I noticed you were saying, "They better step up their game or I'm outta here!," but don't you mean, "They had better step up their game or I'm outta here!?"

I'm not at all fond of the "!," and the "!?" I think the proper wording would have been thus:

I noticed you were saying, "They better step up their game or I'm outta here!" But don't you mean, "They had better step up their game or I'm outta here?"

I'm not sure why you consider me a "rational authority." I may be an authority on rationalism. But that doesn't mean I am a person without strong emotion, or a person who does not express strong emotion. Being a rationalist doesn't mean I'm always rational or logical. It doesn't make me any less human. It just means I apply a strict set of standards to the manner in which I understand my world.

I'm not sure, either, why you consider my space here "safe." I'm not anonymous, like you are.

I think I understand your meaning about the word theist not existing at the time the word atheist was coined. But the word atheos existed long before the French said "atheist" (if you are correct) and it meant "without god." To try to say that it means and must mean "people who BELIEVE there is no god" is just as silly today as it would have been then.

In other words, theos existed. It had to have existed for the Greeks to put an "a" in front of it. It meant god, if not "belief in god" as theism does today. (In a very simplified form, anyway.) If they invented the word "theos" just to invent the word "atheos" what's the difference? (But I will try to investigate all of that some more when I care about it again.)

You accuse atheists of lying and distorting Huxley's agnosticism and forcing new meaning into a word that means simply "without god(s)" and yet you create a definition for a suffix to contort the definition of atheism.

And who really cares? Language evolves. It always has and it always will.

I've talked with a few agnostics who can't even say whether they believe in a god or not. Agnosticism to them is some kind of philosophy that allows them to be "smarter" than everyone else, contort meaning, and banter on about not being able to disbelieve in something that doesn't exist. We're all arguing amongst ourselves. You don't like it, that's fine. But you're battling ghosts. (And so am I, but it's fun sometimes.)

It's a label. That's all. It's not that serious. But I'm glad I ruffled some feathers. It gets us all talking and mad at each other and then, to distance ourselves further from the people we're arguing with, we create new and sillier labels to argue about.

I guess my only real question would be this. If you do not judge me for being an atheist, why would you even consider writing me a sermon, or telling me about heaven and hell, or being critical? That really doesn't make much sense. And if you don't judge me for my atheism, why does your heart go "out" to me? Really? Be honest. You judge the frickin' hell out of me, don't you? Of course you do.

Jesus is a figment of your imagination. He does not love anyone. If he lived at all, he's dead now.

But I do think I understand your meaning. You want me to be happy. Thanks, I'm pretty happy! And you want me to know that your imaginary helpmate loves me. Thanks, but if he really existed, he'd come tell me that himself. (And I find all that a little creepy, you know.) So, all in all. Thanks for writing.

Savannah,

I did not "keep referring" to evil in life. In fact, I don't think I referred to evil in the world one single time in my response to you. What I referred to was the Bible. And the reason I referred to some bad things God does in the Bible, was because you posed for me a scenario in which someone accuses my father of doing awful things. And then you equated your father with God. So, I simply pointed out that your "father" (God) actually really did do some awful things--they're right there in "his" book.

So, no. I didn't keep referring to evil in life. And no, that isn't why I don't believe in God. Evil in the world is not a reason to not believe in gods in general; but it would certainly be a good reason to not believe in an all-loving, all-good, all-powerful god. So, the problem of evil is a good argument. But it's not why I don't believe in your god.

Now, as to your comments on evil---huh? Are you seriously equating correcting a child as it learns to speak (that's called teaching) with allowing a child to be beaten, raped, and murdered (there's your evil!)? Holy cow! And you seem to be saying that someone needs to tell you to be with the opposite sex! WOW! And your mind is totally BLOWN by all that! And you think that we were born with the ability to hold in our pee or something? There is something seriously wrong with your thinking.

Are you for real? Do I really have to answer this? Is this my son pulling my leg? It HAS to be! Nah, if I'm correct about who you are, you are fairly young, and not really a "new" Christian at all.

Now, Jason McCoy (below) will be mad at me because I'm not being nice to you. But...seriously. Oh, okay, fine.

Savannah, have you ever seen that cute commercial on tv where all the animals are frolicking together by the lake? Isn't that just the cutest thing? Can you imagine that? I can. I can imagine a world where people are happy and content and nobody shows up, takes out a dagger, and starts slaughtering everybody. I can imagine a world where parents gently guide their children and don't pick them up by the feet and dunk them into the toilet so hard and so fast that they drown before the concussion can kill them...all because they soiled their pants.

I can imagine a loving god overseeing his happy children and making sure they don't line any of them up against the mass grave they just forced them to dig and then gun them down...or worse, push them in and bury them alive.

I can also understand that humans are emotional, psychological, biological beings. So I get why there is "evil" in the world. I get that there could possibly be a god who for whatever reason does not intervene. But that god is NOT all-loving. Or he is not all-powerful. Take your pick.
 

You quoted my response to Rob's question: "Why do atheists spend so much time talking about God?" And yet, you are using that response to begin a discussion on why Christians defend God. I do not see a connection. In my words to Rob, I note angry protesters descending on a mosque (via a news story). What does that have to do with defending your god? A man praying; spewing hatred in his name? None of those are acts of defending the character of God.

I was telling Rob why I find many Christians and most of Christianity repulsive and why I speak out as a nonbeliever.

As to your question: If someone (a "meanie"?) accused my father of atrocities, my reaction would depend on their demeanor. If they were frothing at the mouth, I would run, because clearly they're insane or on drugs. If they were somewhat calm, I'd probably laugh at them. Because, you see, my father exists. He lives a short drive away and I can go visit with him and talk to him and he really talks back! Not only that, but I could go to the courthouse and find an arrest record, if there was one, or police reports. I could find out if my father was really a murderer. As to him being a cheat or a liar, I would simply ask the person to explain. Then I could ask my father. And I could decide for myself who was right. My father exists. He's real.

And here's the kicker: so's your old man! (You might be too young for that joke.)

Your father is real too. He's the man who had sex with your mother; his sperm and her egg together became you. And if I said awful things about him, I expect you'd want some proof. You would defend him where you know I'm wrong, or just laugh at me. And you might grant that I'm right about some of his behavior; because let's be honest, people can make mistakes.

But this god you're talking about is not real. And he's certainly not your father. He didn't diddle your ma. He didn't contribute any sperm. He didn't raise you. He was totally MIA. You have not felt his love or seen his hand in your life. You only believe you have. When you see something good, you attribute it to this imaginary person. I have no idea why you need to do this, but there must be a reason.

The problem is that there is a book that talks about this god of yours and in it, he does do some really awful things. And yet, this god is supposed to be all-loving and all-powerful. If you defend him against his call to slaughter the little boys of the Midianites (whom he'd already told his people to wage war against), and the old women and the cripples--everyone but the young women who got to be luv slaves, you are just being irrational about his true nature.

I get that you are passionate about what you believe. But to support genocide (even if it's only a story), or even the denying of rights to others, based on this belief in a god whose own book reveals him to be a "meanie," is something you will always have trouble defending to atheists.

If the Christian God were really all the things people say he is, he wouldn't need defending. For one thing, he'd be right here, visible, defending himself. But he's not. Because he is not. He doesn't exist, except in the minds and imaginations of believers and as a character in books.

Well, first of all, it's atheists, not athiests. "Est" is one of those superlative suffixes; it's like you're saying we're more athi, or something. We're the best at being athi? It doesn't make any sense. You are a theist, because you engage in theism. The "i" goes with the ism. So, we are not theists, and therefore are atheists. See, we get the ist and ism too.

Anyway, enough for the spelling lesson. I do not know why atheists do what they do. I only know why I do what I do. I talk about this god thing a lot because virtually everywhere I go people are telling me it exists and wants me to love it; and some of them say that because I don't believe it exists and love it back, there's something very wrong with me. So, I talk about it a lot to try to show that people like that are crazy.

Your kind of people doing stuff like this also has a lot to do with it: Angry protesters descend on mosque. Just looking at the picture of that man praying is silly enough; but the hatred they spew in the name of this loving god of theirs is downright bizarre. Who wouldn't speak out against that kind of insanity?

It's likely that Dawkins considers the idea of an infinite series of compressions and bursts, which would mean that this particular universe did not always exist. But I don't know what Dawkins thinks. But I will tell you this, it's semantics. Universe MEANS ALL THERE IS. So, of course there can be nothing outside it.

Is there a coherent atheist view? Of course there is. But you have to actually listen to it. Here's the most coherent atheist view there is: Nobody knows if there is a god or not. Not me, not you, nobody. NOBODY knows. To BELIEVE is to delude yourself. I choose to disengage from deluding myself and seek answers through the scientific method which relies on facts, evidence, and testable, confirmable results.

**Further response not included in the email:
I wonder about people who say things like, I don't know why I'm bothering talking to you; it's clear you're just a closed-minded "whatever." And then, to tell me maybe you're writing to thank me, but no, actually you're not. And then say you're writing just because you're bored. And finally the obligatory: I won't bother reading your site anymore, but please respond to me anyway.

Gee thanks. (Did I ever put that unbelievable conversation I had with some wacko from facebook on this site....? I need to find out. Talk about bizarre. She started the "conversation" by telling me exactly how I would respond to her abuse. It was mind-bogglingly crazy. And all because she had some preconceived notions of Libertarians. And she was an atheist! You'd think she'd know what it's like to be judged by a label! God I hate stupid people.)

Anyway, was your attitude meant to set the tone of your email? The tone being: I deign to speak to you about your serious lack of brains. <breathe on nails, brush nails on coat>

To be self-proclaimed is nothing. It just means I use a particular label. I often wonder why people use words like "self-proclaimed" and "self-avowed" when they talk about atheists, as if to be an atheist is something that few people should actually admit to. How often do we hear about self-proclaimed Christians? Or self-proclaimed Jews? Never. But self-proclaimed atheists, self-proclaimed Satanists, self-proclaimed vampires. It's as if the speaker is saying we aren't "really" atheists, because...come on; we just call ourselves atheists.

As to being self-assured, when did I ever say I was self-assured? Now, I suppose I'm certainly confident in atheism. I'm a rationalist, after all. But as a human? I don't know. I suffer most of the foibles of humanity everyone else does: envy, fear, anger, sadness. I get frustrated and hurt just like everyone else. I'm no "self-proclaimed" saint.

I don't have any "beliefs" regarding the universe. But if more than half the population genuinely believed there was a teapot orbiting Saturn and expected me to believe it too, and if I didn't, they thought something was wrong with me, and they continually asked me stupid questions about it, I'd get angry once in a while and snip at them.

I don't think you've read my site very long; if you did, you'd know that I get snippy.

Okay, first, I'm against god because the character of god in the bible is despicable and because when people believe in god they become stupid and ask really stupid questions of people who don't believe what they believe. I hate his bad teachings, like slaughtering entire tribes of people, except for the virgin girls, of course; or murdering a guy who only tried to steady the ark; or sending bears to maul young people to death for teasing some bald guy; or saying you should kill your family members if they don't believe what you do. And I really despise the whole Christian scenario in which this bi-polar, vengeful god creates mankind, tempts him into sinning, and then punishes him by sending him to an eternity of torment. How disgusting is that?

Yes, many of his teachings are bad. Yes, I have believed in Jesus. If you want to know why I stopped, buy my book and read it. But the short answer is this: I started THINKING.

No, nothing bad happened in my life to make me mad at your god.

The point of this site is self-expression, education, and enlightenment. Now, I have some questions for you:

Your answer is that he made a law? What do little children do to break a law for which the punishment is torture, murder, and agonizing, painful death?

What kind of a god do you worship, nj?

2. The Civil War happened. Atlanta exists. Slavery existed. Robert E. Lee and Sherman existed. But that doesn't mean that Scarlet O'Hara existed and married Rhett Butler and lived in a mansion in Atlanta.

3. I do not have to prove to you that Scarlet O'Hara is NOT real. You would have to prove to me that she did indeed exist and everything in the book, Gone with the Wind is fact, not fiction, if you were gullible enough to believe such a thing.

4. Millions of people pray every day for their loved ones to be healed. And their loved ones DIE. You don't think the families of the children abducted, raped and murdered were praying to you god to bring them home safe???
So, if yours didn't die, and if your rent got paid, it's a coincidence. If prayer really worked (like it says it does in the Bible) it would work for EVERYBODY EVERY TIME.

5. You just keep NOT worrying about it, then. Stop going to work. Why bother? God will provide the money for your rent and the health care for your children. And don't bother taking them to the doctor, either. God will diagnose and heal them.

6. And if the rent does not get paid and your child gets sicker and sicker, well, then, you can say, "sometimes the answer is no."

You haven't answered the question at all. WHY? Why would a god who loves his/her creation put CURSES on children for something someone ELSE did? That's disgusting. And if you were HEALED, NJ, why won't your god heal babies dying of cancer? Why won't he save little girls from being abducted, raped, and murdered? Why YOU?

I wouldn't command my children to cook me breakfast. They're CHILDREN and shouldn't use the stove. (Okay, I admit that mine are grown now, but I'm trying to show the analogy between what humans must be like compared to an all-knowing supreme being.) And then again, I wouldn't put curses on my children for something their great, great, great grandfather did, or let them be murdered when I could stop it.

I really have no clue what you're saying about "someone having to believe" the light would turn on. What does that mean? What does this mean: "Because it is not possible that the light will be blown out?" Can you please explain exactly what you're trying to say?

What does the definition of "fact" have to do with my expectations of a light turning on when I flip the switch?

As to your more important comment, I do not fight hard to prove something does not exist. And I do not have to prove gods don't exist. I'm just expressing myself, my frustration with religion, with stupidity, and with sloppy writing skills. I don't really care what you or anyone else believes, as long as you don't try to tell me and other people that it's factual, or even sensible.

There's nothing at all wrong with fighting for reason, clarity, logic, truth, and honesty. Nothing wrong with that at all.

As to the second part of your comment: It matters because there are really stupid people in the world trying to control the freedoms of people who don't believe what they believe. There are Muslims murdering women because they don't live by a ridiculous religious code. There are people in government thwarting the rights of freethinkers and attempting to impose a Christian theocracy on us.