exist without a creator. Is this the position you think no competent scientist would agree with? Or were you referring to something else? Please clarify.

I have a decent layman’s knowledge of biophysics, biochemistry, and cladistics and DNA studies in evolution. All recent studies I’ve read and read of seem to only make it more likely that no creator is necessary. Are you familiar with these topics enough to explain to a layman what in them is evidence for a creator? So far, you have repeatedly said that such evidence exists but have offered none (aside from questioning where in basic elements the properties of life and thought exist, which I maintain is a logically flawed question).

I suppose it is easier to be an atheist if one ignores certain complexities of the universe, just as it is easier to be a theist by claiming a deity as an explanation for anything you don’t understand. I do my best to address these issued head on, and I’m asking you to explain your points as best you can to help me understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately, although I’m sure you have a good argument in here somewhere, your method of discussion (reasserting your points instead of answering objections, asking questions and ignoring responses that don’t help your argument, continually assigning to me opinions I don’t have, and implying that I am just not able to understand your argument, for example) are all hallmarks of someone with an over-complex theory based on the misuse of facts he himself does not understand. Do you really want me left with this opinion? Wouldn’t you rather try to better your explanations and, perhaps, convince me that you are right?

I also feel compelled to repeat that your implication that you are far more knowledgeable on these topics than I is severely undercut but your past use of the “if one monkey evolved, why didn’t all of them?” argument. It is hard for me to trust that you have a good handle on deeper questions in evolutionary biology when you show signs of not even having the basic concepts firmly in hand.

Finally, I will repeat yet again that I am not an atheist who thinks a deity can only be an old man on a throne. I fully admit there are many, many other possibilities. In fact, it is these possibilities that lead me to say that the existence of a deity is possible. You may find it comforting to believe that atheists are narrow minded and only reject manmade religion, but the fact is this is not always the case.

So, please, can we try and turn this into a straight-forward, directed, intelligent discussion of your argument for the existence of a creator? How about we start with this — name one thing in the field of science that cannot possibly be explained without the existence of a creator (and please define any ambiguous terms).

You may want to read your paragraph and digest what it says:

”You ask how an infinite number of universes was originally created. The whole point of there being an infinite string of universes is that they were not created. Something has to be infinite. You ask what “was the cause of the rest” after the first. Each universe causes the one that comes after it. Causality is maintained.”

do you understand what causality means? This paragraph contradicts

I see nothing in your discourse that shows a deep understanding of any of the subjects we have discussed. When I asked you about life, you said it was biochemical. Yes it is, and at what level of particle would you say it occurs? And precisely what chemical reactions occur to create a thought?

The atheists I have talked to do not have a deep enough understanding of the universe or life to discuss it intelligently, but they think they have a revelation that there is no God. Even though the concept of God is man-made and only a couple of millenia old, they can’t separate that idea from the fact the universe is billions of years old and was either created or was not and would continue even if Man did not exist. The preponderance of evidence is that the universe was created. The bottom line is simple: either the universe was created or it wasn’t. Tell me the evidence you have that proves it wasn’t.

I’m pretty clear on what I wrote. I also think I’m pretty clear on what “causality” means (that every effect has a cause). I’m saying it’s possible that every universe is created by the end of a previous universe. How am I contradicting causality? I feel like you are trying to refute the statement “any number can be arrived at by adding 1 to the previous number” by asking where the first number came from. It’s not a meaningful question in this context.

You ask at what level of a particle life occurs. My answer — and I thought I was being pretty clear — is that life is not a property of particles. I see no reason to think that it is. You appear to be creating complexity where none exists.

You ask precisely what chemical reactions create a thought. I have no idea as this is not my area of expertise. I also have no idea what chemical reactions occur to let me blink my eyes, but that doesn’t imply that blinking motion is somehow a metaphysical property separate from biological systems. There is no reason to let the argument from ignorance fallacy convince us that not understanding something implies that their explanation is not understandable.

You may have spoken with some atheists who say they have a revelation that there is no God. I am not one of those atheists. I simply see no reason to believe in deities. You keep repeating your statement about man coming up with the concept of God long after the creation of the universe, and I reiterate that this is a pointless argument in our context. Human descriptions of the universe itself are much younger than the universe, but that does not imply that they are incorrect.

You say that the preponderance of evidence is that the universe was created. We obviously disagree on this point. I see no need for a creator.

You ask what evidence I have that the universe wasn’t created. It’s impossible to prove a negative such as this, since you could take any conceivable configuration of the universe and say that a deity created it that way. This would be like me asking you to prove that there are no volcano demons that cause volcanoes to erupt.

I am not proposing the existence of anything particularly novel. You are proposing the existence of a creature powerful enough to create a universe. That’s a gigantic difference. The burden of proof is on you.

In reading your replies, I cannot make out your belief system or your method of reasoning.

how do you think the universe occured?

how do you think the universe could exist if there was not certainty in physical systems?

if you are aware of the structure of the universe, where could a heaven be located?

since the universe is billions of years old, and man is maybe 6-8 million years old, why do you think a man-made religion of any denomination is in any way related to a deity?

can you envision a universe created by a force or power that is not related to the man created idea of an earth centered deity?

where do you think morals originated?

what rewards does one receive by being atheist?

I think most atheists rebel against morality and the imagined concept of an old man in white robes who lives in Heaven. I see no particular advantage to the life of anyone who has made this transcendent discovery. I think the reasoning process stopped a little too soon.

You have many questions, so I will answer you briefly and hope that you ask for clarification where needed.

My belief system: In a nutshell, I believe that scientific methods provide the most likely explanation for observed phenomena. I see no compelling evidence for the supernatural.

My method of reasoning: I’m not sure I understand the question. In general, I have a system I call “the two questions” that I apply to any philosophical or metaphysical system. Given any topic, I ask, “Does my philosophy contradict itself,” and “Would I condemn another for reasoning as I do?” If I can answer “no” to both questions, then I consider the philosophy worth investigating. My morality is generally based on these two questions and self interest.

How the universe came to be: If you mean our universe, then I think it most likely was the result of a natural process. If you mean the continuum of all things that possibly exist (including universes before or outside our own, if there are any), then I can’t conceive of it having a beginning. Something infinite seems to be logically required, so it might as well be all of reality.

How could the universe exist without certainty in physical systems: I don’t say that our universe could exist under these conditions, but I see no reason why another universe couldn’t. And if you get right down to it, it’s possible that we don’t exist in a universe with stable physical laws. Perhaps they only shift infrequently and the universe hasn’t been around long enough for this to happen?

I’m not sure what you mean when you ask if I am aware of the structure of the universe. If you are asking whether I have the answer to how all physical processes occur, then I do not — nobody does (that’s why theoretical physicists are able to keep busy).

If Heaven existed, it could be anywhere God wanted it to be — another planet, another dimension, another universe. (Assuming a deity exists, of course.) This is an odd question to me. Perhaps I am misunderstanding?

You continue with a complex question: “since the universe is billions of years old, and man is maybe 6-8 million years old, why do you think a man-made religion of any denomination is in any way related to a deity?” If you are saying that religion is completely man made, then you are defining it as having nothing to do with a real deity, so your question answers itself. If you are not saying this, then if there were a deity it could reveal religion or inspire it, or all religions could be human interpretations of an experience of the divine that we are not able to fully comprehend. So far as I can see, the age of the universe (and of humanity) doesn’t seem to impact the question.

You ask if I can imagine a universe created by a deity other than a man-created Earth-centered deity. You’re loading your question again with the phrase “man-created.” The universe couldn’t have been created by a man-created deity — it’s not logically possible. Can I imagine a universe created by a metaphysically real deity that is not Earth-centered? Sure, I can imagine it. Sounds like deism to me. And just to be clear, I can imagine that our universe was created by scientists in another dimension, too, but my imagining it doesn’t make it any more likely.

Where do morals come from: I’d say morals are at least in part a social contract, but may have an instinctual base (that is, they may have, in part, evolved).

What rewards does one get for being an atheist? Any “reward” there might be to atheism is irrelevant. It’s like asking what prize I get for concluding that the Earth isn’t flat. After decades of research, atheism is the only metaphysical system that makes sense to me. I have no choice but to be an atheist. That being an atheist fills my e-mail with hate mail, stops some people from letting their children play with mine, and makes some assume that I’m untrustworthy doesn’t have any impact on the facts.

Some atheists are, as you say, people who are rebelling against specific religious beliefs. I don’t much care for that kind of atheist in that they are not generally philosophically rigorous. In my experience, atheists aren’t rebelling against morality in general — although there are some that don’t like lists of moral rules and such, I see no “atheism means murder is fine” movement.

You seem to say you see no advantage to the life of an atheist. So what? I don’t choose my philosophy based on its convenience, and I hope you don’t choose yours that way, either. If I am understanding your statement correctly, you come across like a white person walking up to a black man and saying, “Why are you black? What’s the advantage in that?”

If, as you conclude, you think my reasoning process has stopped too soon, then please tell me how you think it should continue. I feel that I have been pretty rigorous on these issues.

I do not understand why someone would declare themself an atheist, since no one can prove or disprove the declaration. I think people just don’t believe in the man-made concept of God and the practice of man-made religion. If you want to say there is no place called Heaven with an old bearded man on a throne surrounded by flying angels, i would agree with that. If you want to argue that God does not intercede in the affairs of Man, i would agree. If you want to say there is no order in the universe, how do you explain the very existence of the universe after billions of years? If chaos underlies the universe it would not last, you would not have the truth of math, no dependable pysical laws, no quantum mechanics. nothing would be predictable. Can you give me an example of an occurrence that has no cause? Yet you argue the universe had no cause.

P.S. Do you take some pride in declaring yourself an atheist? Do you think the world would be better off without the religious teaching from which we derived our morals? I understand the wars, inquisitions and evil committed in the name of religion, but this was not committed by a creator, but by petty men after money, power, or territory. Have you had a revelation or special insight that gives you the certain knowledge there was no creator? I was once at least an agnostic, but as I learned more about the universe, I rejected man-made religion,but cannot reject the idea of creation.

I am an atheist in the sense that I have no religion. I have not seen any compelling evidence that deities exist, but I do not believe that proof of the existence of a deity is impossible in principle (so I am not an agnostic, as your first sentence shows you to be).

I do not say that there is no place called Heaven, no angels, etc. How do you know that there is no such thing? If you have evidence, I would be interested to hear it.

I don’t say that there is no order in the universe or that chaos underlies it. I do say that there appear to be dependable physical laws and that these laws lead to small amounts of order among the disorder (e.g., life on Earth).

I disagree that in a chaotic universe there would be no truth in math. Mathematics is a logical system, and I don’t see how its truth could be changed. If you are implying that there could be no dependable physical laws, etc., without some organizing force, I disagree. I see no reason to believe that.

There are certain quantum events (such as pair production) which appear, at least to my understanding, to be uncaused. However, if a version of string theory is verified, that might change. In any case it sounds to me like you are the one implying that there is something that exists without a cause — a creator deity. I do not say that our universe has no cause.

Regarding your P.S., I take pride in myself and I am an atheist. I don’t think that being an atheist makes me more worthy of being proud, however.

I don’t think that the world would necessarily be better off without religious teaching, but I also think the statement that we get our morals from religion is very debatable.

I have no special knowledge regarding the existence or non-existence of a creator. However, I do not see a creator as necessary to explain the universe.

I have heard the “there is more than one type of atheist” argument before from people who appear desperate to get me into their demographic, but I have yet to hear a compelling argument for it. You are guilty of parsing on a bushian level when you characterize me as an “I see no reason to believe there is a god” atheist. There is another side to that coin, and if we’re going to be honest we must also accept simultaneously that I can also be described as an “I see no reason to NOT believe there is a god” theist.

That makes me a theist and and an atheist simultaneously, and in the same universe, to boot. Irreconcilable contradictions like that give me a headache. Until we can resolve that one, I will stick with “C – None of the above”.

Actually, I see lots of reasons to believe and not believe in the existence of a god, and taken as whole, both sides are equally compelling.

As Colbert would say, “moving on”.

“I don’t know” appears to be the most terrifying combination of three words in the English language. People will go to astounding lengths to avoid that little sentence. Instead, we come up with very erudite, deceptive ways of saying it. I think it may have something to do with the fact that most people don’t understand the distinction between ignorance and stupidity, between not being aware of a particular fact and not being able to understand a particular fact.

I’m not sure why I ever thought this wasn’t ready to send, sorry it took so long. I was probably going to take this into my rant about the irrelevance of the the existence/non-existence of a god. Ultimately, beneficial behavior is the same whether there is or is not a god. Of course that assumes that the god would be something like that posited by the Deists, not the small-minded, irrational god of the Old Testament who appears to like nothing more than working at cross-purposes to itself.

Behavior that is consistent with the nature of the Universe will be beneficial to the actor, regardless of the existence or non-existence of a god. Since the question is beyond the human mind to resolve and the answer is irrelevant, I can’t see wasting much energy on it. I’ll find out when I’m dead, or not.

So, I see the atheist obsession with clinging to the unprovable notion that there is not a god to be as foolish and as counter to the well being of humanity as the theist obsession to the contrary.

You’ll be happy to know that I’m not “desperate to get you into my demographic.” I don’t consider “there is more than one type of atheist” to be an argument. Rather, it’s a matter of definition. Some atheists believe there is no god essentially as a matter of faith, and some atheists don’t believe there is a god because they see no evidence for such a being. Some people call these two philosophies strong atheism and weak atheism, but I don’t care for those terms.

I don’t see how you can be a “I see no reason to believe there is a god” atheist and a “I see no reason to NOT believe there is a god” theist (if that’s what you are saying). The two modes of thought are inherently contradictory in that one cannot be simultaneously with and without religion.

“C- None of the above” is also fine for someone who finds arguments for theism and atheism equally compelling. If you are in that camp that’s fine, but it makes you a rare fish indeed.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know.” But for me, because I don’t see arguments for theism as even mildly compelling, “I don’t know” would not be an appropriate answer when it comes to the question of whether or not there are deities. If someone asks me if a witch has ever magically flown on a broom, I’m going to go ahead and say no even though it’s true that I can’t prove it’s never happened. The odds are just way, way too small.

I find your statement that beneficial behavior is the same whether there is or is not a god interesting. You’re right that it really only applies to the god of Deism (or another equally detached deity), but in that case there effectively is no god so I’d say the argument is moot (like arguing that it doesn’t matter whether you lie to Uncle Frank just so long as Uncle Frank is either imaginary or dead).

You say, “So, I see the atheist obsession with clinging to the unprovable notion that there is not a god to be as foolish and as counter to the well being of humanity as the theist obsession to the contrary.” Then you should be happy that there are atheists like me that don’t do that. In fact, I go a step further and say that atheists are much less likely to have a good reason to say that there definitely is no god than theists have of saying there definitely is one. At least that has been my experience.

I can give you a source that will answer all of what you’re looking for and I can guarantee that you can’t read it from cover to cover and not believe. Its called the BIBLE. And don’t try to tell me you already have, because I know you’re lying.

My home library has nearly 100 Bibles and books about Judeo-Christian scripture. I’ve read the Bible in whole several times, in a variety of translations, including the 12-volume Interpreter’s Bible. I’ve read particular parts of the Bible more than this, including multiple readings of the Gospels when I was putting together my www.gospelsinparallel.com Web site.

Can you tell me what it is in the Bible that you think would compel an atheist to theism? You may be interested to know that it was my first attempt to read the Bible from cover to cover as a teenager — and the religious community’s response to my questions about what I was reading — that lead me down the road to atheism.

I look forward to your response. I also hope that your knowledge of the truth of your beliefs is based on something stronger than your “knowledge” that I have not read the Bible.

I’m unable to accept atheism for the same reason I’m unable to accept theism; they are both faith-based systems; they both require belief in the absence of proof. There is not proof that there is a god, but there is also not proof there is not one. Both systems lack the intellectual courage to say the only absolutely true thing anyone can say regarding the existence of a god: “I don’t know.”

The question also pretty irrelevant. If you observe the universe and try to live your life within its framework as well as you can, you have the best chance at a happy life. If there is a god, I’d have to guess that sort of a life is the best chance to please him/her/it. If there is no god, that same way of living gives you the best chance for a happy life.

The reason the existence of a god is an unanswerable question is that we are finite beings with finite minds and we can never do better than approximate a concept of infinity. We can approach the ultimate truth asymptotically, but we can never reach it. That may strike some as an expression of despair, but it is an expression of great joy. No matter how long the human race survives, we will never run out of things to learn. That’s the best news I can think of. I’m a patient person, I’ll find out when I die, or I won’t. It really won’t matter, will it? Right now I’d prefer to not put my effort into trying to learn the unlearnable.

Thank you for your kind indulgence.

You may not be aware that there is more than one kind of atheist. I am not a “there is no god” atheist, but rather a “I see no reason to believe there is a god” atheist. The difference is that the former states categorically that there is no deity, and the latter’s position is that there is not a compelling reason to believe in a deity. As the second type of atheist, I do not believe that there is a god, but I do not make it an article of faith. (You rather sound as if you might fall into this camp yourself.)

I don’t think you are necessarily correct when you say that “the only absolutely true thing anyone can say regarding the existence of god” is “I don’t know.” I think the phrase “I see no reason to believe there is a god” is absolutely true and has the advantage of being more scientifically rigorous. For example, I wouldn’t say “I don’t know” when asked if there is a Loch Ness monster. Rather, I have no reason to believe that there is such a thing, but am willing to change my mind if proof appears.

The reason this is important is that, a) I don’t want to go around saying “I don’t know” if something exists whenever I can’t prove something doesn’t exist because it will make me sound like a nut (“Do unicorns exist?” “I don’t know”), and b) I don’t think that the concept of god’s existence should be treated differently than anything else’s concept of existence.

Your reason that the question is irrelevant is, in my opinion, a bit off the mark. I don’t see it as particularly likely that a god would most likely be happy with you because you try to have a happy life by confining yourself to observable reality. There are also a great many people who would not be happy living their life with only the observable universe for comfort. I’d say that our inability to know anything about any deity’s wants or desires is the reason that we should treat them as irrelevant. If there is a deity, the odds of it being a vengeful deity that will torture you forever because you chose not to worship it don’t seem any better or worse than the odds that it will reward you in the afterlife because you were a materialist.

I would also tend to quibble with your statement that god is an unanswerable question because our finite minds can only approximate infinite concepts. Mathematicians have learned how to work with real infinities. I find it harder to deal with the possibility that time itself is not infinite than the concept of infinite stretches of time. And even if I can’t hold a concept in my mind’s eye — such as a twelve dimensional cube — that doesn’t imply that nothing can be said of such a thing with certainty.

I do agree with one of your ultimate conclusions, even if I’m not on the same path as you getting there. I think that the joy of investigation and learning is one of the most wonderful things in existence. But where we differ is that I am more than happy to hear any arguments for the existence of a deity because, if such a thing did exist, it would be one of the most important facts in the universe, and the great importance of such a thing makes it worthwhile, at least to me, to make sure I don’t miss what might be a compelling argument, even though I think the possibility of the existence of such an argument is almost vanishingly small.

First I think it’s important that we define terms here. Atheism is disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods, or the doctrine that there is no God or gods [American Heritage Dictionary]. So, I do not assume that atheists deny the existence god(s), I know it. It is evidential fact.

The atheists that worship the evidence against and contradictions of major religions are the worst of the lot. First, they almost always only bother to question one religion; usually Christianity. So Christians are mostly idiots and their Bible is probably a fairytale. What does that prove? It proves that Christians are mostly idiots and their Bible is probably a fairytale. That’s it. Wash, rinse, and repeat with any religion of your choice. Here’s the problem with trying to prove a negative, especially a negative that involves an omnipotent being. You can disprove more religions than you can shake a stick at, and yet at the end of the day you have no empirical evidence that there is no god. You just have a big bag of assumptions. You may have evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian god, there are no Greek gods, no Roman gods, no Hindu gods, no Norse gods, no Zoroastrian whatever the hell they believe in, but you will never have empirical evidence that there is no god(s). It’s impossible (at least until you’re hit by a bus). The science that I have come to know and love holds that, ” The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe in things without evidence.” — Thomas H. Huxley.

Re-regarding the uselessness of your site, tell me, what have you done to help anyone examine their beliefs? Is it in the “Evidence Against” section, where you answer typically vapid questions a Christian might ask? Well, I guess a vapid Christian visiting your site may examine their beliefs while reading this, although introspection isn’t one of the vapid Christian’s better qualities. Evidence of what generally occurs when the vapid Christian does attempt this are found in your hate mail section. Continuing through your site we find a banner ad section. What gems of enlightenment. Oh, you’ll probably want to include myspace codes for those or something, lest your readers get confused. We all know that nobody designs or maintains their own websites these days. Well, at least there’s an FAQ with substantive content like, “Are there any books I should read? Pride and Prejudice is good. I liked War of the Worlds, too. You might try asking your friends or a librarian for suggestions.” Gee, thanks. Hey, what about Catch-22 is that any good? Or maybe Crime and Punishment? What do those books have to do with anything? If you’re going to make a site about atheism, you will probably want to answer that question with a list of books that in any way pertained to the subject matter. To get you started try these fine choices: Mikhail Bakunin, Of God and the State, or Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects.

And yes, I am an ass. However, I think I’m the only one being rational here. You’ve designed a whole site based around a flawed concept that bashes another flawed concept. That’s the core of my contention here. They have no evidence, you have no evidence, yet everyone has a flaccid opinion to waggle around. I have one more selected work you should probably pass along to your readers, http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/15905. It’s overflowing with reason.

I agree that we should define terms. I also think that, once we agree on a definition, we should actually use it.

The definition you quote begins, “Atheism is disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.” So far so good. From this you conclude, ” I do not assume that atheists deny the existence god(s), I know it. It is evidential fact.” How can you make this statement when the definition of atheism you chose encompases atheists who disbelieve in gods but do not deny their existence? Did you overlook that very important “or”? There are plenty of atheists who do not rule out the possibility that god exists. I am one of them, and I think my stance is quite reasonable.

You are right that atheists who do nothing but take joy in poking holes in religion are completely unproductive. I am not one of those atheists. I do enjoy arguing against those who use weak arguments to try and disprove my own conclusions, but I feel that there is a difference between defending my beliefs and attacking the beliefs of others.

You make a statement that “Christians are mostly idiots.” I disagree, and am pleased that, later in your note, you agree that you are an ass. At least we don’t have to argue about that.

You are correct that you can’t prove a negative. That’s why I don’t do that.

I agree that the non-correspondence parts of the site — the parts that are nothing but a joke — aren’t going to change anyone’s mind about religious philosophy. However, I am much more straightforward in the correspondence section, and have had many nice letters from people who thank me for helping them examine their own beliefs. For example, many people who assumed that atheists were all intolerant of religion have written to say that they are pleased to find that this is not the case. I am guessing you don’t get a lot of letters like that.

Regarding why I don’t recommend real books, etc. — there are plenty of atheist sites out there that have real rebuttals to anti-atheist arguments and recommend good books. I see no need to overlap with those sites. Instead, I am interested in getting people to share their thoughts on atheism. So far, it seems to be working quite well.

I agree that you are being rational (although I disagree about your being the only rational one in this conversation). Unfortunately, you are also wrong on multiple counts. You are wrong in your apparent assumption that all atheists believe the non-existence of a deity to be proven. You are incorrect in your statements about my intentions. And if you think that your embarrassing badgering will do anything to bring more respect to the beliefs of a brilliant agnostic like Huxley, then you are incorrect about that, too.

Your sarcasm, intolerance, ignorance, and arrogance do nothing to convince others of anything but your own seeming insecurity. It is difficult to weigh the merits of your argument when it is so clogged with what sounds like pompous crap. I’m guessing that you’re an intelligent, well-read individual — why not act like one?