I really appreciate the excellent letter! I'm guessing you have spent some time on this subject, because most people I encounter don't discuss these topics as well as you.

You bring up some excellent points, and I agree that my position needs to be made a little more clear. Here goes:

1) The definition of "god" is, as you say, a big, big problem. Most definitions of god that I've encountered are either unworkably vague or have holes in them you can drive a truck through. When I think of the possibility of there being a god (or gods), I generally think in terms of "a conscious entity that willfully created the universe." A deity could have other attributes as well, but the arguments I've seen for assigning these attributes have all appeared to be rather weak.

2) I disagree with atheists who say "there is no god" because I don't see any way to prove that there is no god. For example, it seems impossible to disprove the possibility of a prime mover that left after the moment of creation, and such a prime mover would fit my definition of a god.

3) I think it's a bit conceited for an atheist to say that there is no possible proof for a god's existence that they haven't thought of. I'm sure there are plenty of things I haven't thought of.

4) I consider the possibility of proof of a deity's existence through personal revelation. An omnipotent deity could make me believe He existed and I would consider this sufficient proof (because I would have no choice). This proof would not be compelling to anyone but me, however (they'd probably think I was nuts).

5) I don't see the likelihood of either empirical or logical evidence for a deity that can get past Occam's razor. If there is such a thing, it'll have to be pretty spectacular.

6) I don't think that my admitting the possibility of a logical argument I hadn't thought of puts me on the same footing as a theist. First, the theistic position fails Occam's razor (at least for me). And second, theists generally don't believe in a deity because of the possibility of a proof -- they either think they have a proof or don't believe that proof is necessary. (As an aside, you're right about a theist and me having to agree on a definition of god before we could have any kind of agreement -- I haven't had much luck with that <G>.)

7) I do not reject mysticism. I also don't see any evidence for it.

I hope this makes my position more clear. Let me know if I missed anything.

Although I appreciate the compliment, I think there are plenty of sane theists. These people are, at worst, wrong, and being wrong doesn't make you insane (at least not necessarily <G>).

I used to believe that everyone would be an atheist if they just thought enough about their beliefs. Over the years I've come to realize that there are many people who will never rid themselves of an inner conviction that a deity exists, no matter what evidence they are presented with. This is like a mother whose child disappeared a decade ago but still feels in her heart that he will return to her one day. The feeling has nothing to do with logic, so logic may not be able to touch it.

I'd be interested to see that article about a quarter of Americans thinking Jesus will return this year. The number seems incredibly high. And in any case you're right -- it proves nothing in terms of what is real and what is not (unless they turn out to be right, in which case I may have to take a slightly different direction with this site <G>).

I don't know about fight -- but I would like to disagree.

I don't think whether or not god exists is irrelevant. It seems like a pretty important philosophical topic -- particularly since plenty of people say that they base their most meaningful actions on the answer to that question. Whether people agree on the nature of god proves nothing about a deity's existence. It's also odd to me that you bring up Buddhism, etc., since these beliefs have a lot of "unprovable hallucination" of their own, even if they don't involve a conscious creator.

From the little I've read about Nagarjuna, he wasn't just talking about religious belief but about everything. So (unless I'm wrong about him) his saying that religion isn't real isn't that big a surprise.

Your paragraph about people who believe in god fighting to support their "widdle selfcentered world view" is incredibly condescending. If people do believe in god, they should take it seriously -- it's perhaps the most important thing in the world. In fact, I think we'd be far better off if (for example) everyone who said that they follow Jesus actually tried to act like him. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, and fighting or killing is bad no matter what the justification. I also hasten to point out that not believing in a Judeo-Christian god doesn't seem to do anything to guarantee peaceful existence (as many people in India and China, which you mention, might agree).

Answering your questions:

1) I don't like to talk about my gender. I find that gender leads to unnecessary assumptions on the part of some people.

2) I don't talk about my name for the same sort of reason -- Googling me would turn up all sorts of stuff that might color people's thinking about my responses.

3) I live in the U.S. (California, to be exact). Yes, talking about my country is going to cause bias, too, but I think it's unavoidable because my writing and references are pretty obviously American.

4) I don't think people fear talking about religion and politics per se. Instead, I think that they associate these topics with arguments (as opposed to discussions) because many people don't know how to have a discussion. Instead, they only know how to try and "win" an argument, and this can get ugly fast.

Oh, and I'd love to see the "terror" e-mail if you happen to still have it!

The "arguments" section of the site is a joke -- I certainly don't intend it to be taken seriously. And it isn't making fun of Christians so much as it is making fun of those who think that an anti-atheist argument is something that is one sentence long and has no possible response. Perhaps the responses sound like those of a three-year-old because they are in response to questions that sound like they come from the same.

You are incorrect if you assume that I want to convince anyone -- Christian or otherwise -- to be an atheist. Rather, it doesn't bother me that people have different beliefs, so long as they are intelligent and consistent when arriving at those beliefs and tolerate those who have come to other conclusions.

If you want to know what my real feelings are about religion, read the correspondence section of the site. That's where the non-joke content lives.

Oh, and while you're at it -- go ahead and question yourself and religion. There's nothing wrong with doing that.

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?

I had a similar experience to yours -- finding that the Bible said different things than the preachers. This lead me to do a great deal of reading about the process of translating the Bible, and about the context in which it is written. It was, as you already know, very enlightening.

I see what you mean about the Christian god being vindictive. You may not be aware of this, but the Catholic church no longer has the "lake of fire" belief as a tenant of faith. They consider hell to be the suffering one endures because they are not in the presence of God -- there is no torture involved. Protestantism, for the most part, is another matter.

Your pointing out that Genesis indicates the presence of multiple gods in the original Hebrew brings me to a subject dear to my heart -- the real, original meaning of scripture. As you indicate, there are many places in the Hebrew Bible where it is indicated that there are other gods than God. What amazes me is that people don't pay more attention to this, even when it isn't obscured by apparently biased translation. I have read many translations of the Bible, as well as the Interpreter's Guide and other commentaries on translation. The subject is immensely fascinating.

You asked about my beliefs and where they came from. Here's a little summary.

1) I believe that any worthwhile philosophy must not contradict itself.

2) I believe that nobody should condemn other for thinking in the same way that they do.

3) I believe that we should try and leave the world a better place than it was when we entered it.

4) I believe that understanding others is more important than trying to convert them to my beliefs.

5) I believe that intelligence gives humans great power, and that with that great power comes great responsibility.

The first two beliefs are the distillation of years of trying to find a way to sort good philosophies from bad. The second two beliefs are personal opinion. The final belief is something I learned from years of reading Spider-Man.

You are right that some kinds of religious thinking can be used to justify almost anything. In fact, I'll go aread and say that pretty much any system that requires you to stick to a party line instead of making decisions for yourself can be abused in this way (Soviet Communism, for example).

You ask a very good question about what I think the future of atheism is and whether atheists can become leaders in the U.S. I tend to think that, as science progresses, there will be more atheists. I also know that this is a biased opinion and may very well be wrong. Many people find comfort in faith, and it may not be possible for humanity to become completely atheistc.

So far aswhether atheists can be leaders in the U.S. -- I'm going to give you an answer that is going to sound rude even though I don't intend it to be: I don't care. I don't care if the country's leaders and teachers are atheists. I don't care if every President for the rest of my life is a white Protestant male (although a change would certainly be welcome). What I do care about is whether the people in charge, and the peole that are educating our children, are honest, intelligent, rational individuals who can separate their religions beliefs from their reasoning abilities.

I have no confidence that having atheists in power would make the world a better place -- I've seen too many bad atheists. Sure, I would love for there to be a great President who was also an atheist, but I'd love it because it would do good things for the image of atheists in the public eye, not because I think that atheism would necessarily make a leader more rational.

I hope that answers your question. (And I don't mind being called "There" -- it's better than what some of my other correspondents have called me <G>.)