Dogmatic Atheists and Cuddly Agnostics

I wonder if On Faith would publish a piece that started, "I never met a Christian I could like. Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly Christian, but I haven’t bumped into one yet."

Shame on On Faith for featuring this article; it contributes nothing to the discourse but prejudice.

I am an Atheist and I am appalled by the ignorance, hatred and bigotry displayed openly by Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo. As a retired professor myself, I try to imagine telling a class of mine that I have never met an intelligent, honest or moral Puerto Rican. Since our prisons are full of many examples to demonstrate the truth of this statement, I would be in the same position as is the good professor--with one difference. I would be fired, as was Ward Churchill, for making similarly stupid remarks, while Stevens-arroyo gets away with it as if he were uttering truths straight from the Judeo-Christian Bible.
For Mr. Arroyo's benefit, "faith" is belief in something for which there is no evidence. Atheism is not a belief, but rather the absence of belief. There is a huge difference, which if the professor were competent, he would understand.
Gil Gaudia, Ph.D

Substitute "woman" or "jew" for atheist and the professor would no longer enjoy his tenure at his college.

He claims we (atheists) do not listen, but I did listen to his article and all I heard was, "blah, blah, blah."

His argument regarding the inability of atheists to hear could easily be turned back on himself.

The fallacy of Pascal's Wager becomes even more obvious if one were to substitute (I am a fan of substitution, as you can see) "Thor" or "Mithra" for "god".

Finally -- I am an atheist and I consider myself to be quite cuddly.

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo 's heavy reliance on ad hominem attacks on atheists as an alternative to arguing the substance of theism reflects poorly on him.

An atheist is someone who believes there is no God. To claim that atheists are unwilling to "benefit someone else's opinion" is false. I don't call myself an agnostic because my viewpoint is the exact dictionary definition of an atheist.

There is evidence that gods are creations of human imagination. There is evidence that the gods of people's imagination do not exist. There are logical arguments that god lacks explanatory utility. But Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo doesn't discuss the evidence or the logic, he just makes ad hominem accusations with the exception of Pascal's wager.

Pascal's wager is truly silly because it so arbitrary. Just reverse it and make the bet that if god exists then god punishes those who believe in the wrong gods and the wrong religions and favors people who believe there is no god. Furthermore, the gods of all religions are false. So now it is the "better bet" to be an atheist.

fatpie's comments are exactly correct.

The same blooming mistake over and over again. If someone does not believe in God, yet still recognise that they cannot prove that God doesn't exist, that doesn't mean they are not an atheist.

The official meaning of an agnostic is someone who does not believe it is impossible to have knowledge of God. Such a person would not be interested in reasoning since they fully recognise that trying to find reasons for and against God's existence is a lost cause.

The more common definition of agnosticism we find in ordinary discourse appears to be the 'sitting on the fence' kind. However, that is perfectly compatible with both atheism and theism!

There are theists who recognise that, with our current evidence, the existence of God is ambiguous. Thus even though they may accept God's existence, they still insist that they cannot ever be certain that God actually does exist. This is both theism AND the popularist concept of agnosticism.

Alternatively there are atheists (most atheists to my mind) who accept that they cannot hope to prove God's existence (since it is impossible to prove the null hypothesis), but think that in the absence of evidence we should do the same as with other entities for which there is little evidence (e.g. fairies, centaurs, dragons, etc.); presume that they don't exist until some compelling evidence turns up. This would be both atheism AND the popularist form of agnosticism. Not one without the other.

A form of agnosticism which did not side with one position or the other would not be a position at all! If we ask someone 'would you vote Republican or Democrat' and they say 'I'm not sure', we would not then reply: "Ah! Then you're an agnostic concerning whether or not to vote Republican!" Instead we would take them for their word. They haven't got a position yet, and that doesn't mean that they've selected some middle-way position.

Most atheists I know are exactly the opposite of his characterization. They just don't talk about it too much.

You need to get out more, Tony. May be, a logic course in the philosophy or math department would be a good start.

One cannot be more humble than to submit one's opinions to logic and evidence. That happens to be the position of most atheists. Hence they are not dogmatic.

Humility, however, does not obligate anyone to change their opinions in the absence of reasons. Atheists such as Dawkins and Harris are perfectly willing to admit the possibility that there might be a god. It's an infinitesimally small chance that's not very relevant to our life.

Those of us who are bound by tradition and socialization, rather than logic and evidence, would like to think that the impossibility of proving a negative is the bulwark for religion, are deluding themselves. In the absence of better reasons, the impossibility of proving a negative is a weak justification of faith because it justifies faith into anything imaginable.

Elfes, fairies, dwarves, Poseidon, you name it, I can believe in it. That would not be a reasonable position but one can defend it as long as one settles for minimal probabilities.

Dogmatic Puerto Ricans' and Cuddly Agnostics
I never met an Puerto Rican I could like. Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly Puerto Rican , but I haven’t bumped into one yet.
The Puerto Rican's who have crossed my path are obnoxious. They create the world in their own image and likeness, where only they are right or reasonable, and everyone else is either a fool or fanatic. (Any Puerto Rican who doubts him/herself enough to benefit someone else’s opinion is not a dogmatic ,Puerto Rican but an agnostic: see below).
You can’t have a dialogue with dogmatic Puerto Rican . Because they are so sure they know everything, they never listen to intelligent people. They are mirror images of the religious fundamentalists, who -- despite their dogmatism -- at least have their enthusiasms in the right place. The worst thing for society would be to let any of them have power over the body politic. Scratch a dogmatic Puerto Rican and you likely will find a wannabe Robespierre or worse.
In contrast, agnostics are warm and fuzzy people, easy to snuggle up to like a familiar Teddy Bear. Agnostics rely on reason in concluding there is no certain evidence that God exists; but -- unlike atheists — agnostics realize there is no sure evidence that God DOESN’T exist. So they devise strategies for moving ahead without condemning others. Some of their strategies -- like philanthropy and civic service -- at times help them outdo religious people in things that really matter.

By definition, an agnostic is humble. Moreover, since doubt is a necessary condition for critical thinking, agnostics are disposed to be tolerant of other opinions and to produce meaningful change. Rather than taking a single shot at a targeted truth as an atheist might, agnostics prefer a shotgun approach, trusting that at least one of the alternatives will score.
I think there is a direct connection between this country’s secular democracy and the many agnostics among the founding fathers. After all, secularism’s democratic premise is an agnostic’s cardinal truth: Since we are not sure who is absolutely right, better to let all religions have an equal chance without favoritism to any particular one.
Some agnostics take the Pascal wager, and decide to profess faith even if they are not sure about religion’s reasonableness. Some believe in God, but are agnostic about organized religion; others go vice-versa, enjoying the culture of ritual, without being sure of a heavenly presence. I think all Buddhists are “believing agnostics.” So are lots of liberal Protestants, progressive Jews, peace-loving Muslims and all my favorite Jesuits.
Even if I left a few groups out of my list, you can always tell the difference between an agnostic – whether believing or not – and a dogmatic Puerto Rican . One listens to you, the other does not.

Dogmatic Puerto Ricans' and Cuddly Agnostics

I never met an Puerto Rican I could like. Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly Puerto Rican , but I haven’t bumped into one yet.
The Puerto Rican's who have crossed my path are obnoxious. They create the world in their own image and likeness, where only they are right or reasonable, and everyone else is either a fool or fanatic. (Any Puerto Rican who doubts him/herself enough to benefit someone else’s opinion is not a dogmatic ,Puerto Rican but an agnostic: see below).
You can’t have a dialogue with dogmatic Puerto Rican . Because they are so sure they know everything, they never listen to intelligent people. They are mirror images of the religious fundamentalists, who -- despite their dogmatism -- at least have their enthusiasms in the right place. The worst thing for society would be to let any of them have power over the body politic. Scratch a dogmatic Puerto Rican and you likely will find a wannabe Robespierre or worse.
In contrast, agnostics are warm and fuzzy people, easy to snuggle up to like a familiar Teddy Bear. Agnostics rely on reason in concluding there is no certain evidence that God exists; but -- unlike atheists — agnostics realize there is no sure evidence that God DOESN’T exist. So they devise strategies for moving ahead without condemning others. Some of their strategies -- like philanthropy and civic service -- at times help them outdo religious people in things that really matter.

By definition, an agnostic is humble. Moreover, since doubt is a necessary condition for critical thinking, agnostics are disposed to be tolerant of other opinions and to produce meaningful change. Rather than taking a single shot at a targeted truth as an atheist might, agnostics prefer a shotgun approach, trusting that at least one of the alternatives will score.
I think there is a direct connection between this country’s secular democracy and the many agnostics among the founding fathers. After all, secularism’s democratic premise is an agnostic’s cardinal truth: Since we are not sure who is absolutely right, better to let all religions have an equal chance without favoritism to any particular one.
Some agnostics take the Pascal wager, and decide to profess faith even if they are not sure about religion’s reasonableness. Some believe in God, but are agnostic about organized religion; others go vice-versa, enjoying the culture of ritual, without being sure of a heavenly presence. I think all Buddhists are “believing agnostics.” So are lots of liberal Protestants, progressive Jews, peace-loving Muslims and all my favorite Jesuits.
Even if I left a few groups out of my list, you can always tell the difference between an agnostic – whether believing or not – and a dogmatic Puerto Rican . One listens to you, the other does not.

I would have loved to see the "professor's" face when he read the post suggesting the substitution of 'Puerto Rican' for 'Atheist' in his article. Given his demonsrated lack of logical acuity and his blatent religious bigotry, however, he probably simply didn't get it.

I can't understand how a publication with the reputation of the Post could have even seriously considered the publication of such a prejudiced and intentionally provocative article. Your standards have obviously slipped badly since the days of Ben Bradlee.

To lighten it up a bit, have you heard about the Agnostic, insomniac, Dyslexic?

He lay awake all night wondering if there were a Dog.

yes all christans i have ever met are in fact identical, however it is ok these days to stereotype percieved groups of people because irrationality makes so much sense.

what is tedious is that this man is discussed at all.

it is evident that he holds to the idea that it is acceptable to say all the people in this group are something.

all red headed people are tall.
all black people are white.
all women are good spellers
all agnostics are fat and furry
all atheists dont brush their teeth.

it is a statement which is clearly offensive to anybody who claims to support any sort of equality of humanity.

what is the need to debate here the existance of religion when really the issue is the existance of the acceptance of hateful humanity annihilating stereotypeing?

I am sure Mr. Stevens Arroyo has met many friendly atheists. They probably thought it would be wiser not to disclose their lack of religious beliefs to such a bigot.

The division between an agnostic and an atheist is subjective. It really boils down to a person's judgement of the probability of God's existence.

Richard Dawkins explains that the spectrum is continuous and ranges between two extremes of complete certainty of God's existence and non-existence(see "The God Delusion", pp. 50-51). Dawkins defines the following seven categories to represent the entire spectrum:

1. Strong theist: 100% probability
2. De-facto theist: Very high probability but short of 100%
3. Agnostic leaning toward theism: Higher than 50% but not very high
4. Impartial agnostic: 50% probability.
5. Agnostic leaning toward atheism: Lower than 50% but not very low
6. De-facto atheist: Very low probability but short of 0%
7. Strong atheist: 0% probability

Dawkins says that he would be surprised to meet many people in category 7. Those are probably the people that Mr. Stevens-Arroyo describes as the "obnoxious atheists" who dared to challenge his beliefs.

I consider myself in category 6 and so does Dawkins. De-facto atheists are rational people, and it is irrational to think that the probability of God's existence is zero. However, we do think that the probability is extremely small, since we don't have any evidence of God's existence. I am convinced that all de-facto atheists will instantly become strong theists the moment concrete evidence of God's existence is presented. But we have very strong doubts whether that will ever happen.

Fortunately, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo seems to categorize de-facto atheists (per Dawkins' definition) as agnostics. I feel a lot better about this article now that I know Mr. Stevens-Arroyo considers me one of those "warm and fuzzy" people. Perhaps he would be surprised to discover that Dawkins falls in that category too. Maybe he should read Dawkins latest book before he decides to publicly demonize people who do not share his religious beliefs again.

Victoria:
Don't take it so hard.
That goes more with the teritory. Having only text as means of communication we foster many more misunderstandings as in a face to face conversation.
Well of course you are right, the debate often centers around the value of a person, defined by his believe or the lack thereof. However, I'd like to note that this is not unique to atheists.

On Mr. Steven-Arroyos piece:
Actually I'm meanwhile of the opinion that the believe doesn't say much about a person.
I guess I'm much more interested wether a person adheres to intelectual integrety or not - that is are we living up to our own standards and do we admit freely when we don't know something. Are we ready to change our views in light of new findings and so on.

Mr. Steven-Arroyos neat little trick to divide the world in two classes of non believers is somehow problematic. While it may give him some means to divert people into "good" and "bad" nonbelievers,
his rather broad definition of agnostics has a little weaknes.
For one, agnosticism has a clear root of thinking, actually saying that gods doing in the world can not be deciphered by men. Which is quite something different than saying: I don't know.
Secondly, his definition includes him in the agnostics as well since he neither can prove that god exists nor that he (or she or it) doesn't exist.
Yet I'm shure he wouldn't like it, if anybody would place him there. And frankly, it would be rude to do so.
He made his choice. That should be reckoned.
People are not stupid, they have reasons for what they do.
Likewise, an atheist made a choice, and that too should be reckoned.
People are not stupid, they have reasons for what they do.

If we can accept that, we can do something for each other.
A believer is a perfect backdraft for an atheist to test his or her reasons, and an atheist is a perfect backdraft for a believer to test his or her faith.
That is, if we are interested.

My first reaction to this article?

"Gee, another Viagra-challenged AlphaMale Christian on a taunt rant. Don't these males have a life???"

My second reaction to finishing the article...

"What an ass."

Sorry, that last "anonymous" was me...

"theres alot of meanness here- i came to this website with it a great deal of respect for atheists-
but i am losing it from being exposed to so many bad manners and arrogance-"

Atheists are human beings first, Victoria, and like most human beings we tend to get angry when we are insulted and demeaned.

Do you not see the arrogance and bad manners in Professor Stevens-Arroyo's post? He calls us obnoxious, presumes to impose false definitions and attribute opinions to atheists which not all atheists would agree with.

Even his attitude toward agnostics is patronizing and arrogant; they are "cuddly Teddy Bears" to him.

A wise man once said something about taking the beam out of your own eye before looking for speck's in someone else's. You should take his advice on this point.

Victoria:

Professor Stevens-Arroyo's statement was specifically and deliberately designed to piss off atheists so that he could then point to the angry replies and say "See, I told you so, all atheists are angry".

Can you imagine professor Stevens-Arroyos statement ever being published in the Washington Post or any other main stream media outlet if it had been made about _any_ other religious, cultural or racial minority? Only atheists can be treated with such disrespect in the main stream media.

I wish that my fellow atheists had not risen to the bait but I certainly can't blame them for it.

How would you feel if you had to live your life in the closet in order that you not lose your job, get shunned by your neighbors or even worse? Would that maybe make you a little angry?

For someone who implies that he lives his life in a Christ like manner, professor Stevens-Arroyo certainly isn't living up to his own self proclaimed standards. I really can't imagine Jesus the Christ deliberately baiting someone in order to piss them off.

Matthew 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.

Professor Stevens-Arroyo is very far from following the instructions of his freely self proclaimed Savior. And you say that _atheists_ are rude and arrogant!

You really should save your scorn for professor Stevens-Arroyo, he has certainly made Christians look like bigots and you are helping him by criticising those who responded to his unprovoked baiting.

One last point: I note that professor Stevens-Arroyo has not had the strength of his convictions to come in here in the comments section and defend his vile statement about atheists. No, his was a post and run, the true sign of a coward taking an indefensible position.

theres alot of meanness here- i came to this website with it a great deal of respect for atheists-
but i am losing it from being exposed to so many bad manners and arrogance-

wouldnt you disprove his statement if you were mannerly and reasonable? atheists are a very angry bunch and i am sad to discover this

i had some really nice considerate atheists friend in pittsburgh and my experience with them wrongly led me to imagine that atheists were a humanist and good bunch

Alex:

I have no time right now to respond to your fallacies. Please visit talkorigins.org.

Questions about events in the Bible, such as the flood, could obviously go on endlessly, just like questions about evolution.

But let's go back to the basics for a moment. There is increasing scientific evidence to support the creation account in the Bible:

For example, the Bible says that Adam, the first man, was formed from "the dust of the ground." In 1982, researchers at NASA's Ames Research Center confirmed that the ingredients needed to form a human being can be found in clay. An article on the findings concluded, "The Biblical scenario for the creation of life turns out to be not far off the mark." (Reader's Digest, November, 1982 p.116).

Here's another example: Creationism is consistent with the scientific law of entropy, which states that systems and elements of the physical universe tend to disintegrate to a lower order of available energy or organization. Evolution, however, is not consistent with this scientific law.

God is not a physical being, of course, so He is not subject to this law. He is a supernatural, Omnipotent Being, who needs no creator. We may not be able to grasp this with our limited minds, but we certainly cannot disprove it.

Evolution, on the other hand, has so many holes and problems that it requires more faith than creationism. Even Darwin acknowledged that millions of "missing links," transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theories. This clearly has not happened, and the chances are slim that it ever will.

In addition, the odds that the earth and all its complex life forms all originated from some "big bang" somewhere in the universe are also not very good.

Having said all of this, let's turn to the Biblical account of how God re-populated the earth after the flood. Some find this hard to accept, as well. However, if God was intelligent and creative enough to fashion the earth and its inhabitants in the first place, why would He have any problems with re-population?

As for diseases, there are various theories about how they may have been preserved through the flood. For example, they could have survived in insects or human corpses.

What is important is that God was definitely interested in preserving mankind. If He had wanted to destroy human beings altogether, He certainly could have done so. But that wasn't in line with His original plan.

It is clear from Scripture that God's plan, from the beginning, was to have a family on earth. That's why He said: "Let Us make man in our own image." Everything else--Noah's ark, the Old Testament Law and prophets, the coming of the Messiah--was all part of God's unfolding plan.

This man is a distinguished professor? The English language has become a tiny bit degraded by this.
I know plenty of atheists with great senses of humor. Students beware! Here is a man who has lived a sheltered life and yet is in a position to pass on his prejudices.

"We have nothing in common other than what we don't have in common (theism). Defining us BY our non-belief is only useful when in contrast to religious claims. Otherwise, we're better defined and grouped for the particular people we are, rather than who we are not."

Of, course you and Greg are right. I did have my tounge in my cheek.

I suppose I could write a post like this claiming I never met a Christian I could like if I were to define Christians as only the most obnoxious, judgemental fundamentalist types. Fortunately I know this is not so.

For me atheism (the absence of a belief in gods) is just the logical conclusion of agnosticism (an intellectual approach to knowledge which rejects belief in anything not proven).

Professor Stevens-Arroyo has a problem with definitions, not with atheists.

"I'm a little ashamed that we have sectarian disagreements even amongst the non-believers. Maybe this indicates that non-belief has come of age and is moving into the mainstream."

Non-believers are not a proper group: we have no inherent reason to all be in agreement. Some of us are Republicans, some are Democrats, some anti-religion, some pro. We all have moral values, but we are no more likely to agree on them than are two different theists from different sects.

We have nothing in common other than what we don't have in common (theism). Defining us BY our non-belief is only useful when in contrast to religious claims. Otherwise, we're better defined and grouped for the particular people we are, rather than who we are not.

I surely would be rather embarrassed if a person like Mr. Stevens would like me. I would suspect a misunderstanding!

Gerry

Realist,

you don't have to be ashamed about minor differences between atheists/agnostics. There won't be a 30 years' war about it, lol!

This difference is hugely exaggerated, even with wonderfully enlightened persons like Prof. Dawkins. The accentuation of this difference represents an unnecessary retreat on a defense line of "maybe". We don't need this.

The question if god exists or not is a question of sheer classical (mathematical) logic about proving or falsifying the existence of something. There simply is no mathematical way to prove or disprove the existence of an invisible pink unicorn. A-gnostic means "I don't know", a-theist means "I live without a god" - no less and no more. So lets go back in the discussion to this simple linguistic basis.

This word play distracts much too much from the real issue, which boils down to the question:

Are we dependent on this fiction (believe in...) or aren't we. Is human dignity a value in itself or does it depend on the literal (mis-) interpretation of some poetical metaphorical stories written in the darkest ages of superstition, way before the age of science and enlightenment.

Gerry

"Certainly, God knew that sin would enter the world. That was no surprise to Him. That is why He immediately came up with a redemption plan. Seeing our mess ups ahead of time, God still loved us, and made a plan to bring us back to Him."

Sorry, God did not *immediately* come up with a redemption plan. Jesus came _after_ God had pressed the cosmic reset button with the Flood. All those people that lived before the Flood had no recourse to a redemption plan.

Face it, God made a mistake.

OK. Here are some questions for Alex and other theists. Note that I am not asking a rhetorical question. I really want to know how you answer this for yourself and if you are really convinced by your own answer:

Assume God created everything. Why did he create microbes that have devoured humans thru disease (and will do so for the foreseeable future). Forget AIDS which you may claim was God's response to "sin". What about anthrax, polio, SARS, strep, the plague etc. The Bible never mentions viruses by the way. Were viruses included on Noah's ark just so the Judaeo-Christian God can have some spectator sport type fun watching humans suffer in the future? On a related note, if all animals were created for the service of man, why were lions and tigers created, given that so many humans have been eaten by them throughout history.

Q: Why would an all-knowing God create creatures who have the ability to make bad choices?

The answer is simple: Because true love has to be free to choose. Ultimately, the issue is not whether we do everything perfectly, it is what do we truly love, and what are we truly seeking after in life.

Some people seek after money and fame, others crave power and position, and still others desire their own happiness and success.

The highest and greatest pursuit in life is to seek a relationship with your Creator. There is nothing higher than that. You can truly have everything this world has to offer, but if you don't have a connection with the One who created you, you have nothing at all.

It is no accident that there are other things to tempt and distract you. God is looking for those who will reach out to Him, even when everyhing around them is saying otherwise. That's true love and desire. It's saying, "Yeah, there are these other issues going on, but a relationship with God is the most important thing."

Certainly, God knew that sin would enter the world. That was no surprise to Him. That is why He immediately came up with a redemption plan. Seeing our mess ups ahead of time, God still loved us, and made a plan to bring us back to Him.

That is why one Scripture says that Jesus was "slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8), and that is why He is such a central figure throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments.

Sin, therefore, no longer has the power to separate us from God. There is now a solution for sin, and it is available to anyone who is willing to accept it.

Ultimately, since God Himself has opened up the way and made the invitation, what separates us from Him is our own lack of interest in or desire for Him. This is true whether we call ourselves Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, secularists, or whatever.

As it says in one Scripture, if you search for Him with your whole heart, you will surely find Him (Jeremiah 29:13).

Stevens-Arroyo has really ticked off a lot of us atheists.
He claims we don't listen.
We listen. We just don't like what we hear.

If we were Muslims, we could issue a fatwa.
If we were Christians, we could threaten him to burn in fire for eternity.
But instead we simply think something like, "what a deluded idiot."

Wouldn't he prefer an arrogant atheist to the alternatives? No, I guess not. That speaks volumes.

Professor Stevens-Arroyo,
"Even if I left a few groups out of my list, you can always tell the difference between an agnostic – whether believing or not – and a dogmatic atheist. One listens to you, the other does not."

I listened. I spent about 20 years as a believer and I spent 10 years trying to find evidence that there is something real behind religious beliefs and I came to the conclusion that they are all based on self delusion and faulty reasoning.

At the risk of sounding arrogant and reinforcing your stereotype, I'm prepared to listen if you have something sensible and useful to say that I haven't heard before.

Plunge said:
"You can say you disagree, but the reality is that either you believe or you don't. Not being sure whether there is a god or not is a completely different question. You can be an agnostic, but you still must also either be an atheist or a theist. There is no alternative. It's simple logic: the excluded middle."

Spot on!

Call me an agnostic if you like because I can't prove that God does not exist; I'm not 100% sure. While I don't like the term "atheist", it's a more accurate description of me than "agnostic". I think the evidence indicates that people like to invent gods. I don't find the "evidence" for any of them even slightly convincing. In fact the Christian God is one of the least convincing to me.

I'm a little ashamed that we have sectarian disagreements even amongst the non-believers. Maybe this indicates that non-belief has come of age and is moving into the mainstream.

"Does an infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable entity make mistakes?"

Apparently so. In Leviticus, the birds have 4 feet, & bats are numbered among them.

In Genesis, gawd apparently has no idea about cross-pollination.

The Exodus never occurred. Even so, it took 3 million people 40 years to walk 200 miles. In the meantime, the angels kept their sandals & clothes from wearing out.

& no 1 else saw the 'darkness that covered all the land' in the NT. Only the authors.

& the Roman authorities made no effort to locate the pilferers of the 'empty tomb', which no 1 knows the location of to this day.

Alex:
"Q: Did the same God who created the human anatomy create birth defects along with it?

I don't believe so. It's illogical. You wouldn't want your own child to be born with defects, so why would God want that for His own creation?

When God created the earth, did He create sickness, disease, poverty, murder, crime, oppression, and all the many other problems that plague it?

Again. That's an unreasonable conclusion.

Why would someone create something beautiful and magnificent, only to inject something in it that would threaten to sabotage the whole thing?

If we are reasonable, thinking people, then we have to give God more credit than that. We would certainly expect more of a moral human being. How much more the God of the universe?

If you accept the idea of a Divine Creator, it does not automatically mean that you have to assume He is responsible for all the problems in the world."

I really don't understand your reasoning at all, God is supposed to all knowing and all powerful. If this is indeed true then God is incapable of making a mistake, therefore we are forced to conclude that the defects we see in the world around us were indeed deliberate acts upon the part of God the Creator.

Any other position must inevitably lead to the conclusion that God is either not all powerful and all knowing or else He is at least somewhat evil for creating evil in the universe.

Does an infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable entity make mistakes? The story of Noah and the Flood would indicate that such an entity does indeed make mistakes. God so FUBARED the original creation of humanity that he had to press the cosmic reset button and start the game again, a "fact", if you will, that does not reflect well on God.

Does an infinitely loving entity lose it's temper? Once again, looking at the Bible, it would seem so.

2 Chronicles 36:16
But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

Contrast this with the message of Jesus.

Matthew 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

It would seem that God does not follow the advice of his Son.

Not that he does not have to of course, after all he *is* God, but perhaps he has never heard of the concept of leading by example?

Any wise parent knows that children do as you do, not as you say. If one wishes to raise loving children then one must treat them with love, even when disciplining them. Losing one's temper with children is counterproductive. God does not even seem to have the restraint that good human parents have, in fact in many places in the Bible God acts rather like a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum.

Not a God I wish to believe in, thank you very much.

It is either cold or warm.
With this ability (lack of) of reasoning there isn't much possibility to discuss at all.
And people with that degree of "insight" talk about logic. Sad.

Gerry

"As a "fuzzy" agnostic I disagree with your black-and-white way of thinking on this matter."

You can say you disagree, but the reality is that either you believe or you don't. Not being sure whether there is a god or not is a completely different question. You can be an agnostic, but you still must also either be an atheist or a theist. There is no alternative. It's simple logic: the excluded middle.

Q: Did the same God who created the human anatomy create birth defects along with it?

I don't believe so. It's illogical. You wouldn't want your own child to be born with defects, so why would God want that for His own creation?

When God created the earth, did He create sickness, disease, poverty, murder, crime, oppression, and all the many other problems that plague it?

Again. That's an unreasonable conclusion.

Why would someone create something beautiful and magnificent, only to inject something in it that would threaten to sabotage the whole thing?

If we are reasonable, thinking people, then we have to give God more credit than that. We would certainly expect more of a moral human being. How much more the God of the universe?

If you accept the idea of a Divine Creator, it does not automatically mean that you have to assume He is responsible for all the problems in the world.

Let's take a practical example. Can we blame God for releasing pollution into the environment? No. No more than we can blame Him for releasing the spiritual pollution, called sin, that is destroying mankind.

We can, however, thank and praise Him for sending a solution to the sin problem in the form of Jesus Christ.

To Plunge...
As a "fuzzy" agnostic I disagree with your black-and-white way of thinking on this matter.
"Either you believe in a God, or you don't." What I "believe" is that if you think far enough outside the box, nobody knows. I know I certainly don't know, but what i also believe is this:
~God was the default answer to the previously unanswerable. Unfortunately, this shallow conclusion is used (abused?) much too often currently.
~Thanks to the Enlightenment, our minds expanded by questioning the unknown into further depth. As a result we have learned (or theorized) much more than anticipated back then.

Bottom line: Ignorance is NOT bliss!
Knowledge is power.

an FWI...
Even though at a young age of reaching 16, my mind is set on being an agnostic (so far). I believe both atheists and the strongly religious shun the possible alternative. However, I suppose I should consider myself a weak reform Jew atheist; altho I have my doubts on the existance of a G-d the bible covers respect for your fellow neighbors.
What a shame...considering Moses (or God if you will) came up with the 10 commandments so long ago, but still have such difficulty for offering love to one another. Thank you A. Stevens, for setting such a wonderful example =)

PS. Any disagreements or error corrections I very much appreciate...I'm not in the blissful category. ^.^

News Flash!!

Incorrect definition of atheist: 100% sure that God doesn't exist.

The common misconception about the definition of atheism abounds in the comments of this article. The vast majority of atheists, myself included, are teapot atheists who think it unlikely that any God, claimed by others, exists, based on glaring lack of evidence (and contrary evidence in many cases of supernatural claims). Agnosticism, according to my experience, doesn't honor the evidence / reason-based conclusion that there are no good reasons for supernatural beliefs and that therefore it is irrational to embrace them given their 1 in infinity likelyhood of truth.

The professor already has a preconceived idea that almost atheists are obnoxious. The first person I met who challenged my views that led me to atheism was Professor Buenter at Grossmont College in LaMesa, CA. He was the most humble atheist that just asked me to look at religion closely. I suggest they get together so Professor Anthony can change his view.

Let's face it: the idea that agnostics are a middle ground between atheists and theists is simply logically incoherent. Either you believe in a God, or you don't.

Agnosticism concerns what one claims either to know, or what one claims can be known. It's a different range of debate entirely.

Arroyo you are a complete and utter moron.

Rhinehart:
"I've read Hitler got his swastika design from the logo of a Catholic monastery near where he grew up. It's identical to the one on the monastery gate."
Ummm...no. From Britannica:
"Equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles, all in the same rotary direction, usually clockwise. It is used widely throughout the world as a symbol of prosperity and good fortune. In India, it continues to be the most common auspicious symbol of Hindus and Jains, as well as for Buddhists, for whom it symbolizes the Buddha’s feet or footprints."
http://www.answers.com/topic/swastika

So - did you chuckle at it because you thought it satire, or because you thought it apt?

Foolish, foolish argument. Defense mechanisms at the core.

Arthur C Clarke's third law states that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. From the perspective of those who originally wrote the bible many people of the modern world live in a magical, if not godlike, world.

To speak with and see people on the other side of the world in near instantaneous time. To fly through the air with no visible means of support. To bring the recently dead back to life. All of these things and many more commonplace occurrences of today's world would have seemed miraculous and indicative of either the power of the devil or the power of god to the original scribes of the bible.

Clarke himself wrote a couple of very inventive stories with religious themes, "The Nine Billion Names of God" and "The Star".

http://www.enotes.com/star

"Religion, and in particular religious faith, are central themes in ‘‘The Star.’’ The narrative is the interior monologue of the central character, a Jesuit astrophysicist. He is aboard a starship on a mission to investigate the causes of a supernova in a distant galaxy. He and the rest of the crew discover the artifacts of a highly developed civilization, carefully preserved on the only planet that remains in orbit around the supernova. Knowing that all life would be wiped out when their sun flared into a supernova, this race of sentient beings left a record of who they were and what they accomplished. The pictures, sculptures, music, and other relics of a very human-like race doomed to destruction depress the crew and investigating scientists, who are far from their own homes and lonely. What the narrator has learned but not yet communicated to the others is that the supernova that destroyed this civilization was the Star of Bethlehem, which burned brightly in the sky to herald the birth of Jesus Christ. His discovery has caused him to reexamine and to question his own faith."

Isaac Asimov's (an atheist BTW) "The Last Question" also has a religious theme that isn't apparent until the last paragraph.

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~mlindsey/asimov/question.htm

Asimov's introduction to the story:

"This is by far my favorite story of all those I have written.

After all, I undertook to tell several trillion years of human history in the space of a short story and I leave it to you as to how well I succeeded. I also undertook another task, but I won't tell you what that was lest l spoil the story for you.

It is a curious fact that innumerable readers have asked me if I wrote this story. They seem never to remember the title of the story or (for sure) the author, except for the vague thought it might be me. But, of course, they never forget the story itself especially the ending. The idea seems to drown out everything -- and I'm satisfied that it should."

Read the complete story at the the address above (it's quite short). Keep in mind that it was written in 1956.

Is it fair to assume that the distinguished "professor", along with the
Roman Catholic Church, "believes that through transubstantiation Christ is really, truly and substantially present under the remaining appearances of bread and wine"? If so, perhaps it's time for his students to transfer to a "real" college. I certainly wouldn't want my college-age daughter to be paying to listen to deluded faculty members.

Ba'al -- I greatly appreciate your posts on this forum, except for these kind of comments: "When is the Post going to put a stop to this nonsense?" and "I still marvel that the Washington Post lets this kind of drivel into press."

A smart guy like you might consider that giving such well-known figures this kind platform opens them to valuable criticism they might not receive otherwise.

Dave wrote: You are agnostic not atheist. An aetheist is certain there is no god, they are not open to persuasion. That is the key difference between aetheists and agnostics and why aetheists' 100% certainly that there is no god is as much a leap of faith as any.

Dave, it's clear that you don't understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). Some atheists conclude that there is no evidence for any god and others go a step further and say that since there is no evidence or reason to believe in god that there definitely is no god.

Atheists are uniquely willing to accept that they do not know everything. As a consequence, they do not need to use god as an "answer" to the tough questions we cannot otherwise answer. Since most atheists are evidence driven, genuine evidence of a god would likely convince most of them to change their conclusions.

Agnosticism is better described as the belief that it is not possible to know the truth about ultimate realities, such as whether a god exists. An agnostic can therefore be either a theist or an atheist, but makes that decision on criteria other than evidence.

Some commentators have pointed out that those agnostics who do not claim to be agnostic believers are actually atheists -- since they do not actually believe in god.

If I remember correctly, Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" to describe his views, at least in part to avoid being destroyed by accusations of atheism.

Many believers seem to despise atheists for no reason other than the believer's own ignorance and irrational intolerance. That seems to be the case with both Dave and the "Professor."

As an - I hope - loveable agnostic, I thoroughly enjoyed this On Faith entry. I chuckled all the way thru it.

PS to DZ & Brambleton:
I've read Hitler got his swastika design from the logo of a Catholic monastery near where he grew up. It's identical to the one on the monastery gate.

Gee Professor. Maybe you never met a friendly atheist because of your own holier than thou attitude. Most people pick up on this pretty quick and respond accordingly. Is there anybody you do like? How about bigots?

"Study the way the systems in the human body work together, for example. Look at the amazing precision of the human nervous system. Look at the miracle of human reproduction."

Look at how our eyes have a blind spot because the wiring is backwards. Other animals don't have this problem.

Look at how our spines are not really suited for walking upright, causing chronic pain for many.

Look at how some of us end up with more teeth in our mouth that will fit, requiring some to be removed, often with difficulty.

Look at how we share a passage for food and air which allows us to choke.

As for the "miracle of reproduction", that whole system is a gigantic Rube Goldberg mess. A better system would not cause so much pain for the mother and wouldn't limit the size of our heads.

In short, if we were designed, the designed must have been pretty dumb. :)

"None of this is by accident"

Sure, but evolution doesn't rely completely on accidents.

Yo, Tony! What's your problem, exactly?
Here, since you're so fond of stereotypes:
"Ohhh, an atheist somewhere in your past must've hurt you badly, that's why you're so angry at us!"
There's a friendly atheist at http://friendlyatheist.com/, in case you're interested.
& actually, I tend to be extremely friendly in person. I'm great w/kids & animals, always laughing & telling jokes, & people seem to gravitate towards me (sometimes they wanna tell me all their ills & woes.
As to this:
"In contrast, agnostics are warm and fuzzy people, easy to snuggle up to like a familiar Teddy Bear. Agnostics rely on reason in concluding there is no certain evidence that God exists; but -- unlike atheists — agnostics realize there is no sure evidence that God DOESN’T exist."
I'm an atheist, AND a 'warm & fuzzy person'. God DOESN'T exist.
Nice try at the Agrippa's trilemma, but it falls short. Like it always does.
You may want to use a broader brush - I think you may have missed a spot. ;)

This has been a very enjoyable discussion on religion. People have made some very interesting statements and have asked challenging questions.

As a Christian, I fully believe in having a constructive dialogue, for Jesus Christ taught His followers to have a love for truth.

Therefore, let us reason together a little further...

Some people reject the idea of a Divine Creator, and that is their choice. But there is evidence all around us that God exists.

The Bible puts it this way: "The heavens declare the glory of God." (Psalm 19:1). In another place, it says: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." (Romans 1:20).

You don't have to look far to see evidence of God's existence. It's everywhere. That same evidence not only shows that He exists, it also tells us a little about the kind of person He is. For one thing, He's a glorious, wonderful Being. He doesn't have the human imperfections of a god like Zeus. In order to keep the universe in order, He could only be a God who is perfect in righteousness and wisdom.

What a useless, self-serving bore you are. (I'm a Dominican).

I would like to point out that being an atheist in an overwhelmingly theist culture like the USA puts one in a rather disturbing situation.

If the atheist is incorrect in believing that there is no god then he is apparently missing some sort of profound sense that the great majority of people around him have. This is rather off-putting and alienating, to put it mildly. To then be shunned, hated and discriminated against for lacking that sense only compounds the alienation.

The other alternative is that the atheist is correct and there is indeed no god, in which case the atheist is surrounded by people who are at best mildly delusional and at worst flat out psychotic. This is also a rather creepy feeling, particularly when one's President implies that he is basing national policy on his delusions.

Frankly neither scenario is at all comforting but for me being honest with myself is more important than being comfortable.

Here is a little prophecy for you:

You won't meet an atheist you like in the near future either.

Jackass.

Susan @ December 28, 2006 1:50 PM

Agreed. I have always found that Socrates put it best: (yes, I know this is not a literal translation but it conveys the meaning): Some believe in many Gods and some believe in none. Since 'God' is all-powerful, then either there is 1 or none. And I CHOOSE to believe that there is 1.

To this day, some choose there is 1, some 0, and some are not sure. But the operative word is 'CHOOSE', that is belief.

S. Landry @ December 27, 2006 8:35 PM
&
Marcus Aurelius @ December 28, 2006 1:35 PM

'S. Landry' wrote: "The evidence is particularly against the god of Abraham (the basis for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)."

I just noticed this. I conclude that you are not really an 'atheist'. You simply have a philosophical objection to a set of beliefs.

No wonder 'Marcus Aurelius' agrees with you. His handle speaks volumes and very loudly. Especially given the original Aurelius' policies, perhaps you should re-read the thesis of this blog.

To S. Landry,

I stand by my statements, although I may not have expressed myself as eloquently as I should have.

One cannot use Aristotelian logic or the scientific method in apreciating music, or art, or architecture, or faith - not because there is no question of "truth or existence", but precisely because the very real issues of truth and existence expressed in those ways cannot be adequately translated into logic or reasoning. This does not by any means eliminate the very real truths being conveyed. If Elgar, for example, could have simply "told" us in words what he was getting across in "The Enigma Variations", then there would have been no purpose in him creating them, or in us listening to them.

Similarly, the truth I am presented with in The Incarnation cannot be adequately defined solely in terms of history or logic. It can only be appreciated by living it, and not by talking about it. This is not a shortcoming, it is simply using the appropriate medium of expression. We've all heard the expression, "Words fail me". Usually, it's not because the speaker hasn't thought it out, but rather because, quite literally, words have indeed failed him - they were not the right tools for the job in that particular circumstance. Not all Truth can be reduced to words alone. In fact, I rather suspect that only the least important fragment of it can be.

I think what david and others are trying to point out is Kirkregaard's idea of "subjective truth." (The truth of experience, I think, therefore I am, etc.) For example, one generally does not listen to Mozart in order to learn objective (scientific) truths about sound, but because they want to experience the beauty of his music. ergo Christianity. One does not, ideally, become a Christian because its objectively true, but because faith can be an extremely viable basis for one's life.

Then again, the atheist has his own subjective truth. Someone pointed out that many atheists were formerly believers. I share that experience. I could really elaborate on the revulsion that I feel towards religion, but suffice to say; the better man will ground his life in reason and down-to-earth human kindness than in fanaticism or squeamishness.

It's intersting to note that the proof an atheist requires to believe in God would ruin religion's most distinctive feature: faith. Without the faith, there's no magic, no mystery: show's over.

Susan

To: S Landry:

After reading Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's rather objectionable post, I was all set to make certain points about the roots of the disagreement between believers and non-believers being one of which side ultimately adheres more to "truth" than the other. The rest of this bit about who is happier, or more likable, or "cuddlier" is a rather silly offshoot. I was set to try to resettle the argument along these lines, until I read you post and found that you have done so better than I would have. Kudos, and thanks to you!

Alex: "Really, if you consider the complexity of human beings, animals, nature, etc., it takes more faith to believe that all of this came together by accident than it does to believe in a Divine Creator."

This is false in several ways. People, and other complex life forms, did not come about by "accident" or "chance." Evolution is the opposite of chance. Over millions of years, small, subtle mutations and natural selection produced what we see. There is overwhelming evidence of this. The few gaps in the evidence are understandable and suggest that our understanding of this phenomenon is not complete. To take these gaps and make a leap to a supernatural being is irrational. Who created the creator? Or was the creator "always there?" Is evolution (a process which can be shown to create complexity out of simplicity and for which we have such an abundance of evidence) more or less improbable than an eternal supernatural being who is omnipotent, omniscient, created all life in its incredible diversity, has the time and resources to hear every single person's thoughts, and dictated a set of self-contradictory chapters of a book to a select group of people 2000 years ago?

I repeat that there is no evidence that such a being exists, and one would expect there to be such evidence in our universe given how personal and omnipotent the western god is supposed to be. If tomorrow morning a booming voice was heard by every person, on every television and radio station, and across every computer speaker saying "I am God," then wouldn't that provide evidence of existence? Wouldn't every Christian, Muslim, and Jew pronounce the debate ended? Wouldn't atheists then have to admit that there was now strong evidence of existence? There are numerous ways in which evidence of existence could be provided, and yet there is none.

Theists like to state that all atheists (or scientists) have only the science "tool" to use in drawing conclusions. Speaking for myself, science is not the only "tool," in fact it is not a tool at all - it is a systematic process to deduce truth. It is the only proven process for deducing truth. I don't apply science to enjoying Mozart because there is not a question of truth or existence there. I apply science to deduce truth from fiction. The use of "faith" or "just knowing" to deduce truth is unreliable (in the extreme). To those who would suggest otherwise, try standing at the top of a tall building. Most (non-suicidal) people won't jump off because they know what is likely to happen. Having faith or "just knowing" you'll survive would be considered as evidence of mental illness. No where is that kind of reasoning accepted except in the case of religion.

And for those atheists content to let people believe in these superstitions, look at what is happening around the world. If Muslims decide they want to wipe out Jews (and other heathens) with nuclear weapons, they may just be able to do it soon. The consequences of these beliefs have always been dire (just as when Christians have tried to wipe out Muslims), but never so dire as they will be soon. In a world were rational thought, and science, drive our decisions about truth or falsity, and where ethics are considered and debated in the context of the good of humanity rather than the beliefs of long-dead "prophets," such things are less likely. Consider that no war has been fought over whether Anglo-Saxon science was superior to Greek science (or any other combination you can think of).

The subject of religion has many,sundry viewpoints--all of which are emotionally based on myth and/or books that are mostly stem from the imagination of simple mankind. Nothing can be based on fact. And the agnostic-athiest controversy fits right in. I'm basing my "religion" on science(fact) and reasoning (logic). So until evidence that supports reasoning comes along, I'll continue to look at WEB postings,and conversations, about religion as simply not worth reading or arguing about. Everybody lacks evidence !!

I am a friendly atheist! And I have friends who are Christians, too. For gosh sakes, I used to be a Christian. After your comments Mr. Stevens-Arroyo, it’s obvious why you haven’t found an atheist you could like.

I truly wish the Christian bible and other religious texts contained some instruction to “love your neighbor”, and accept people for what they are, and what they believe.

Perhaps then we could have peace.

Brambleton,

I think the operative quote that Anony was referring to is "it [Bible's message] has nothing to do with oppressing or hurting people."

The Bible provides numerous strict guidelines on both personal and community behavior -- and it further indicates pretty clearly that the penalty for choosing to ignore these commands is an eternity of hellfire and damnation.

Thus, while I may not believe in the Christian mythos and may not personally fear burning in hell for my disbelief, if my community does and decides they need to burn me at the stake to protect their immortal souls, I'm unlikely to agree that the Bible has nothing to do with oppressing or hurting people.

[Forgot to put my name -- didn't want to put words in Anony's mouth]

Brambleton,

I think the operative quote that Anony was referring to is "it [Bible's message] has nothing to do with oppressing or hurting people."

The Bible provides numerous strict guidelines on both personal and community behavior -- and it further indicates pretty clearly that the penalty for choosing to ignore these commands is an eternity of hellfire and damnation.

Thus, while I may not believe in the Christian mythos and may not personally fear burning in hell for my disbelief, if my community does and decides they need to burn me at the stake to protect their immortal souls, I'm unlikely to agree that the Bible has nothing to do with oppressing or hurting people.

Anon: I don't understand. The message is about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If you choose to reject that, why would you care about hell? You don't believe in Christ, thus you don't believe in the Bible, thus you DON'T BELIEVE IN HELL.

If a Hindu told me I'd be reincarnated as a cockroach if I didn't convert, WHY WOULD I CARE?

"If you truly study the Bible and seek a real understanding of Christianity, you'll find that it is about God's plan to bring redemption to humanity through Jesus Christ, and it has nothing to do with oppressing or hurting people."

Of course, for those who don't believe [or live in remote locations where they never encounter Christianity], those people will burn in hell for all eternity.

What an uplifting message.

Google Hitler and Buddhism and you will find out what spiritual belief system led Hitler to believe he could annihilate a whole race of people with no moral qualms. He thought he was helping them to arrive at their next karmic reincarnation. He thought he was doing them a favor. He was no Christian.

When I was about 7 years old, growing up in the DC suburbs, I witnessed the mother of all kid's fights - over the existence of Santa Claus.

To qualify the experience, I must say that my older sister had, several years previously, been more than happy to disabuse my belief in the Jolly Fat Elf.

Dave D. - my good friend who, at the tender age of eight, had just been informed by highly reputable sources consisting of the other members of his family, that SC did not exist; and who, having seen the inherent logic in this knowledge; and who, having had subsequently suffered certain feelings of gullibility compounded by the fact that he had suspected as much for quite some time - decided to have an honest discussion of the subject during a game of kickball in the middle of the street.

Now, this was the '60s, and there was an overabundence of kids in our neighborhood, so there were probably 8 or 10 kids in the general vicinity at the time of the fight.

The pro-Santa Claus position was defended by Dave B. - another 8 year old and a good friend of mine and Dave D's. Dave B. had once said that his family wasn't Christian - they were Catholic (tangential to the story, but somehow instructive to the steadfastness of his opinion).

So, it went like this:

Dave D: Man, I just found out that there's no Santa Claus.

Dave B: What?

Dave D: There's no Santa Claus.

Dave B: What are you talkin' about?

Dave D: There's no Santa Claus. My parents told me.

Dave B: There is so a Santa Claus!

Dave D: No, there's not. It's stupid - think about it!

Dave B: Is so!

Dave D: Is not!

Dave B: Is SO!

Dave D: Is NOT!

Suddenly, they're going at each other. Dave D is wiry and athletic. Dave B is stocky and strong. First is the pushing. Then somebody swings. If you think an eight year old can't punch hard, let one punch you in the face someday (again - tangential but instructive). Anyway, there's hair pullin', rolling on the ground, scratching, kicking, torn clothes. All of the other kids had squared off into "is so" and "is not" factions. Lots of yelling. Here comes Mrs. D (yes, Mrs.). Yikes!

After pulling the Daves apart and getting a run down on what led to the fight, Mrs. D gets mad at her own son for "spilling the beans".

Uh oh. Now the cat was really out of the bag. Beans had been spilled. Everyone had to confront the truth. You should have seen the look on Dave B's face.

All of this had ruined a perfectly good kickball game.

Of course, Dave B finally came to understand that there was no Santa. But this did not stop him from passing the lie on to his own kids (to be fair, neither did dave D). The lesson is, never break with your tribe. Never question the dogma. Defend the groupthink, with violence if need be.

Now, they believe in god (or do they?).

Sheesh.

Unfortunately, it is quite true that many immoral things have been done in the name of Christianity throughout history.

And Christians should own up to this and not try to deny or defend it.

Sadly, many people would be drawn to Christ and to the Church, if not for the bad example set by some, possibly many, Christians.

If you truly study the Bible and seek a real understanding of Christianity, you'll find that it is about God's plan to bring redemption to humanity through Jesus Christ, and it has nothing to do with oppressing or hurting people.

"Really, if you consider the complexity of human beings, animals, nature, etc., it takes more faith to believe that all of this came together by accident than it does to believe in a Divine Creator."

Ahh, so was this divine creator Zeus? Odin? the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

*Logically* there is no difference between these and your diety of choice...

DZ @ December 28, 2006 10:10 AM

From Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: "under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists. As Bormann, one of the men closest to Hitler, said publicly in 1941, 'National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.' ".

DZ: And let's not be so idiotic and naive that we fail to realize that the Nazi's were using Christianity as a tool and they represent the extreme exception to the rule. There have been scores of individuals throughout history that have used any sort of religion to further or justify their own purposes. Just because someone claims to be something doesn't make it so.

Be wary of calling bodily parts useless. Billions of dollars are spent every year on medical research indicating such knowledge is far from complete. Many bodily functions and organs have been misunderstood in the past and some humility would suggest we don't know everything yet. Natural selection selects those in a population group that are more suited to the conditions - this is not evolution. Mutations are rarely benefical. Is it possible for a chance mutation or even a series of chance mutations to design a leg where there was no leg before? The possibility is astronomically small. Even well know atheist and mathematician Issac Asimov in his book on Numbers said that the probability of evolution is so small it might well be considered impossible. Stephen Gould, well know champion of evolution, was vocal in the need to reject gradual evolution due to the lack of fossil evidence and championed punctuated equilibrium for which there isn't any real logic except that it matches the lack of evidence. Why all this desperate searching for an alternative to design? If something shows strong characteristics of being designed, eg the human body, then why not consider it a legitimate possiblity? Is the possiblity that objectionable? Why?

If this so called Singularity aka God is omniscient i.e. knows the Future then this Creator has condoned violence and allowed suffering and disabilities in his smallest of human Creations. IMHO, this is the major reason for not believing in God.

If God is not omniscient as per Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous, contemporary theologian in his book Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover) has concluded:

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" . "Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women.

Then I am a believer in the Singularity/God and the gifts of Free Will and Future and hopefully life eternal in the Spirit State of Heaven!!!

Really, if you consider the complexity of human beings, animals, nature, etc., it takes more faith to believe that all of this came together by accident than it does to believe in a Divine Creator.

Study the way the systems in the human body work together, for example. Look at the amazing precision of the human nervous system. Look at the miracle of human reproduction.

At the same time, consider all the things that make you unique and distinct as an individual. You have your own unique fingerprints and DNA. You have your own personality, dreams, gifts, and talents. You have the ability to make your own individual choices.

None of this is by accident. You were created by a God who loves you and has a purpose for your life. The Bible says that God made you "wonderfully" complex (Psalm 139:14).

Believing in God does not mean that you stop asking questions. The Bible is not just a book of religious rules that must be blindly followed. It is full of divine wisdom, understanding, and eternal truths.

David, you do not know god personally: You know yourself personally and your ideas about god. ("Simple as that. You can't deny or doubt the existence of someone you know": Yourself!) Then you project all your wishes, shortcomings, frustrations, disappointments, joys etc. on a factor you give a chiffre and call it god. The people who have cultivated the same mindset assist you with this projection very strongly, until you finally arrive at the conviction that you are in the possession of truth.

Someone in the possession of truth, of course, cannot tolerate anybody who is outside of truth, because his very existence draws this truth into doubt. Therefore the most atrocious crimes in history have been committed in the name of some god, starting with God punishing Saul for NOT killing every living being of the Amalekites.

All German soldiers had "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles in World War II, and it gives me so much bitter amusement to witness people pray that their football team (or their political party!) will win. What a lowly concept of a "god"!

Gerry

To: RSP,

Scientific proof of god? Who asked for that? I'll accept a cogent explanation. I'll even accept a logical argument.

To: David,

Your intellectual kung-fu is weak. To say that, "...Because I know God personally. Simple as that...", is to validate the actions of schizophrenics based on the fact that their altered state of reality must be real, because it's real to them.

So, you know god personally? Then, please do me a favor: the next time you see or speak with god, please tell him that I'm pis*ed at him for abandoning his kids and refusing to communicate directly with them. Also, I think that babies suffering and dying is wrong, and that he should do something about this most horrible situation, post haste (unless, of course there is a downside to doing this, but I'll need that explained, too).

You might be tempted to play the "God works in mysterious ways" card, but please don't. There is no truth that requires the suspension of disbelief.

God is poorly reasoned, poorly written fiction.

"The design and bodily system integration in the human body scream design not random chance or mutations. "

Were it not for the natural selection component of evolution, you'd be right. The mutations are random; reproduction is not. People born without brains don't reproduce. Only mutations that INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF REPRODUCTION become more common over generations.

But our bodies still have useless parts like the appendix and vestigal tailbone that neither increase or decrease the likelihood of reproduction.

But we don't have wheels for feet because there's no way such a thing could evolve, it would have to be designed.

A horse walks into a bar, the bartender says, "Hey, why the long face?"

Ha! Funny, ain't it?

How's this:

John Kerry walks into a bar...

Badda bing, bada boom!

I also have a nice smile, am willing to help those who need help, or appear to need help, am courteous and strive to be thoughtful and to treat all people as I would a brother. I love cheese.

Do you like me, yet?

Why don't atheists want to listen to the believers? Because that was the starting point for most of us. However, unlike the unquestioning believer, we challenged what we were being told/taught, and came to the irrevocable and somewhat frightening (on cultural and metaphysical levels) conclusion that the belief system simply didn't hold water.

Why are we so adamant about our beliefs? In short, most Atheists started as believers (t least, as much believers as those who do claim to believe), and after careful scrutiny of their religious/cultural dogma (as well as the dogmas of many other "faiths"), came to the honest personal conclusion that there is no god and that no good can come from a lie.

I doubt you'll ever convince an atheist to reconvert to theism. Why? Because we are well versed in dogmas of theism, and have rejected the basis for the belief.

So, you don't like us? Too bad for you. We're used to it, what with being heretics, and all. We're shunned by believers of all stripes. To brrrow from the failed beliefs of the Christian faithful, we must be right, or we wouldn't be persecuted so.

As for atheists being unwilling to listen to you, I believe it would be more honest and accurate to say that we refuse to listen to your Church's doctrine/dogma.

Please - make an original argument for the existence of a god (any god will do, it doesn't have to be a popular or Western version of god). If you can do this, I'll be happy to listen. However, if you trot out the same ol', same 'ol dogma, we've been there, done that, and decided not to take the free shirt.

As for your assertion, "...The worst thing for society would be to let any of them have power over the body politic. Scratch a dogmatic atheist and you likely will find a wannabe Robespierre or worse...."

It boggles the mind that you would point at a world dominated and horribly mismanaged by the "true believers", and then proceed to make such a claim. Try this:

Scratch a person with political power or a political agenda, and you'll find an atheist. A liar first and foremost, but an atheist, nonetheless. I offer G. W. Bush as one of innumerable examples.

Thomas Paine said it best:

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?

Ah, the enlightenment! The truth has set us free.

As has been posted before, I think every poster here is an atheist to some degree.

Most of you have dismissed the Norse gods.

Most of you have dismissed the Greek and Roman Gods.

Most of you have dismissed the Egyptian Gods.

Most of you have dismissed the Celtic Gods.

Most of you have dismissed the Native American Gods.

Most of you have dismissed the Mayan Gods.

Most of you have dismissed the Incan Gods.

Now, there are still some out there who believe in the Christian God, or the Muslim God, or the Jewish God -- and there are some multi-God folks who still have faith in the Hindu mythos.

But the bottom line is that atheism has been pretty successfully historically at casting doubt on one mythos system and then the next.

One day people will have the same emotional attachment to Allah as they do to Zeus.

Of course, by then Pastafarianism and the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster will likely be taking off...

For those who demand scientific evidence that God exists - exactly what sort of evidence are they looking for? Is modern science equipped for this issue? I doubt it. But if evidence of God's existence is required how about changed lives, millions of them. Miracles? Most atheists deny God's part on principle not on logic or reason. The much poo poo'd design? The design and bodily system integration in the human body scream design not random chance or mutations. I think too many atheists are guided by dogmatic principles when it comes to spiritual things. They need to go back to the first principles of logic without and preliminary asumuptions. Why am I a Christian? Because I know God personally. Simple as that. You can't deny or doubt the existence of someone you know. I was an atheist into adulthood so I'm not entirely unsympathic to their questions.

Please. Let's not start up the Christian Nazi denial thing again. The Nazis were Christian and proclaimed the ascendency of Christianity throughout the Nazi reign of terror. All those German soldiers, SS thugs and others who perpetrated the murders were Christians - all of them. You do not get to rewrite history to evade exclusive Christian responsibility for the Holocaust

RSP:
"And as for "scientific evidence" for religion. I'm afraid this demand is yet another (and the biggest) example of the atheists' misplaced faith in their "one tool"."

OK, the disussion of whether God exists does suffer a shortcoming of ill-defined terms. We have no idea of anything outside the cosmos, and for that matter what happens to a person's soul (if there is such a thing) after death.

When I say "God does not exist" I mean in the sense that "the universe is no different than it would be if God did not exist," i.e. God is at least not an actor within the Universe.

If you want to say 'God exists as an idea that gives me comfort' that's fine, but that's not the kind of existence I'm talking about.

There are many unknowns beyond our realm of existence. If you want to say God acts in those places, no one can disprove you. But one could make up literally anything about takes place outside the cosmos, or in the afterlife, without fear of refutation.

S Landry wrote, "Most atheists believe things on the basis of scientific evidence, and religion cannot provide any scientific evidence for any of their claims (although atheists would listen to it if it existed)." This is a wonderfully succinct expression of perhaps the greatest shortcoming of atheism in general. I call it the "one tool" fallacy. I have in my toolbox all sorts of tools, from screwdrivers to hammers to wrenches, etc. I similarly have in my intellectual toolbox a number of tools - and "scientific evidence" is but one of them. I don't employ Aristotelian logic when I listen to a Mahler symphony. I don't throw Homer's Iliad across the room, claiming it has nothing of value to say to me because it isn't literally, historically true. I don't look for scientific evidence to explain how I am moved by Picasso's Guernica, or any of Giotto's frescos.
But the "hard core atheist" (at least, every one that I have come into personal contact with) insists on bludgeoning all thought into a single box, emplying the hammer of Aristotle when perhaps the screwdriver of insight, or the wrench of artistic appreciation, or the file of wonder and awe might be far more appropriate.
And as for "scientific evidence" for religion. I'm afraid this demand is yet another (and the biggest) example of the atheists' misplaced faith in their "one tool". The Universe is a closed system, and science can explain ONLY those things inside that system. By definition, the supernatural is outside that set of phenomena we term the universe, and scientific evidence applies no more to it than a hammer is of any use in driving in a phillips head screw. Totally inappropriate.
I'm reminded of the old joke where a man comes across a another person searching the ground under a streetlamp for his car keys. Offering to help, the man asks, "Where do you think you dropped them?" The other person points to a spot about 50 feet away, and says "Right about there." "Then why in the world are you looking for them over here?, the man exclaims. "The light's better" is the answer.

The fact that we actually have a word specifically to describe the lack of belief in one particular myth is amazing. Why not call me an afairyist as well as an aleprechaunist?

I love how so many people can tell atheists what the atheist believes, while then calling the atheist arrogant. How arrogant is it to tell someone else what they believe?

For most atheists, their lack of belief is not something they spend much time worrying about. Not so for those who dislike all atheists - they spend an inestimable amount of time worrying about the beliefs of their neighbors.

I don't define myself by what I don't believe, so why do others see that as the most important aspect of my personality? It's quite insane.

To bad the professor has such a narrow viewpoint of life and people. I am beginning to wonder if America is as divided as they appear. Christians, Catholic's, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhist, just people mwith differeing sources of faith, as I see it. What is the problem with recognizing the person's humanity instead of their beliefs. My Dad was an atheist, but he accepted the teachings of the Lotus Sutra before he died.

If you see people unapproachable, they probably are to you, because you have an agenda. As a buddhist I am confronted with this same attitude constantly. Christians arrogantly acting as if Christianity is the ONLY answer to life's struggles. To bad Christians are too narrow minded to comprehend others and appreciate others just as they are without becoming something else or someone else first. The teaching of the Lotus Sutra teach this type of equality towards all life.

BTW my Dad was obnoxious by nature, loving by his actions, giving with his heart, and still an atheist in his mind, questioning everything offered for the faithful.

Perhaps the author might want to quite judging other people and the source of their Joy and Happiness and appreciate people just as they are.

I'm an athiest married to a Puerto Rican. I've been to Puerto Rico many times. It is difficult to discuss religion with my familia, they never listen to the sermon when I go to church with them. I don't advertise my beliefs there like I would in the states.

"Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly atheist, but I haven’t bumped into one yet."

Well, I'm an atheist, I live in the UK (which I'm sure counts as somewhere on this planet), and if the Professor bumped into me I like to think he'd find me friendly, mild-mannered and courteous.

He might even like me, right up to the moment he discovered I was an atheist, that is.

It seems pretty clear that professor Stevens-Arroyo doesn't _like_ atheists but I wonder whether or not he *loves* them.

Matthew 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Luke 6:27
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you.

Luke 6:35
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

I would also like to know whether or not the Atheist Witnesses have ever shown up at professor Stevens-Arroyo's door unannounced and uninvited to try to convert him to their way of thinking?

S. Landry wrote:
"If Prof. Stevens-Arroyo comes to atheists with scientific evidence, we will listen, regardless of how it affects our current belief. Given evidence, I am perfectly willing to abandon my current belief that there is no supernatural agent that created the universe"

Then Dave wrote:
"You are agnostic not atheist. An aetheist is certain there is no god, they are not open to persuasion. That is the key difference between aetheists and agnostics and why aetheists' 100% certainly that there is no god is as much a leap of faith as any."

I think you are mistaken here. A scientist isn't called something else if she/he changes her/his mind about an idea when more accurate information comes along disproving that idea. You can be atheist and if someone produced hard evidence for a supernatural being, the atheist can change her/his mind. An atheist that does not change with new information would not be a very rational person, even though it would be acceptable to be skeptical at first.

Actually, I think the majority of people in this country have the same opinion of atheists as the professor does. The next time you are at a social gathering try bringing up the fact that you are an atheist, and watch what happens. Also, if you work for a large American company, try stating your position to your boss or co-workers. You will quickly find that you have instantly become very unpopular, or might even find that you no longer have a job. Try to think of a national political figure whose is an outspoken atheist. There must be one somewhere. The bottom line is that if you are an atheist, you will be much better off if you keep it to youself. In other words, to use a term from Richard Dawkins become a "closet atheist".

Even though Prof. Stevens-Arroyo seems to paint theists, agnostics and atheists with the broad brush of generalization, as with most opinions, the facts lie somewhere in the middle.

I agree that theists and atheists argue their respective views from a position of so called absolute knowledge, but atheists can't have the label, "dogmatic," attributed to them for a simple reason. They have no so called, "inerrant," writings claimed by "divine inspiration," or "revealed truths," from which to draw their conclusions. Aside from that, they are much like any Christian evangelical or fundamentalist.

I am an agnostic and have taken a rather pragmatic and simple philosophy. There is absolutely no evidence that a supreme being exists. If there were, logically, one would therefore have no reason to believe. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that there is no supreme being.

Given that, I find it much more productive to doubt, ask questions, do research and learn and keep an open mind and logical attitude, rather than manifesting the dogmatic, arrogant stance of theists, especially Christian theists, who have caused so much death and destruction in the past sixteen hundred years.

Richard Kusnierek
Orange Park, Fl.

Richard Dawkins put it best:

A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he though God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about god, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's.
Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.
The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so.

To say "..I don't believe God exists, the same way I exist..." presupposes at least a metaphysical or cosmological god.

Well, I'm one of those atheists, but I certainly don't arrogantly live everyday sneering at those who have different religious beliefs than my own. Faith is what we all feel in our hearts and choose to believe. I'm an atheist because I don't believe God exists, the same way I exist; I think of gods as more of a metapyshical, metaphorical, romantic and symbolic creation rather than a transcendant creator. Absence of evidence can sometimes mean evidence of absence.

Sad to see this poor delusional distinguished scholar:

"I never met an atheist I could like. Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly atheist, but I haven’t bumped into one yet. The atheists who have crossed my path are obnoxious."

Please replace in your text above, the word 'atheist' with 'Latino', 'Jew', 'Gringo', 'Kraut', or whatever else you like.

Really very distinguished professor Stevens-Arroyo. And so humble.

Those who think that atheism and fundamentalism are equivalent, "sharing a strong faith in a position without evidence" as Samson1 put it, misunderstand the nature of the relationship between evidence and belief. The difference boils down to a simple asymmetry: belief in the non-existence of something cannot possibly require proof of its non-existence (which is impossible), yet belief in the presence of something reasonably relies on evidence that it does exist. This point has been better articulated by others, in the form of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Russell's teapot, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Anyone unfamiliar with these arguments should learn more before claiming that the fundamentalist and the athiest stand in similar positions.

Aside from that issue, the piece by Stevens-Arroyo seems narrow-minded and prejudicial. I don't see the point of WP publishing a piece that pigeon-holes and insults a large group of people for their beliefs.

I met so many jesuits in my country and they've got a very interesting way to challenge God's mysteries. Maybe someone can say they are not believers at all, but their faith is great and new.

Professor,

You wrote: "I never met an atheist I could like."

I am not a Christian and thoroughly dislike most of the Christian churches.

If I thought the way you do, I'd write: "I never met a Christian I could like."

Only problem is, I'd be insane. And you?

Being an atheist simply means to me that I personally do not believe in a supreme being. I could care less what others believe just as long as they do not try to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of society by changing the Constitution to allow their beliefs to be taught to children in public schools. I believe in love, tolerance, life, children, the moon, stars, the sun, green grass, animals,in short I believe in a better world for everyone everywhere, and I believe in the freedom to enjoy life, and that dosen't have anything to do with money---it has to do with your mind being free to think and learn and understand the world as it is . Personally I find that religion, anyone's, has a tendency to confine the mind of believers so that they are unable to learn or understand anything outside the scope of what they have been taught. But what do I know, I am only an atheist not even worthy of holding a public office or being friends with the poor Professor.

Mr. Anthony Stevens-Arroyo is disturbingly comfortable suggesting that "civil service and philanthropy" enable people who don't believe in god to merely "s o m e t i m e s" outdo religious people.

Our world is now and always has been filled with people who do little if anything for the good of others, yet steadily believe in a god their entire lives.

When you are an atheist, your acts of kindess, warmth for those you love, selfless giving to those in need, your humility, patience and forgiveness of others and yourself are all simply—given.

without a submission to certainty.

without a religious banner, markings or claim.

Mr. Anthony Stevens-Arroyo stands as a poignant, if depressing example of the disdain many religious people have for such good, for the naked truth that to love and to give is eternally un-ownable.

Agnostics and atheists tend to be condemned in equal measure by those who believe, even if this guy seems to find a difference between them. It really is pointless making much of a distinction. Both groups in very nearly equal measure reject a personified deity who responds to prayers and sacrifices and who intervenes on a regular basis in human affairs. Of course, Professor Stevens-Arroyo is both a bigot and a complete idiot, and so I think I will go over to the thread of Professor Crossan who is manifestly not an idiot and not a bigot.

This is embarassing. Where are the WP's standards? I have read essays by 6th graders that are more sophisticated and coherent. That this guy is a professor says volumes about the lowly state of academia in the humanities.

Dave said:
"You are agnostic not atheist. An aetheist is certain there is no god, they are not open to persuasion."

I hate to get into this, because these arguments tend to get quickly bogged down in semantics, but I'll take a stab at it. What you said is not necessarily true. Basically you have two flavors of atheists, weak and strong. Weak atheists will say, "I do not believe in a god". Strong atheists will say, "There is no god". The difference is subtle, but important.

On top of this you have your gnostics and your agnostics. Gnostics think the existence of God could eventually be known. Agnostics think the question is not answerable.

I class myself as an apathetic agnostic weak atheist. Meaning I don't think there's a god, and I don't think there's any way to know for sure, but I don't really care either way. :)

i guess just as atheists feel entitled to have an opinion- so does the author.
j west and samson1 both had good points
basically a closed mind is closed and an open one is open and it seems never the twain shall meet

i think the question itslef does a disservice to believers and non-believers alike

actually its stated that ahteism is in vogue- but ive seen no evidence of that

if were to believe one of the formers of the question- mr meacham just stated that 95% of americans believe in god.

i wish they would come up with questions not so obviously divisive

pitting 2 opposing views against each other may produce some sensational arguments
but not really very edifying to anyone involved

"I believe we can know..." is also an article of faith.

Atheist: one who does not believe in a supernatural creator (esp. the god of Abraham, as I would guess we're all agnostic with respect to other gods such as Zeus and Thor)

Agnostic: one who does not believe we can ever know whether a supernatural creator exists.

I believe we can know, one way or the other. There is absolutely no credible evidence that such a being exists, particularly since if such a god existed one would expect it to be pretty obvious. I therefore am an atheist.

The evidence is particularly against the god of Abraham (the basis for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). As mentioned by one other post, this is a personal god who hears our thoughts and intervenes personally. By the way, if you don't believe in that type of god, then my understanding is that you are not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish in any recognizable sense.

I wholeheartedly agree. Radicals of any type, whether they're atheists or religious zealots, are obnoxious and do more harm than good.

A couple of other points:

AM, Vienna, VA: Germany was over 95% Christian during World War II. Hitler wrote, "And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord." – (Mein Kampf)

It's always hilarious to be lectured about facts by those who seem to possess none.

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo: You should really, really look up some discussion on Pascal's Wager. It is a deeply stupid argument, and those who use it are only embarrassing themselves.

The evolution of sapient mankind led inexorably to the recognition of the unknown and the potential for the unknowable and the rise of religious belief.

Nice strawman, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo and like-minded posters.

Atheists disbelieve in gods because there is no evidence for gods, not because of dogmatic closed-mindedness. If you possess evidence for some goddess, please present it to us for consideration. I seriously doubt you'll do that though; it's much easier to falsely and viciously misrepresent an entire class of individuals.

"They are mirror images of the religious fundamentalists, who -- despite their dogmatism -- at least have their enthusiasms in the right place."

Do fundamentalists have their enthusiasm in the right place when they declare homosexuality to be a "disgusting" lifestyle? Visit http://www.rr-bb.com and you'll find any number of pious posters condemning gays in vivid and horrifying terms.

By the way, agnosticism and atheism are not exclusive classifications. A person can not believe in gods while still asserting that the answer is ultimately unknownable. Likewise, a person can believe that Mohammed was the greatest prophet while accepting that he can never completely prove that belief. There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. You should try to get out a bit, do some reading. It might do wonders for your bigotry.

Myself, I believe there are no gods, primarily because god is a fake answer to the origin of complexity. How did complex living beings arise from less complex things? To really answer this question, you have to start with something non-complex. If you say "god done it!", you must then answer the question "How did god arise?". Ultimately, the only honest answers to these questions that humanity has found to date are random chance and evolution via natural selection. Random chance was probably involved in the rise of the first, extremely simple, living things. Evolution is the only reasonable explanation for everything that has happened since.

Drat! Godwinned just before my post.

I suspect that the good professor would stop running into "obnoxious" atheists if he stopped feeling obligated to tell each atheist he meets that he/she is going to hell.

Also, kudos on the extra passive-aggressiveness on petting the "cuddly" agnostics. "I don't mean you guys. You're cool. Not like those uppity non-believers who insist on science being taught in science classes." It's a classic technique of the empowered: compliment part of the herd as more likeable (docile) and assume the rest who don't like fighting will fall all over each other to lick one's hand for the same treat. (You can see the same trick all the time in discussions about feminism, and I've seen it in racial discussions, too.) I feel bad for anyone reading the article who fell for it.

Ba'al at December 27, 2006 6:50 PM

Interesting handle. Do you still prefer child sacrifices, or have you moved on to adults?

It is true that Christians, Muslims, and Jews have fought, and are fighting, many wars. But most, by far, of the deaths from war these past 100 years, have been by atheists. Please let us not forget the Communists and Nazis.

Hyperbole may impress some people, but must be based on fact.

"religion is a crutch" that has helped lame, imperfect mankind walk to the present.

The posters demanding 'scientific' proof commit the same mistake as religious fanatics: the purpose of science is to describe HOW things work. Science makes no statement whatsoever about the WHY. Likewise religion presents a theory of WHY things are as they are. It makes no statement as to HOW.

It is legitimate to say 'I do not believe in God'. That is all anyone can say. But it is just as legitimate to say 'I believe in God'. The proof resides on the belief one starts with.

That is why Mr. Stevens-Arroyo can state that atheists and religious fanatics are obnoxious. They are equally illogical.

I got Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's name wrong in my comment above, my apologies.

Aside from that, I would like to join the other commentators in expressing my disapproval with the WP's publishing this rather stupid and bigoted piece. If you are not convinced that it is in fact bigoted, substitute "Christian" or "Jew" or "Muslim" or "Buddhist" for the word "atheist" in the first sentence, as some other commentators have suggested, and observe the rhetorical effect. Perhaps the WP would like to write an apology, or at least give an explanation of what led to the decision to publish this piece.

Ya got it all wrong -- religion is a crutch!

I wholeheartedly agree with the professor. The trouble with being an atheist is that you have to spend as much energy justifying your position as a fundamentalist does justifying his/her position.

That's why I enjoy being an agnostic. Cuddly one too! I don't really care either way. As Voltaire said, "God is a hypothesis I can do without". On the other hand, I don't entirely rule Him out. In an infinite world anything is possible.

Likewise, organized religion is not my cup of tea. But, I will argue and maintain that, on balance, without religions, in all their variety, the human story would have been considerably shorter. (That's probably going to open another can of worms! :-))

Peace!

"I never met a Jew I could like."

I'm sure the Post would never print a column with the above title, no matter what the credentials of the writer. Yet those whose beliefs deny the existence of god are routinely treated to this sort of derision or worse. Shame on the Post.

"I'm amazed and at the same time ashamed that the Wash Post would allow drivel to be written."

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

I found this article thought-provoking. I may not agree with everything the Professor stated, but it certainly made me think about the points he was trying to make and whether they may have any validity in the real world. Isn't that really what scholars are supposed to so -- to take a controversial stand that makes people think, disagree, and debate the finer points? Only dogmatics would proclaim that he's wrong, he's wrong, he's wrong. The irony is that the posted comments condemning the Professor's argument proves his point!

Atheism is an article of faith one remove from Deism, the primary belief system of the American founders and the refuge of agnostics who recognize the value of belief systems.

Do atheists not believe in God or religion. The very first comment here runs the two together as though there was not difference. Then comes the third member of this faith trinity the book, Bible, Koran, Book of Mormom, and the ones now being written. Is there any faith in them required of atheists?

Which came first the books or God? Which one is the REAL word of God? All of them or none of them. Me thinks somebody lying. Maybe everybody. I got faith in God but no faith in the books or anyone claiming they are God's words. What am I? Am I an atheists, agnostic or just a little more careful about faith. Get faith but be careful for we know somebody lying.

The Bible is a proved hoax, http://www.hoax-buster.org That reduces the number of books and book toteing preachers to have faith in by one third.

Kevin is correct. I am both atheist and agnostic at the same time. I do not KNOW anything for sure, but I very strongly lean towards the hypothesis that there is not such thing as God.

I can't help wondering why the Professor felt it important to share his opinions about atheists and agnostics. Who cares what he thinks? There are plenty of thinking people of all faiths and perspectives, and this country was designed to make room for everyone. To me, belief in God is complicated stuff on the sociological level. Even people who go to the same church or synagogue or whatever have differing ways of understanding God.

As soon as someone denounces any group of people, they're bound to get around to you one of these days. That's why tolerance is so vital to our democracy.

Hey Professor.. did you write this or did you heist it from one of your freshman students?

"I never met an Puerto Rican I could like. Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly Puerto Rican, but I haven’t bumped into one yet.

The Puerto Ricans who have crossed my path are obnoxious. You can’t have a dialogue with Puerto Ricans. Scratch a Puerto Rican and you likely will find a wannabe Robespierre or worse."

Now, "professor", please tell me how your ignorant screed is any less bigoted than what I just wrote.

It is possible to be both an atheist AND an agnostic at the same time. The classical definition of an atheist is simply rooted in the word itself, "a-theist", meaning a non-theist. A person who is both says that there isn't enough evidence to confirm or disconfirm the existence of God, but there is enough evidence to disconfirm the bible as as a wholly credible historical document. Being such a person, I do find it challenging at times to discuss these issues with a committed Christian. We would all hope there is an afterlife of course, but the scientific case whether it exists or not is equally amorphous. My philosophy is what ever floats your boat is fine with me. But if you intend to prosletyze be prepared to address my views on a rational, not emotional, level and don't assume the Bible equals 100% fact.

Prof. Stevens-Arroyo establishs the "dogmatic atheist" as a straw man: an atheist who does not listen. Frankly, the number of people who meet this definition must be minute, especially in the US which considers itself one of the most religous nations in the world. My question is why one would create such a construct when most atheists have simply subscribed to Occam's razor (i.e., to make the fewest possible assumptions in their theory). To label listening atheists as agnostics serves no purpose other than to denigrate atheism as a dogmatic theory. The irony, of course, is that religon is based on dogmatic principles, not logic.

Mr. Stevens writes that, unlike atheists, "agnostics realize there is no sure evidence that God DOESN’T exist." Furthermore, Mr. Stevens seems to think that the absence of such evidence makes the atheist's denial of the existence of God less reasonable than the agnostic's withholding judgment on the question.

There is a very unfortunate and rather obvious mistake in Mr. Steven's reasoning. The mistake consists in thinking that one needs evidence for denying the existence of a certain sort of thing. In fact, a rational person by default will always deny the existence of a given sort of thing, unless there is positive evidence in favor of the existence of that sort of thing. Denials of existence do not require special evidence. All they require is absence of evidence in favor of existence claims. The burden of proof always falls to those who wish to affirm existence, never to those who wish to deny it.

This can easily be illustrated through an example. I have no evidence whatsoever that there DOESN'T currently exist a leprechaun sitting under my bed (and ready to escape at a moment's notice behind the loose wall panel whenever I am about to look under the bed). However, the absence of such evidence obviously does not mean that I ought to remain agnostic on the question as to whether there exists such a leprechaun. It would in fact be pretty crazy of me to remain agnostic on that question. The only reasonable view is to deny the existence of the leprechaun, simply because there is no positive evidence for its existence.

The same holds true for about any fictional characters you like. There is absolutely NO sure evidence that Frodo Baggins, Gandalf, Harry Potter, or whoever else you pick, do not exist (they might exist on some far away planet, for example). However, it would be very crazy to remain agnostic on the question of their existence. The only reasonable thing to do is to deny their existence and believe that they are mere figments of the imagination.

The situation is the same with atheism and agnosticism. Since there is no even remotely convincing evidence for the existence of God, the reasonable default position is to deny his existence, just as the atheist does. It is simply a mistake to think that evidence is required for denying the existence of God.

I suppose I fit the description of an agnostic, and this "article" is complimentary of agnostics, but wow this "Professor" is a seriously pseudo-intellectual dweeb.

An interesting essay. Broadly, I agree, although I self-identify as a non-practicing atheist. Most of the folks who are vocally atheist are both humorless, and refuse to see the good that religion does, regardless of the truth or lack thereof of their supernatural claims.

However, the most interesting thing that I see in this article is the claim that any atheist who is open to discussion isn't actually an atheist, but an agnostic. I find this entertaining, because I get exactly the same claim from many atheists.

It's funny that both folks who are more militantly atheist than I, as well as Dr. Stevens-Arroyo want to define my pretty purely atheistic views as insufficiently ideologically pure to qualify. I suspect that if you held Christians to the same standard, they'd all be defined as agnostics, too.

Great write up! I find aetheist to be interesting to listen to but trying to get them to listen is altogether different matter. These folks always assume that they know it all and love to put everyone else down.

There are many questions the answers to which are unknowable. It is quite impossible to disprove all possible alternatives, including that there may some some type of supernatural (for the lack of a better word) involvement.

By rejecting all possibilities without proof, an atheist exhibits the highest form of unknowing faith. The rejection of all is every bit as dogmatic as accepting some revealed truth as the only possible answer. Thus, as a devout agnostic, I find that atheism is as illogical a "faith" as any other religion. Moreover, while I do not find atheists as uniform as the author, some are are every bit as obnoxious in their mission to spread their unprovable faith as the strongest proponents of any particular brand of God.

To the group:

An Athiest believes there is no god.
A "religious believer" believes there is a god and (usually) that God's wishes are known to him/her.
An Agnostic does not know if there is a God or not and believes that one should have no conviction at all, much like what is you opinion on the weather in (some distant place) right now? Of course you have no idea and no opinion.

Athiest and religious believes appear for the most part to be sharing a strong faith in a position with out evidence. The athiest appears to profess that because there is no evidence that there is a God, the cannot be one and, if you will, his opposite number is declaring that because there is no conclusive proof that God does not exist, there must be one! Each position is a position of faith. After all if there is no evidence, then one knows nothing, not yes, not no.

As others have said in other ways, you've basically set up a circular argument by calling any "likeable" atheist agnostics; thus, by definition all atheists are unlikeable.

I think the difference between "dogmatic," obnoxious people and "cuddly" people you'd like to talk to--whether you're talking about atheists, Christians, Republicans, vegetarians, whatever--is not whether they're are convinced that they are correct, but whether they're willing to acknowledge that other thoughtful people can have different beliefs.

Ba'al:

Catchy nickname. I agree though, seems like these op eds are just here to make people use their comment tool to argue.

"Agnostics rely on reason in concluding there is no certain evidence that God exists; but -- unlike atheists — agnostics realize there is no sure evidence that God DOESN’T exist."

This is the flip side of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) argument.

I am prepared to believe in God once evidence is presented. Until then, I firmly disbelieve because there is no basis. Does disbelief unless shown by evidence make me an agnostic or atheist?

If I said I disbelieve in IPU's until shown evidence, but until then will live my life as if certain there are no such things, does that make me an IPU agnostic or atheist?

Looks like from the posts that you angered many atheists. Funny. The Unitarian church I belong to has a problem w/ angry and obstinant atheists too. I was happy to read your article and see that, as a warm and humble agnostic, I was not alone in my impressions.

Francis Collins believes in God, and he is one of the greatest geneticists. He mapped the human genome, and realized what an incredible mechanism it is. It actually strengthened his faith because of its beauty. I used to be an agnostic because of 2 things - science and suffering. I can believe in evolution and the Bible, because I don't try to box God in. I did that before, and all it did was hurt me. I guess I might have been warm and fuzzy, I never tried to convince believers that they were delusional. It is probable that not all athiests are dogmatic, just the one's that want believers to think they are wrong.

I've had it up to here with these self righteous bums. The extremes of anything are bad but I don't see any atheists here to defend themselves. There is you professor, making the same obnoxious overgeneralization you accuses atheists of. For the record, I do consider myself an agnostic but you know what - an atheist never said gays were evil, that abortion was be all or end all. An atheist never bangs on my door at 6 in the morning asking to talk about the lord or badgered me about Jews for Jesus. So why don't you get off your high horse because you are as guilty as all of these dogmatic atheists who offend you so.

Quote: I never met an atheist I could like. Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly atheist, but I haven’t bumped into one yet.

I would make one main point: you have likely met far more atheists than you know. It is an unpopular position, and few are willing to admit it to an acquaintance. The ones that will are probably the same people who would be annoying no matter what they are pushing, whether it be a certainty about the creation of the universe or direct-sales.

Atheistic certainty is not scientific. Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and others destroyed the notion of absolute knowledge decades ago. Scientific knowledge is always the best approximation available to us at any given moment.

For some of us, it seems 99.99+ percent certain that the history of the universe has nothing to do with some anthropomorphic "god". The seemingly insignificant fraction between such near certaintly and 100% certainty is actually a yawning chasm which separates the scientist from the fundamentalist. It is also what unites us with the most tolerant religious traditions.

He's awfully obnoxious himself, feeling so free as to tell people what they are and how they should consider themselves. He's commenting on the world through his own rose-colored lenses and I guess that's fine for him. It sounds like he had to write this article and left it to the last minute and thus had to make up these contrived differences between atheists and agnostics -- leave it to a professor of some useless field to come up with such foolishness.

I'm disappointed that the WP would print Prof Stevens-Arroyo's incoherent and embarrasing screed. Was it meant as a lighthearted joke? If so, I'd encourage the WP to reflect on the fact that it is remarkably devoid of wit or humor. If not, the responsible editor needs to reflect much more deeply. When a paper as prestigious as the WP and someone with the title of Professor are able to publish such drivel I fear we have taken many steps backwards. There is little point in even beginning to refute any of the professor's points when it is so obvious that we would not be arguing from the same reasoned basis. I can't believe this piece would have seen the light of day even a few years ago. Where are we going?

Test for the Professor's students: "The only good [convinced] atheist is a ______ [convinced] atheist."

Nice generalization about an entire class of people.

All Christians and Muslims are murdering maniacs, history certainly suggests as much. Do you like it when somebody says something like that? I thought not.

When is the Post going to put a stop to this nonsense?

This is the best article in this series. The author is dead right when he states that dogmatic atheists are the same as fundamenatlists in that they both claim to know the exclusive truth as to the nature of the universe.

At least fundamentalists have a belief system to go along with their ignorant arrogance. Atheists have no such redeeming quality.

Goodness me, I do believe I've been insulted. Whatever shall I do? Oh woe is me.

Pardon the sarcasm, but I've heard this kind of thinking many times in the 15 years since I realized there was no logical reason to believe in any deity or deities. And it never fails to amaze me that a college professor can write that he's never met an atheist he likes. Just imagine if he'd said "I never met a white person I could like." Oh the uproar that would ensue!

But atheists, we're easy targets in a world consumed by hatred and religious fervour. Nobody's going to threaten to fire you for saying you just don't like atheists, right?

And how awful of us to admit outright that we find the whole religion thing just a bit foolish? How would you feel if you walked into a room and found grownups begging for forgiveness from the Tooth Fairy? If no politician could be elected unless they affirmed their belief in the Tooth Fairy?

You'd find the whole thing faintly ridiculous, just as atheists do. But we're a tiny minority surrounded by people who insist we're evil for not believing in the Tooth Fairy.

But unless you can give me proof that a little flying creature left that money under my pillow--something other than a "feeling"--I'm going to right on with my atheism, thank you very much.

Most people define atheists as people who don't believe in God. Stevens-Arroyo defines them as people who neither believe in God nor doubt themselves enough to "benefit someone else's opinion". So of course they all turn out to be jerks. I'm sure he meets plenty of friendly atheists, but always concludes that, because they're friendly, they must not really be atheists. In my opinion, this sort of reasoning is not the best way to learn about other people.

Dear Prof:

Wow- and your considered a scholor. Perhaps you could take the trouble to go to a dictionary and look up the word scholar and its derivative, socratic. I don't like what you say so not only must you be wrong but unlikable too ! I think the problem might be that your just intimidated with someone who actually poses a strong argument and leaves you incapable of an intellectually convincing responce. That being said, I guess their's not much point in pursuing this further. I will just have to go to my room and cry myself to sleep. Oh poor me the Her Professor scholar doesn't like me.

I seem to have had the opposite experience to you. I, unlike you, am an atheist; and I, unlike you, have come across a fair number of people whose beliefs are opposite to mine who have been willing to have an open and friendly discussion with me about our differing beliefs. Could this have something to do with the difference in our approaches, I wonder?

I suppose somebody told you that the best defense is a good offense. Because obviously you're feeling defensive.

And you most certainly are offensive.

Professor: Maybe you never say anything intelligent enough for anyone with intelligence to listen to.I cannot imagine anyone with intelligence remaining as a student of yours for any length of time. The thoughts you have posted here indicate that you are very limited in your understanding of others and in your tolerance of anyone who is more intelligent than you.

Abraham S. Halkin, a professor of Bible at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, was a friendly likeable atheist. He loved his religion, but found the belief in God unreasonable. God as first cause or something like that or god as one with the universe is arguable. But one cannot have a personal relationship with such a god. The God of the Bible is a god with whom one can have a personal relationship and that is simply untenable. Any other god is a lie in terms of the biblical tradition, whether such a god is promulgated by Aquinas, Maimonides, or Spinoza.

Wow! "I never met an atheist I could like." Stevens-Arroyo pretty quickly sums up what he's all about. One can only feel sorrow and pity for someone with such a very closed mind. It makes you wonder what kind of abuse he must have suffered as a child.

"If Prof. Stevens-Arroyo comes to atheists with scientific evidence, we will listen, regardless of how it affects our current belief. Given evidence, I am perfectly willing to abandon my current belief that there is no supernatural agent that created the universe"

You are agnostic not atheist. An aetheist is certain there is no god, they are not open to persuasion. That is the key difference between aetheists and agnostics and why aetheists' 100% certainly that there is no god is as much a leap of faith as any.

Nice try, professor, but your little rhetorical trick is a little obvious--i'm certain you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is. Gotta hand it to you, though, you did come out swinging. Now you're certainly not going to meet any "friendly" atheists.

It's telling you choose to paint atheists as dogmatic. I'm not even certain atheists technically can be dogmatic. What is atheist dogma?

I suppose you've unknowingly met and liked many atheists who simply did not proclaim themselves as such so as not to pointlessly cause controversy or offend you.

Calling Mr.Stevens-Arroyo a thinker would be an insult to thinkers everywhere.

Any thinker who starts with the words "I never met a ______ I could like," is himself neither likable nor much of a thinker.

Would you mind, professor, to define an atheist other than that you hate him? And your tepid condescension for the "cuddly" agnostics proves nothing but your own dogmatism. Why has an atheist to be "dogmatic"? You say the fundamentalists "at least" have their fundamentalism at the "right" place. How do you know? Is there a good and a bad dogmatism, the good one for you, the bad one for everyone else, like me, for instance? You may teach your students such nonsense, alas, but a lot of people have quite a different definition for both atheists and agnostics.
The "black and white" dichotomy of good vs. evil so convincingly brandished by you is the main reason for evil in the world.

People like you are the reason for atheists to be atheists. I certainly would not like to ever meet you: You would hate me without even knowing me. Hate is the first step for killing, isn't that a quotation from Jesus ("He who hates his brother" etc...)?

By the way, although an atheist, I don't think I know everything, as you so broad-mindedly allege.

Gerry

"The atheists who have crossed my path are obnoxious. They create the world in their own image and likeness, where only they are right or reasonable, and everyone else is either a fool or fanatic."

Indeed.

The professor sure sees things through lenses colored with his own world view. I'm amazed and at the same time ashamed that the Wash Post would allow drivel to be written.

Thanks for letting us know that you are an arrogant man professor, one who finds no fault, and actually revels in, labeling and judging others.

I'm sure the atheist community can do without you. And the agnostics. In fact, I think we could all do without you.

atheism is a crutch.

Prof. Stevens-Arroyo dismisses all atheists as dogmatic, equivalent to those dogmatic about their supernatural beliefs. Most atheists, however, become that way because there are no rationally consistent arguments for religious belief. Most atheists believe things on the basis of scientific evidence, and religion cannot provide any scientific evidence for any of their claims (although atheists would listen to it if it existed). Whenever science has competed with religion over a particular belief, science has prevailed (age of the earth, evolution vs. creation, prayer as a healing agent, etc.).
Even religious people believe in scientific evidence as a source of truth, except for the most important questions about the nature of the world. There, due to the overwhelming evidence against their beliefs, they exclaim that faith requires no scientific evidence. The inconsistency of their position is demonstrated by how they leap at any perceived scientific evidence for their religious beliefs, and their do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do adherence to the "infallible" bible (how many Christians follow all the prohibitions and prescriptions in the bible?).
If Prof. Stevens-Arroyo comes to atheists with scientific evidence, we will listen, regardless of how it affects our current belief. Given evidence, I am perfectly willing to abandon my current belief that there is no supernatural agent that created the universe. I'm sure he cannot say the same about his beliefs - making him far more dogmatic than I. As for agnostics, that is a state where one believes we cannot know about the claims of religion - again arguing inconsistently against the scientific method. They therefore pose no threat to religion, making it completely un-challenging for Prof. Stevens-Arroyo to speak to them about his beliefs. They simply have no basis to argue for or against anything.