Thank you very much for writing. It sounds like you are in a bit of a difficult position, and I hope I can help.

Let me start answering your question with a statement. There are many kinds of atheist. Some reject a particular religion. Some are anti-religion in general. Some say there is no possibility that a deity exists. Some are simply people who do not have religion -- and this is the category in which I put myself.

Now that you know where I'm coming from, here's a list of the qualities of an ideal atheist from my perspective.

1. An atheist believes in what is demonstrably real. There is no reason to believe in things because you wish that they existed or "feel in your heart" that they must be.

2. An atheist uses the scientific method when searching for what is real. Evidence worth considering must be scientifically valid. Occam's razor should always be considered. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

3. An atheist has a strong moral code. Because there is no threat of supernatural justice, an atheist must put great thought into personal moral and ethical behavior, and take great care not to make excuses for deviating from that personal code.

4. An atheist is without religion, but that does not mean an atheist must be against religion. Some people need the comfort of belief in the supernatural. Some people do not agree that the universe likely has a scientific origin. There is no reason to fight these people just because they have these feelings.

5. An atheist who is not against religion should still fight back against religious people who do harm to others. You may not condemn someone for being religious, but you certainly can (and should) stand in the way of their using religion to dictate laws, dictate what is taught in schools, choose who is hired for a job, justify violence, interfere with how science is practiced, etc.

6. An atheist who is not against religion can still argue vigorously with those who insist that religion is based on science. Claims of a scientific basis for religion should be countered with science. But just as the atheist should resist the intrusion of faith into science, the atheist should not use science to argue against a religious person's faith.

7. An atheist is a cheerleader for clear, rational thinking in all areas -- science, politics, ethics, morals, religion, etc. Part of this is encouraging others to not hold self-contradictory beliefs or think in ways they would not want others to think. It also means trying to keep discussion rational (as opposed to abusive or personal) and helping people see the difference between truth and opinion.

8. An atheist is a cheerleader for consistency in moral and ethical thinking. Avoid "morality of convenience" or self-serving flavors of situational ethics. Speak up if someone behaves contrary to his or her stated morality.

9. An atheist promotes investigation and education. Help people seek out resources to better understand the world around them, and see that your own education is a never-ending process.

10. An atheist should always be looking to get closer to the truth. There is a great deal in the world that we do not know, and seeking the answers to these questions is humanity's greatest adventure. Being willing to question means always having uncertainty about some things. Only religious people have complete certainty, but they do so at the expense of possibly being incredibly incorrect about some of the most important issues imaginable.

11. An atheist has no fear of being wrong. There should be no apprehension about what the outcome might be when investigating a scientific topic -- if the answer is not what you expected, rejoice in your new knowledge.

12. An atheist should try and make the world a better place. Do what you can to reduce suffering. Help people live together instead of tear each other apart. Bring joy to those around you. This is the only existence we have -- we should take care of it.

I think that's about it. This list is not "the atheist commandments" or anything like that. It is simply an expression of my feelings on the subject. I believe that if all atheists lived by these rules, tried to be accepting of others, and did our best to live moral lives with an emphasis on making the world a better place, humanity would be much the better.

You say that your family is Presbyterian. If you are the only atheist in your family, and particularly if you know of no other atheists in your area, you have both a great opportunity and a great sorrow. The sorrow is that of not having like-minded people close at hand, but rest assured that there are a great many of us willing to be your friend online even if we can't be there in person.

The opportunity is that if you are the only atheist in the area, you can show people that any negative preconceived notions about atheism they have are incorrect. Be friendly. Be personable. Be willing to discuss religion and philosophy in an open, respectful manner. Don't be confrontational or defensive. Define yourself by what you are for, not by what you are against. Show your eagerness to learn new things and to help others learn. If you can do this, then anyone who does not at least respect you for your beliefs has likely got prejudices that they are unable to put aside. Feel sorry for them.

I hope that this has answered your question without overwhelming you with verbiage. If you have further questions or need me to clarify anything I have said here, please feel free to write. I stand ready to help at the best of my ability.

There are many interesting an plausible theories of the origin of the universe, including Stephen Hawking's theory that (if I understand it correctly) there is no origin. The problem is that this is a relatively new and incredibly complex area of science, and most of it is in the realm of quantum physics, which is very weird and often difficult to experiment with.

Getting into probability can also be very confusing and misleading. The odds against you, personally, existing are billions and billions to one against, but I wouldn't use this as proof that you do not exist. We also have to contend with the fact that if the odds hadn't turned up in our favor, we wouldn't be here to calculate them. Again, this is an enormous field for discussion.

Occam's razor. I don't have to make up anything significantly new to believe that the universe is the result of natural processes. True, there are still some unknowns, but filling those unknowns with an infinitely powerful, eternal, thinking, being that exists outside of this universe is quite a leap, and I need more evidence to make such a big leap.

Let me give you another example along these lines. When I was a kid, there was said to be some uncertainty about how the pyramids in Egypt were built. Some people used this uncertainty to postulate that aliens must have come from another planet and helped build them. By Occam's razor, they should have exausted more plausible explanations before creating all these new, complex ideas. And as it turns out, new knowledge has given us a very good idea of how the pyramids were built by humans alone.

This is a favorite subject of mine so let me give you another example of an application of Occam. Let's say that we find evidence that it was impossible for life to have evolved in the universe. Where does that leave us? Well, God could have made life. But how likely is that? Rather than one infinitely powerful deity, isn't it more likely that there are many less powerful, such as the Greeks believed in? Some people would say that one powerful deity is more likely than many less powerful ones, just because believing in more deities sounds like you're creating more things and therefore is less likely. But look at it this way -- do you think it's more probable that the pyramids were built by a lot of normal humans over a long period of time, or by one really, really big, strong human in a short period of time? Obviously the former. And whenever we appeal to Occam, we have to take into account not just the number of new things being created, but the number of new attributes those new things have.

God has a heck of a lot of attributes that need proving. A universe without a creator has very few.

The question under discussion is why God can be causeless but the universe can't. It isn't a matter of whether God must follow the rules of science, since we (I hope) agree that God is not within the realm of science. It's a matter of, if we're going to postulate that there are infinite things, then why not postulate that something we're already sure of (the universe) is infinite instead of something outside the universe being infinite?

The laws of physics were created by humans to describe the universe. In the past, there have been many times when we've discovered that we got the descriptions wrong. If there were a law of physics that said everything had to have a cause, then quantum physics has proven it wrong. And even if it hadn't, I'd rather look into changing the law to "everything has to have a cause except for the universe itself" instead of "everything has to have a cause except for an infinite being that exists outside the universe."

Sure love exists. So do hunger, hope, faith, fanaticism, joy, and insanity. These are human conditions. Science cannot prove love, except for in a boring chemical-reaction-in-the-brain way, but that's okay because it's outside the realm of science. So is faith -- science can't prove it because it's totally subjective and none of science's business. Once you try and put God on science's doorstep, you are going to find yourself struggling quite a bit because they do not fit well together. But if you keep God in the realm of faith, you may lose your hope of proving his existence to the atheistic scientist, but you will also find yourself immune to attacks on your faith from a scientific standpoint.

I would love to continue our discussion if you really think that you can prove to me that God exists. But let me ask you this as I have asked others, are these arguments you're giving me your reasons for believing in God? If I can find holes in all of them, will you stop believing? If not, then why do you use these arguments at all? Why not try and convince me to believe in God for the same reason you believe.

Finally, you're right that sometimes science can be broken. But science has a mechanism for fixing itself. When faith, on the other hand, goes bad, it generally stays bad. That is why I ask people of faith to please, please be careful with it.

This is a very interesting correspondence, and I am flattered that you thought to ask my opinion. Here are my thoughts:

First off, even though I haven't seen the details of your argument that Christianity was knowingly started as a false religion, I'm going to guess that you have no overwhelming evidence for this (at least, those I have heard argue this point before had none). Christianity as we see it today could very easily have begun in complete sincerity, and many people continue to practice it in sincerely. Since sincerity makes Christianity no more or less true, I believe it is a good practice to assume the best in people unless confronted with evidence to the contrary. To do otherwise will generally either get you entangled in nasty arguments that boil down to differences of opinion or make people think that you are malicious, closed minded, or both. Neither of these is conducive to convincing others that your point of view is correct.

If your argument is only that Christianity's originators were insincere, then the first response you shared with me really does not address your argument at all. It's a complete straw man, since the feelings of a Christian today have nothing to do with the origin of Christianity any more than the workings of the U.S. government have anything to do with whether Betsy Ross really designed the country's flag (it's a weird analogy, but try and see my intent).

What is important, though, is that the respondent says that, to him, Christianity is a very real thing. He feels in his heart that it is true, and it has helped him through difficult periods of his life. It is how you react to this type of statement that helps define what kind of atheist you are.

Here is how I would respond.

He says that nothing seems as real to him as God. That's fine. You can't argue against belief by personal revelation because it's based on nothing but how a person feels inside. On the other hand, personal revelation can't be used to convince others that God exists. So as long as this person is saying that he believes in God because of how he feels, and isn't trying to convince me that I should believe in God because of how he feels, then there's no harm and no foul. I'll tell him that I have no such feelings, and he may hope I have them some day, but that's as far as it can go. We should be able work together with mutual philosophical respect.

If he pushes a bit about "giving God a chance," I might say that I have given the subject a lot of thought and done a lot of "soul searching," but that nothing makes me feel like something supernatural is out there and I'm very happy with my view of the world. Again, we should be able to move on in peace from here.

As for your response -- I'm going to be brutal here and say that, in my opinion, it was a big mistake. Please stay with me while I go into this in some detail.

I would never use the "you are a Christian because you had a bad life" argument, no matter how incredibly appropriate it seems. The reason is that there are tons of religious people who say that atheists don't believe in a deity because they had a bad childhood, etc. I don't want to perpetuate this kind of argument, because it can go nowhere and is inherently insulting and condescending.

You then talk about how he and those like him cannot be debated with because they are so blinded by faith that no amount of evidence will make a difference. This person isn't saying that his faith is based on any kind of physical or historical evidence; he's saying his faith is based on his feelings. You can't argue against that, because until he tries to prove his religious viewpoint in a scientific manner, you can't debate him with facts. Frankly, I wish all religious people were like this, admitting that religion is based entirely on how they feel and their level of comfort with the universe instead of trying to tell me that there is some kind of objective proof for the divine. That's honest and clearly divides the realms of religion and science. In fact, if someone has a "proof" for their religion and I'm not in the mood to debate, I'll often ask them, "Is this argument the one that convinced you your religion is true? If I refute it, will you abandon your religion? And if not, why are you using this argument instead of the one that convinced you?" In most cases, this will get the religious person to say that they believe in their religion for personal, emotional issues, and since I don't have those issues I have no reason to share their religion.

You say you are unwilling to debate with people "blinded by fake faith" because they refuse to accept your arguments and keep relying on the Bible when it isn't evidence for anything. I think this might be a sign that you need to either choose your battles more carefully or examine your debating skills. If you are debating against people who have completely faith-based (as opposed to rational-argument-based) religion, then you really shouldn't be, unless you are arguing about how they should behave toward the rest of society. If you are arguing against someone who is trying to rationally prove to you that their religion is true, then you should be able to either find common ground for discussion or get them to realize that they have no argument.

And as for the Bible -- you're wrong about it not being evidence for anything. It's a historical document, and therefore is evidence. The debate should be about what it is evidence of. You do yourself a disservice by dismissing the Bible and then saying that Jesus gained followers through Routinization of Charisma (or, perhaps more colloquially, a cult of personality). Where are you getting your evidence if not from religious texts? And in my opinion, making such a strong statement about how Jesus gained followers is a mistake, since there is a lot we don't know and (to my knowledge) a number of other likely possibilities, none of which involve the supernatural.

Your response is written in a very inflammatory and defensive way, and I don't think it needed to be. In particular, bringing up Hitler was disingenuous, and by Godwin's law should have ended the debate. The tone of your whole response is of someone wanting to defensively beat another into silence, and it will do nothing toward convincing anyone reading it that you are sincere, well meaning, thoughtful, or anything but a philosophical bully. It also makes your opponent sympathetic. I'm sure that's not at all what you intend.

The second note from the respondent was pretty much on the mark. You did come across as closed minded (and mean spirited), and you did seem to completely miss his point. I think that, unfortunately, most people reading this correspondence will end up with a good feeling toward the religious man and a bad feeling toward you, and any negative stereotypes they had about atheism would be reinforced.

In your closing, you say that, "he was right about me being as close minded as most Christians are." That might be something worth working on. An atheist can -- and should, in my opinion -- be completely open minded. If you have particular beliefs about the origin of Christianity that you are unwilling to examine in the light of scholarship, then you should ask yourself why you are holding on to them so tightly. I have done massive amounts of reading on the origins and workings of Judeo-Christian religion, and it has given me quite a bit of insight into religious thinking and development without denting my atheism in the slightest. It has also given me some perspective on why people have religion, which I think is very valuable.

I recommend that in the future you keep in mind that there are many people who don't see many atheists and therefore will tend to think that you are a representative sample. For this reason, I suggest that you go out of your way to try and understand and accept the sincerely held beliefs of others while being politely forthright about your own beliefs. Don't back down from a discussion when a religious person says they can prove religious issues through a rational process, but respect the religious person who believes only on the basis of personal faith and does not try to impose their beliefs on others.

By remaining calm, polite, and respectful while not hiding your atheism, you will do more to convince people to at least respect atheism (or perhaps "give it a try") than you ever will with the type of correspondence you showed me. I think this is a worthwhile goal, and if all atheists behaved in this manner, I think we could pave the way for a future where people no longer feel the need for faith and can accept the world with eyes wide open.

Thank you very much for writing.

Thank you for the thoughtful note.

Reacting to your final paragraph, I tend to be very accepting of other people's beliefs, but I also have no use for those who try to use legal or other means to impose their religious beliefs on others. Religion is a personal thing, and it needs to remain a personal thing. If it does not, then we get into the frightening area of legislating religious morality, and given the variety of religious moralities out there, I think it best to avoid that situation completely.

I haven't read it, but I am generally familiar with what it is about. It would make no difference to me if the Bible as read today (in its various versions) were not the one originally intended by some ancient writer. I consider the Bible a historical document like any other.

I would be very surprised.

I believe I am real. I don't know how it would be possible to believe I was fake. I have faith that the signals my brain receives from my senses are generally reliable, however I have no proof that I'm not a brain in a jar in some mad scientist's laboratory being fed false signals (just in case you are asking).

To my knowledge, believing in a deity wouldn't help me distinguish reality from fantasy. In fact, it might be a step in the wrong direction.

I find this unlikely.

That does not follow. The discovery of penicillin may have been an accident, but the use of penicillin to cure disease is done with purpose.

That's a big subject. There were a great many influences, including Thomas Jefferson who believed religion and government should be kept separate. I love that guy.

No. I don't even know what that would mean.

If all the prophecies of the Bible came true and supernatural beings started showing up and doing stuff, odds are I wouldn't be an atheist anymore. That's like asking if I'd still believe Elvis was dead if he showed up at my house.

Yes. I was working in a technology-related field at the time and some of our equipment needed to be updated for Y2K. What does this have to do with anything under discussion?

I do not see compelling evidence for a conspiracy.

I think a JFK conspiracy is far more likely.

I don't like them. They overdress and the cupcakes at their bake sales are always too expensive.

No.

I think the evidence for global warming is good. The evidence that it might in part be caused by humans is also good enough that I think we should take some precautions. Science is often concerned with things that have not happened yet, and I have no problem with that.

I have not read the book, but my impression is that Cooper's information may be less than reliable.

Although I doubt that the U.S. government is covering up evidence of extraterrestrial visitations (among other things addressed in the books you mention), I applaud you for respecting the beliefs of others and for reading to expand your intellectual horizon. However, I can't say that I'd choose the same reading material you do. It seems a little skewed toward the fringe. Kudos on being involved in the Planetary Society and Sierra Club, and thanks for the entertaining note.