I Am An Atheist: Correspondence

I am no longer updating these pages. If you want to read current correspondence (and my responses), take a look at the IAmAnAtheist Blog. Thanks!

Just a note before we get to the correspondence. I had an opportunity to see the new movie Happy Feet with my son a week before it opened to the general public. It is actually very interesting from an atheistic perspective, as can be seen from the freaking out of some Christian viewers. I'd be interested to know what you (no matter what your religious feelings) think about this film.

I myself am an atheist, and I applaud others for being upfront about what they believe, but I kind of bristle when I see suggested exchanges such as this:

Con: Why are you mad at God?

Pro: "Because he's supposed to be all good but he doesn't even have the common decency to exist."

When I see that sort of speech, it kind of disappoints me because I hate to see otherwise free-thinking atheists 1.) engage basically only Christians and 2.) engage them on a level that supposes there IS a god.

Generally, I find the best response to ANY pro-god argument is to request empirical evidence that a god exists, and if they can't, cease all other discussion. Until they can do that, you're dealing in hypotheticals. When I hear atheists run off at the mouth about how "god didn't do this", "god did do that", "the Bible said this", it does manage to come across not as someone who looked at the marked lack of evidence of the existence of a god and simply said, "There is no god", but actually IS only angry at Christians.

In response to this, I hear many atheists counter with, "Because they're the only ones who shove their religion in my face!" Which, again, smacks completely of simple resentment against Christianity and not an actual solid disbelief in a god.

There's nothing wrong with debating one's point, nothing wrong with testing one's belief (or lack thereof), but so many so-called atheists today only seem to think their atheism is genuine when they're making it a point of contention against Christians. It becomes a political tool against the religious right, or something other than what it should be - a personal philosophy.

There really IS no reason to offer up any sort of coherent debate against overzealous Christians - or adherents to any faith - because none of those arguments listed on the relevant section of your site is a coherent argument offering any sort of evidence that a god exists. Any actual intelligent Christians or other religious people will do one of two things: accept that you're an atheist and he's a Christian, and let it go at that. Or, they will not offer up a single one of the 'arguments against' that you have listed. You're arming atheists with what is basically just antagonistic fodder to keep a pointless argument running.

The last thing atheism needs is anyone starting up some large, militant, ardently vocal group because, true to human nature, it will turn into that which most "atheists" claim so much to hate. It's pointless to hate Christians, to hate 'God', because if you don't believe in one, then there's nothing to hate. There's nothing to be angry about.

So many atheists are angry. There's absolutely nothing worth being angry over. There's no proof of a god's existence, therefore there is no god, we can all move on with our lives. Essentially, I'm not saying that hosting a gathering place for other atheists or offering resources to help atheists further understand and come to terms with their denial of a god - but the overall tone of this particular site is essentially that of the "He-Man God Hater's Club."

A creed? A list of ways to live that basically is just a mockery of Christian dogma? Come on. Building one's atheism on the back of Christian hatred is childish. Stand on your own and be an atheist because it makes sense, not because you want to make a few Christians cry and stomp their feet.

Say it out loud: there's nothing to be angry about.

Thank you for your note. Unfortunately, you've misunderstood the intent of the pages you commented on (although your misunderstanding is quite understandable).

The "Arguments" page is not intended as a "how to" guide for atheists arguing with theists. Instead, it's sort of a "snappy answers to stupid questions" bit, poking fun at some of the questions that atheists have heard way too many times. I agree that actually using any of these items in an actual discussion would likely be unproductive.

You are right that merely gainsaying Christians is reactive, not thoughtful, and that being an atheist only to be anti-Christian is sad. You are also right that asking theists for proof of the existence of God is a good way to have a useful conversation, but I disagree that it is necessarily the best way. Many useful conversations can be had about the nature of religion within the context of religion, and I find that these, in many cases, are the conversations that are most likely to get a theist to really examine their beliefs.

When you say that there is no reason to offer coherent debate to overzealous Christians, I disagree (again pointing out that the arguments on this page is a joke). You say that an intelligent theist will either accept that I'm an atheist and let it go or will not offer one of the listed arguments. I'd say that you are incorrect on both counts. I have encountered many intelligent Christians to whom "accepting" that I am an atheist does not imply that they should not try and convince me that I am incorrect. And I have met many intelligent theists who have used arguments from my list (particularly the argument involving thermodynamics) -- so unless you are defining "intelligent" theists as those who do not use these arguments, I'd say that you are in error.

You make an interesting statement that it's pointless to hate Christians or God because if they don't exist then there's nothing to hate. Although I agree that being an angry atheist is generally pointless, I think half of your statement is incorrect -- although God doesn't exist and therefore should not draw our ire, Christians certainly do exist and sometimes behave in ways that will an atheist mad (for example, not letting their children play with our children). I think it's fine for an atheist to be mad at that kind of "Christian" behavior, just as an atheist should be mad at anyone making large decisions that effect others but are not based on reason and compassion.

I would say that when you argue that god doesn't exist because there is no proof of god, you are, unfortunately, showing yourself to be the kind of dogmatic atheist that you are otherwise so firmly against. Your argument is not logical, it is not scientific, and it is not compelling. Also, allowing this type of argument for your own cause implies that you allow it for use by others (e.g., "there is no proof of a universe before our own therefore there was no universe before ours"), which I don't think you want.

You have also misunderstood the point of the Rights and Responsibilities page. It is not a mockery of Judeo-Christian dogma at all. Instead, it makes the point that those theists who say that atheists are evil and immoral are showing their ignorance of the fact that we all have a great deal of morality and ethics in common.

Anyway, most of your comments were based on a misunderstanding of my position, so I'll be interested to hear your thoughts after you have read further. In particular, check out the Correspondence section.

In your arguments against section you mention the argument that the founding fathers wanted to form a Christian nation. Why not revoke this simply by quoting Thomas Jefferson "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."

I always said in response to "There are no atheists in foxholes" that- "You're damn right there aren't- we only get one life to live, I hope that the majority of us atheists aren't stupid enough to waste it in a pointless war!"

I also wanted to say how great it was to hear of a, well, a "weak" atheist making valid points for the whole of atheism. I've wavered back and forth between calling myself an agnostic or an atheist since the term itself, "athiesm," almost denotes a militant effort to not believe in any god.

One year in high school, I had a sweet teacher for two years in a row, unfortunatly I was the only one in that class to show her any respect (she was a bit too sweet). I don't know how it came about- but I had told her I was an atheist. That illicited a gasp and a silent prayer from her. She begged me to tell her that I was agnostic instead, she wanted me to at least be open to the possibility of a Christian god (which I am, but like you say, the evidence so far is uncompelling). I did to appease her, and I think that's what got me started on what I should refer to myself in front of other people (it seems to come up a lot, I'm far too interested in other religions for someone whos very being can seemingly be a threat to another belief system). I guess if nothing else, your site has made me feel better about giving myself the status of atheist. I don't know absolutely that there is no god, and really, those who are absolutely certain of his or her presence amaze me. How can you be so convinced that there is a god? What evidence was there, am I missing something?

thanks for replying. i am more troubled by the notion that these websites are perpetual machines creating one way communications where i am named an athiest or once memorably, a weak atheist, with no way to meaningfully respond. i had thought that the internet might make plain the continuum of human understanding, but we seem incapable of honesty over advocacy. it's a clever idea and if i had typed "iamanatheist", and then gotten the note it would be one thing. but someone stuck it on stumbleupon and now i feel like an accidental atheist.

which is okay... since your signature is ideclare i've determined you must be a southern girl too. :)

thanks again,

I agree that there is not enough meaningful two-way discussion of these issues online. I've noticed that most discussion boards on the topic of religion and/or atheism end up having far too much ranting and not enough acutal discussion -- that's why I didn't create a discussion forum for my site. Instead, I have a correspondence area where I post much of the mail I get along with my responses. Because I welcome honest discussion from people of all beliefs and try to treat everyone respectfully, it seems to have been well received by many people.

By the way, I'm what would be called a "weak atheist" (much as I dislike the term). I actually think it's the only viable form of atheism.

I read your argument page and found it amusing. You, like other atheists, attempt to tear down the concept of "God" by building a straw man, religion, and then you tear down the straw man. I do not disagree with the idea that Middle Eastern based religions have brought nothing but havock on this planet. I believe their time has come. Science has also wrought it's own hell to the humans. However, the idea of a Creator supercedes religion and science, yet is found in both. The concept of a universal intelligence is found in science. All of the information that ever was and ever will be is present, omniscience. The energy of Creation has been everywhere since the dawn of time and is still with us, coursing through our very bodies, stimulating the clumps of gray matter in our skulls to form coherent thoughts, omnipresence. Since our brain function is based on electrical currents, tiny bits of energy, coursing through our puny little bits of star dust, providing us with "intelligence", I would venture to guess the available and existant energy present throughout the cosmos creates and Intelligence far beyond anything we can understand; yet.

The concept of a Creator is found throughout our history as a race of animals but, is not limited to religions. I believe the concept and imagery of Creator has to be altered from a jealous, wanting, expecting, almost human like being to something more. Ponder omnipotence.

My favorite description comes from the Lakota tribes of the Great Plains of N. America; Wakan Tanka = Great Mystery. In my opinion, humanity's loss of wonder and mystery has been detrimental. Remember, science really proves nothing but, speculates on everything. Real scientists admit this freely, while lay adherents hold up speculative concepts as the ultimate truth.

I apologize for my berevity and, perhaps verbal wanderings but, it is late and I have to get up for work at 4am.

Please do not hesitate to email.

By the way, I do not believe in accidents and neither does string theory. I prefer overwheling probabilty.

You've given me a lot to talk about, and I appreciate that.

To start off, I'm glad you found the argument page amusing -- it's supposed to be.

You are incorrect when you say that I equate arguing against religion with arguing against the existence of a deity. Although the concepts are related, they are certainly distinct. If there is a god, it could easily be a being unimagined by any earthly religion.

And speaking of straw men, I do not say that "Middle Eastern based religions have brought nothing but havoc on this planet" as you imply (perhaps accidentally). Both good and bad has come from religion, but I feel that the potential for bad (particularly in terms of allowing one's self to be led into irrational practices and beliefs) often outweighs the good.

I disagree with your statement that the concept of a creator is found in science. I will deal with your points one at a time.

"All of the information that ever was and ever will be is present" I don't see how that can be correct. Even if the universe is completely deterministic, there is plenty of information (the population in a thousand years, for example) that is not currently in existence and could, at best, be calculated only using methods deemed impossible by chaos theory.

"The energy of Creation has been everywhere since the dawn of time and is still with us" I think you're playing with words here. Energy created during the big bang is with us, that is true, but calling this the "energy of Creation" implies a creator, and you give me no reason to believe there is such a thing.

You say that our brains use electricity and then "venture to guess the available and existant energy present throughout the cosmos creates and Intelligence far beyond anything we can understand; yet". This is like saying that my car has iron in it and since there is iron throughout the universe there must be more cars out there than we can imagine. Brains using electricity does not imply that energy is thought.

"The concept of a Creator is found throughout our history as a race of animals but, is not limited to religions." I don't know how you can say with certainty that the concept of a creator goes back to the beginning of our evolution as a species. That's a pretty broad statement. I would also say that believing that there is a creator is a religious belief, and therefore don't see how it can exist outside of religion.

"In my opinion, humanity's loss of wonder and mystery has been detrimental." Where is this loss of wonder and mystery? If it weren't for these, there would be no science. I'm guessing that you are using these terms to mean something like "loss of faith in the inexplicable," and if so, that's not something I miss.

"Remember, science really proves nothing but, speculates on everything. Real scientists admit this freely" You're playing with words again. In a very technical sense, science proves nothing because a theory is never formally labeled as proved. However, in a practical sense, scientists consider many, many things to have been proved. If they didn't, they couldn't make any progress. This is like the creationists who argue that evolution is "only a theory" and therefore not to be taken seriously. They are misusing the vocabulary of science.

"By the way, I do not believe in accidents and neither does string theory" I'm guessing that you're playing with vocabulary here again. It's true that string theory is deterministic, but that does not mean that "everything happens for a reason" or any such thing (in case that is what you are implying).

So glad to see that you hadn't been crucified or something like that! It was all very worth the wait (especially getting to read the line "...jarking off the other faggots..." -- priceless! It is truly fantastic that your site exists to simultaneously hearten those who just need some reasoned discussion and waste the time of those who just love to post hate mail. I would think that a person of your obvious talent and wit should be able to find gainful employment or better... but then again, I'm not so stupid or unreasonable myself -- and I'm just scratching by... Oh well, I suppose that's what we get for spitting in the eye of the Lord.

More Correspondence

- Home - IAmAnAtheist Blog
- Rights and Responsibilities - Arguments Against -
- The Bitter Atheist's Wish List -
- Products for Atheists - Banner Ads -
Atheize the Dead -
- Ask Yourself to be Moral - Atheism Bingo -
- Comments - FAQs - Links -

Now, take the Atheist Survey