Braindump

50 (unconvincing) Proofs for God

2008-06-17T15:14:00.000-05:00

Via Pharyngula comes this gem of a letter claiming all kind of evidence for God. I'm going to go ahead and deconstruct this bit by bit. Should make for a good waste of time, because I'm bored right now.

It is easy to prove to yourself that God is real. .the evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs:

1. Whilst agreeing that random patterns occur naturally by chance, DNA however, consists of code, which requires a designer.

DNA is a natural evolution of RNA which is a natural evolution of simple, self-replicating proteins. It's very simple. The more resilient the replicator, the more likely it was to replicate, so the path of progression is therefore, very natural.

2. How do you explain the paranormal, such as people witnessing positive or negative sightings, like ghosts or angels? I saw a ghost with a friend of mine - I am not a liar, an attention seeker. Neither was I overtired when this happened.

Maybe you are mistaken? Do you have any evidence other than your word? Fantasy prone minds can easily fill in gaps with information that isn't there. I suspect this happened to you

3. Try praying. What good is it when a mind is set to coincidence & disbelief regarding the positive outcome?

Prayer has consistently failed to show any positive effect in properly designed and blinded studies. If talking to yourself makes you feel better, go for it, but I'd rather do something more productive with my time.

4. The law of cause & effect - in order to have an effect, there has to be a cause. Everything is caused by something.

And what evidence do you have for a supernatural being as a cause? Natural forces cause things to happen as well.

5. Mindless nothing cannot be responsible for complex something.

Chemical processes are mindless but they can result in very complex outcomes. If, as most biologists suspect, life began as a series of chemical processes, it doesn't take intervention to get amino acids, and from there, proteins are only a step away.

6. Science can only be the detector of certain things. You cannot scientifically detect emotion, memory, thoughts etc., though scientifically we must.. These things which do not consist of matter are beyond the detection of science.

Actually, we can. Emotions are well understood. They are electrochemical reactions in the brain. We can induce basic emotions chemically with ease. Thought patterns associated with memories can be detected on FMRI. We don't have the ability yet to deduce the content of these memories, but there is no reason to think that we won't have that ability in the future.

7. Evolution has never been proved, which is why we call it the 'theory of evolution'. It's a fairy tale for grown ups!

Two points here, one is a gross misunderstanding of the scientific meaning of the word theory. Second, if you want evidence, here you go. There's way too much there for me to cover, so have fun.

8. Atheism is a faith in that which has not been proved. The disbelievers have not witnessed anything to not believe in, whereas the believers believe because they have witnessed. There is no 'good news' to preach in atheism.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not the one making a claim. I simply see no reason to invoke a god. You are making the extraordinary claim that there is a supernatural being that can't be detected that has some extreme level of power and made everything that there is. That's an extraordinary claim. There is nothing to preach at all in atheism. Each of us makes our own purpose.

9. How much of the atheist's faith relies on anger with God as opposed to genuine disbelief in God?

What faith? Faith is what you have...belief without evidence. I have no evidence that give me cause to believe, so therefore, I have no faith, and therefore, no belief that your god exists.

10. Why do many atheists shake their fists & spend so much time ranting & raving about something they don't believe in? If they are no more than a fizzled out battery at the end of the day, then why don't they spend their lives partying, or getting a hobby?! Why don't they leave this 'God nonsense' alone?

Keep your god out of my government and I'll be happy to let you believe whatever you want.

11. What created God? What came first, the chicken or the egg? I am not going to deny the existence of the chicken or the egg, merely because I don't understand or know what came first. I don't care - they both exist!

Well, you ask the right question; "what created god?" Then you start with the whole chicken/egg thing. I'm a little lost here. How does the existence of a chicken prove the existence of a god?

12. Improbability is not the same as impossibility. You only have to look at life itself for that backup of proof.

Yea...and? We have evidence for life. We have no evidence for the supernatural.

13. How could the complexity of human life possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells?

Because evolution doesn't require knowledge to work. Mutations which improve the reproductive fitness of an organism makes is more likely to reproduce. Repeat this over millions of generations and you get the modern biosphere.

14. How could the complexity of the human mind possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells? Where does our consciousness come from?

The mind evolved with the body. Consciousness comes from our minds not being completely busy with just keeping us alive. Intelligence bore consciousness.

15. What/who knew that our hunger & thirst had to be catered for by the food & drink which we're supplied with?
16. Most of us are born with the five senses to detect our surroundings, which we're provided with.
17. What/who knew that had Earth been set nearer to the sun, we would burn up?
18. What/who knew that had Earth been set any further from the sun, we would freeze up?
19. What/who knew that had Earth been built larger or smaller, its atmosphere would be one where it would not be possible for us to breathe?
20. What/who knew that we require the oxygen of plants, just as plants require the carbon dioxide of us?

Taking all of these together because they are all restatements of the anthropic principle, which itself is a version of the fine tuning argument. None of this requires a who or a what. We are so compatible with the environment we are in because we evolved to fit the environment. This is exactly what evolution predicts.

21. The concept that life came about through sheer chance is as absurd & improbable as a tornado blowing through a junk yard, consequently assembling a Boeing 747!

Incorrect analogy that belies a gross misunderstanding or misrepresentation of evolution. Junk doesn't reproduce and a single tornado through a junkyard wouldn't simulate it. It would be far more accurate to have an army of guys with welders and cutting torches going through the junkyard randomly welding some things together and cutting some things apart, but leaving most things alone. After they've done with one pass, they go through and see what changes have caused a improvement that gets makes something more likely to fly (with flight being analogous to fitness to reproduce). They keep those things and throw out the bad changes. Everything else is left alone. They do this over and over. Thousands upon thousands of times. Each time represents reproduction and a generation. Eventually, given a large enough junkyard and enough generations, something would emerge that could fly, but that wouldn't be the end of it. Once it could fly, successive generations could make it fly better. That is a proper junkyard analogy for evolution.

22. We are willing to believe in physically unseen waves that exist through the air, operating physical forces & appliances to work, yet not supernatural God forces being responsible for the same.

We can measure the effects of electromagnetic waves. We can't measure the effects of your god.

23. Matter cannot organise itself. An uneaten tomato will not progress on its own accord to form a perfect pineapple. It will transform into mould, into disorganisation. The laws of evolution fall flat.

Another gross misrepresentation of evolution. The tomato is not reproducing, and therefore no evolution can occur to it.

24. Our 'inventor' of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin had this to say to Lady Hope when he was almost bedridden for 3 months before he died; "I was a young man with unfathomed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions. wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire - people made a religion of them." Darwin then asked Lady Hope to speak to neighbours the next day. "What shall I speak about?" She asked. He replied; "Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is that not the best theme?"

This has been completely discredited. He never said anything of the sort. Do some research next time.

25. Where do our moral values held within our conscience come from? If the atheist is right, why then would we care about what we did?! If there is no God, then we've no-one to be accountable to.

We are accountable to each other. Part of what has made our species so successful is our ability to band together into a society. Without working together as a society we would not have any of the technological advances we enjoy today. Our lifespans would be shorter, we would have fewer kids, and pass on fewer genes. Having moral values and consciences allow societies to work and not fall apart. They are very much an evolutionary adaptation that increases our reproductive fitness.

26. If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn't he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised.

We are animals. and for the civilized part, see my response to #25

27. 'Chance' isn't the cause of something. It just describes what we can't find a reason for.

Chance describes only the mutation. Many things can cause it and we can't predict where the mutation is going to happen, so therefore, what actually mutates is chance. The selection for or against that mutation is completely non-random. If it's beneficial, it's kept, if it's detrimental, it's thrown out, if it's neutral, either can happen.

28. Science & logic do not hold all the answers - many people are aware of forces at work which we have no understanding of & no control over.

How is this an argument for anything? That there are things we don't understand or have control over doesn't logically follow that there is a superbeing out that that currently does. It also doesn't follow that we will never understand this stuff.

29. Look at the date/year on our calender - 2000 years ago since what? Our historical records (other than the Bible) record evidence of Jesus' existence.

You're really stretching now. The Roman Empire was the dominate political force in the western world in the early 1st millennium CE, and after the emperor converted to Christianity, a new calendar was eventually devised based on that. Since they were the dominant political force, the whole western world was forced to adopt that calendar, and so that is what we still have today. The Chinese, for the most part, follow a different calendar. Did Jesus come earlier for them?

30. Many people have died for their faith. Would they be prepared to do this for a lie?!

Those Buddhist monks that light themselves on fire wouldn't immolate themselves for a lie. Buddhism must be the correct path! No! Wait! Those Islamic suicide terrorists wouldn't die for a lie! Islam must be correct!

31. Much of the Bible deals with eyewitness accounts, written only 40 years after Jesus died. When the books in the New Testament were first around, there would have been confusion & anger if the books were not true.

Nothing in the Bible is written firsthand by the people who were there. Paul never met Jesus, and the gospels were written starting in 70-80 CE by unknown ghostwriters who weren't actually linked the names on the books. There are no reliable contemporary accounts of Jesus's life, or even of his existence.

32. From as early as 2000 BC, there is archaological evidence to confirm many details we're provided with in the Bible.

There are some historical alignments, sure, but if you are using that as an argument, then the Olympian gods were real also, because there really was a Troy, Sparta and Athens, and there really is a Mount Olympus.

33. Not one single Biblical prediction can be shown as false, and the Bible contains hundreds.

Then why doesn't everyone agree on what they prophecies are and how they are fulfilled? Why don't the Jews, who wrote the prophecies in the first place, agree that Jesus fulfilled the Messiah prophecies? If they were actual prophecies that have been fulfilled, there should be general agreement, which you will not find.

34. The evidence from liturature & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.

Isn't this a restatement of #32 and #33?

35. From the birth of science through to today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity & science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians; Francis Bacon, Issaac Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.

Then why has Christianity consistently evolved to match the modern scientific consensus?

36. Science can explain 'how' something works, but not 'why' something works.

I'm not exactly sure I understand this one. Sounds like playing with words.

37. Science is constantly recorrecting its findings. Past theories contradict certain beliefs which are held today. Our present 'discoveries' may change again in the future to rediscover how we originally came into existence.

You just described science well. Science adjusts to new evidence and is not afraid to review contradictory evidence. This is what makes it such a powerful tool in discovering how the universe works.

38. Evolution describes the way life possibly started, yet doesn't explain what made life start & why. Scientific questions fail to do that. Even if evolution were proved, it would still not disprove God.

Wrong. Evolution does not describe how life started. Evolution only describes what happened once it did. Biogenesis is the field that covers the origin of life. Science cannot disprove the existence of a god, but they can make that existence unnecessary, and when you have something so complex with no evidence beside an elegant solution with mounds of evidence, you have to make the obvious choice.

39. The two people who discovered Jesus' empty tomb were women. Women were so low on the social scale in first century Palestine, so in order to make the story fit, it would have made far more sense to claim that it were male disciples who had entered the tomb. But it wasn't - we're left with the historical & Biblical truth.

What? You'd first have to prove to me the story happened and then you'd have to show me how this has anything to do with anything.

40. Think about Near Death Experiences. It's naive to believe that they all are induced by chemicals or drugs. How do we account for a blind person having this experience, coming back to describe what they had never before seen, a person telling the Doctor that there is a blue paperclip on top of the high cabinet, which they couldn't have otherwise known, an african man being dead in his coffin for 3 days, coming back to life to tell of much the same events which took place as those of many others? We never hear of the witnesses describing "a dream". We're not silly - we know the difference between even the most vivid of dreams to that of reality.

There have never been any documented cases where anyone has been able to give any information that they could not have known. You may hear stories, but they are all hearsay. In controlled experiments, the results are always negative. People also tend to see imagery of the religion to which they prescribe. You never hear of a Buddhist seeing angels or a Catholic seeing Ganesh. Also, you are quite wrong on the last sentence. I've had dreams before that I was quite sure were real memories later, and it took some deduction for me to realize that they were only dreams.

41. There are many skeptics who didn't believe in Jesus before his crucifixion, and who were opposed to Christianity, yet turned to the Christian faith after the death of Jesus. Just as the many who continue to do so today.

Argument from personal revelation or argument from popularity. How is this supposed to convince anyone?

42. Albert Einstein said; "A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind".

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." - Albert Einstein

43. A speaker in Hyde Park who was attacking belief in God, claimed that the world just happened. As he spoke, a soft tomato was thrown at him. "Who threw that?" He said angrily. A cockney from the back of the crowd replied; "No-one threw it - it threw itself!"

Ok, a nice story of anti-atheist bigotry...what does it have to do with anything?

44. It is easier to believe that God created something out of nothing than it is to believe that nothing created something out of nothing.

Where did god come from? Saying he always existed means nothing. If your argument is that to have something complex, you need something more complex to make it, then there your god had to have a more complex creator, and so on ad infinitum. It's an infinite regression that gets you nowhere.

45. Stephen Hawkins has admitted; "Science may solve the problem of how the universe began, but it cannot answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist?"

Very nice quote taken very out of context. Anyone who knows anything about Hawking's theories knows exactly what is meant by this, and anyone who doesn't doesn't have the background to understand. I'm not saying anything bad about those who don't get it, but it would take too long to explain here.

46. We cannot confuse God with man. With God in the equation, all things, including miracles are possible. If God is God, he is Creator of all, inclusive of scientific law. He is Creator of matter & spirit.

Not a argument of anything...just a statement of your beliefs.

47. If we are the product of evolution - by sheer accident, chance, then we are still evolving. Does it just so happen that we exist here today with everything so finely tuned for our living. as we now have it?

We are still evolving. We aren't the pinnacle of evolution and we are no more evolved than any other species on the planet. We are actually quite poorly adapted physically to many environments we live in, but our intelligence lets us overcome that. Your actual argument though is the fine-tuning argument again. Things look perfect for us because we evolved to live in them. If conditions were different, we wouldn't be here. Evolution would have taken a different path suited to those conditions. The better a creature is to its environment, the more likely it will survive, which is the key to evolution.

48. Could it possibly be that the missing link does not exist?!

Yes. The missing link is an invention of creationists. Every fossil we find is a previously "missing link" of some sort, because every offspring carries some amount of mutation from its parent

49. God has proved himself to us in numerous ways, all around us. The atheist needs to put his glasses on. What more can God possibly do if man has shut his eyes to him?

If these are the ways you think he has proven himself, you need to seriously reconsider your faith.

50. Jesus Christ is either who he says he is, or he is the biggest con man history has ever known.

Or he never said he was the messiah and people raised him to superhero status later. Or he was a composite of several traveling rabbis which was raise to superhero status. Or he didn't exist.

YOU DECIDE!!!

Yea...I've made my decision.

It took me less than an hour to write this post. It usually takes me more than that to write two paragraphs of my own material when I already know what I'm going to say. This was completely off the cuff and wasn't the least bit challenging. These were some seriously weak arguments, and, apparently, they were the best she could come up with. Sad. Seriously sad.

Two Quickies for Easter

2008-03-23T15:30:00.005-05:00

First, a linkback to an old post.

Second, a picture in celebration of the day.

Whoa...

2008-03-20T21:12:00.003-05:00

Amazing news on the astronomy front. Yesterday, March 19, a gamma ray burst was detected that peaked at +5.6 magnitude in visual light, making it the brightest ever seen and briefly visible to the naked eye. It was 7.5 billion light years away. For a brief time, anyone with a dark site and a view of the night sky could see, with their unaided eyes, an event that happened 3 billion years before our planet formed. Words cannot express how stunning this is. Nature never ceases to amaze and intruige me. As always, Phil Plait has lots more info over on Bad Astronomy.

The Workplace Analogy of Christianity

2008-03-04T18:18:00.001-06:00

Imagine you were recruited for a new job by an employee of the company. You show up to work to find that there is no boss, only a work plan that provides vague and often contratictory directives on how to create an enormously complex product. This work plan, you're told, wasn't written by the boss, rather, it was written by former employees that swear that the boss told them all of this on the phone one day. For a while, this work plan was in a constant state of flux because subsequent employees were free to change it. They were even able to ignore or remove certain directives if they chose, or add new ones if they recieved them from the boss, even though he only gave each of these new directives to a single employee. Eventually, the boss was never heard from again. After a while, a group of employees got together and assembled the definitive version of work plan saying, "Although the boss isn't here, we know what he wants, and these are the directives he would want us to follow." Everyone at work has their own interpretation of the work plan, and everyone knows that their own personal interpretation of the work plan is the only correct way to interpret it.

You soon find out that you are not getting paid for this work, but everyone assures you that as soon as the work is done, the boss will make you so rich that you will no longer have to worry about working, because it says so right in the work plan, kind of. Once it's over, everything will be taken care of and you'll never have to worry about anything ever again. Skeptical, you ask if anyone has ever actually talked to the boss. They say, "Of course! Just call this special number and you can talk to him yourself!" You call the number and no one responds. You keep trying to ask the boss questions, but get nothing but dead air. Again you ask if anyone has actually spoken to the boss. Many say, "Yes, every single day. He never actually talks back, but I know he's there."

Would you continue to work at this company?

Cartoons are Evil!

2008-03-03T09:49:00.000-06:00

Just for laughs, an old show (1980's based on the hair, clothes, and subject matter) about how cartoons are leading children to the occult and away from God. I don't have much else to say, they do a pretty good job of making asses of themselves without my help, but the quote of the day has to be "God isn't master of the universe, He-Man is!"

Childfree

2008-02-26T19:59:00.004-06:00

Possummomma (aka, Atheist in a mini van).: Childfree Query

Interesting discussion going on at Pmomma's blog about people who don't want kids. I don't want kids. I've never wanted kids. I very actively don't want kids to the point that it's a complete deal breaker on relationships. That is one thing that I don't think anyone can have their mind changed on. Either you want or you don't, and I don't think there is anything rational or emotional that anyone can say that will change how you feel about it. Kids are nowhere in my future and I don't want to be with anyone does want kids. It wouldn't be fair to them and it wouldn't be fair to me. I could be with a theist who does not want kids far, far easier than I could be with an atheist who does.

I really just want to comment on a couple of the comments from the discussion at Pmomma's blog. Some of this will be repeated from my own comments there.

Kilted Dad says...
I think TrojanMan is 29, and I think he should give it some more time. I know and 29 I was very lukewarm to having kids. Now, I can't imagine why I waited so long.

This one actually offended me. I know these "you'll come around when you get older" type people and they can never tell me what is actually supposed to change. It seems to be more of an "I was waiting to have kids so you must be too" or "My kids are everything to me so you're supposed to feel the same way." This particular comment gets me even more because I am 29 as well, and he is implying that, at 29 years old, with more than a third of my life gone, I'm still not capable of understanding what I want. He says that he was "lukewarm" to having kids. I am not "lukewarm" to having kids. I am cold on the idea, ice-cold, and my aversion gets stronger every day.

Another mistake he makes is generalizing every person to his experience. As I said before, wanting or not wanting kids is a personal thing, and, as such, it is impossible to generalize. If I were basing everyone on the way I feel about the subject, I would think that no one would ever have any more kids, and our species would die out within 100 years. In practice, I know that most people want kids. In practice, I know that some people want a lot of kids. On a personal level, I honestly cannot even fathom how anyone can possibly want to have kids. I simply can't wrap my mind around it. My personal aversion to the idea is so high, that I can't understand anyone having the desire. I can't even imagine being indifferent to it, but I still know that most people do want kids. People like Kilted Dad can't seem to grasp that there really are people who simply have no desire to procreate, because he is not able to step outside of his own experiences. I admit that I have trouble stepping outside myself, but at least I do recognize that you can't cast all people in the same mold.

Karen said...
I'd like to generalize my earlier observation about understanding why you do or don't want to have kids. If you think a situation through carefully, truly understand your own motivations, and make a reasonable attempt to consider side effects, then you will make the best decision you possibly can. No guilt allowed, though you may be sorry for unintended consequences, or those that might be hurt by your decision.

I repeat: you made the best decision you could at the time; no guilt allowed. Understanding this concept is incredibly freeing.

I really like this comment, and I'll freely admit that my desire to not have kids is primarily selfish, though I think that the reasons for anyone wanting to have kids are ultimately selfish as well (makes them feel good/loved, gives them a sense of immortality, etc). For starters, I simply do not like being around kids, even for five minutes. People say that it will be different with my own, but this is typically coming from people who like kids anyway. I'm very certain that if a random child annoys me after five minutes, I would find it incredibly difficult to put up with one for the 10+ years they stay annoying, even if they were mine. I also don't want my life and my plans interrupted by having to raise a kid, because a kid is definitely not in the plan. As little sense as this makes, I'm also fairly certain that I would feel a level of resentment towards the child for interrupting my life. Now, I already admitted my reasons were selfish, but it would be completely unfair for me to bring a child into the world feeling about children the way I do. I would ultimately be unhappy for the duration and that unhappyness and resentment would not be transparent to the child, and that wouldn't be fair to either of us.

This Whole Ted Kennedy Endorsement Craze

2008-01-30T11:15:00.000-06:00

Does anyone else think an endorsement by Ted Kennedy is a bad thing?

Am I the only one who can't think of him without associating him with the mysterious disappearance of a staff member?

The Futility of the Sacrifice - Christ's Meaningless Death and the Flawed Theology Surrounding It

2007-12-19T22:29:00.000-06:00

This is the time of the year when Christians around the world celebrate the birth of their savior, but a recent email conversation, led to the imagery of the cross and his death, a moment that is the true essence of Christian theology. His death was to be the final blood sacrifice to the blood-obsessed, Old Testament god YHWH; a sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Jesus, the son of YHWH, who was really YHWH in human form, would bring everyone ultimate salvation through his death.

Restated from an outsider's perspective, God sacrificed himself to himself to exploit a loophole in a rule he himself made.

It has been said that Jesus had a bad weekend for our sins, and I have to agree. For humans, death is final. Even those who believe in an afterlife view death with a sense of finality. For Jesus, not only was death not final, he was up walking within a day and a half (he died sometime after midday Friday and was resurrected before sunup on Sunday, which equates to around 36 hours, give or take). Not much of a sacrifice. I know people who have been painfully bedridden for longer than that after minor surgery, and they didn't have an eternity to live. In the grand scheme of things, death for Jesus was less a sacrifice than stubbing a toe would be for you or me. What sacrifice is death when you can't really die? How does his death serve even a symbolic function when his suffering was so fleeting and insignificant?

Regardless of the value of the sacrifice, the whole story itself belies a deeper problem with Christian theology. For the story to be true, God could not possibly be both benevolent and all-powerful. If he was all-powerful, requiring blood sacrifices of any sort and allowing the crucifixion to carry forth shows a malevolent intent. Conceding that the sacrifice shows a benevolence and caring for his creation, one must assume that he didn't know the sacrifice would be necessary, and didn't have the power to change the rules that were in place. If the rules require a sacrifice, and you are the all-powerful being that wishes to remove that requirement, then why not just use your power to remove the requirement? Why the theatrics? Why the unnecessary suffering? If an all-powerful god had wanted the rules to be changed so that all someone had to do was repent, he could have done it. Instead, we get the story in the Bible, where God has to exploit a previously unknown loophole to achieve the change (a deus ex machina), showing that the god of the Bible is not so all-powerful after all.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of all of the problems I have with Christian theology, and it doesn't even begin to broach the spiritual objections. It is merely a list of the most apparent problems I see with the core tenets of the crucifixion and resurrection, which I consider to be the most important theology of the religion. Though it may seem so, I don't necessarily mean to pick on Christianity specifically, but it is the religion I know the best and it is the religion who's believers threaten my liberties on a daily basis, so it gets the focus of my attention. I don't think Islam, Hindu, or any other religion stacks up any better.

Tag. I'm it.

2007-12-18T08:24:00.000-06:00

I've been tagged by Ms. SuperScience with the nostalgia meme. I'm supposed to link to five previous posts in different categories.

As for the tagging, I don't have that many people in mind. I'm going to tag:
Ryan at 95% of You Are Morons - Perhaps this will encourage him back into posting more again
Possummomma
Summer Squirrel
CodeMonkey at The Adventures of CodeMonkey - A real life friend of mine, mainly because I want to see if he'll actually do it.

If anyone else wants to participate, don't let my lack of specific recognition stop you.

So, on with the meme.

Link 1 is a little bit of FAMILY: I don't really talk about family all that much here. I've made the point a couple of times in the past that my parents are very religious, especially my mom. I actually get along with them very well as long as religious talk stays out of the picture, but here is a post I made after my mom sent me an especially heinous piece of Biblical literalist propaganda: An answer in search of a question.

Link 2 is a little bit of FRIEND: While not a personal friend, this man was a friend of all skeptics and continues to be missed: Perry DeAngelis: Aug 22, 1963 - Aug 19, 2007

Link 3 is a little bit of YOURSELF: This one is easy: My personal deconversion story

Link 4 should be YOUR LOVE: Being single, I have no "love in my life" in the traditional sense, and I really don't post much about my hobbies or pastimes here, this being more a place to vent than anything else, so I'll just go with a post that I "loved" writing: Jesus returns, takes up residence on cell phone tower

Link 5 can be ANYTHING YOU LIKE: This is a post that still makes me shudder when I read it: The creepiness of religious indoctrination

Viewer Response to PBS's Judgment Day

2007-11-19T10:35:00.000-06:00

Last week, PBS aired an episode of NOVA called Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, which covered the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. I haven't had a chance to watch the program yet, so I cannot not say anything about it's content or quality, but I've had a blast reading the viewer response.

As expected, there is a lot of negative feedback. The funniest part to me are the accusations of bias. Here's a hint to anyone watching the show, NOVA is a science show, so they are going to be biased in favor of science. Intelligent design in is not science. It makes no testable claims, so, by definition, it can't be science. There is one letter in particular that I want to address more thoroughly (emphasis mine).

Last night I stumbled upon the PBS broadcast regarding the debate between evolution and creationism. Mr. Getler, responsible journalism is supposed to be about balance — presenting both sides of the argument in a fair and unbiased fashion, and I feel that this program fell miserably short of that standard...

Andrew Robbins, Edinburgh, IN

No, responsible journalism is supposed to eliminate personal bias, it is not necessarily supposed to be balanced. Are they supposed to present "balanced" coverage of a serial rapists crime spree? Are they supposed to examine whether the victims were really asking for it? If the unbiased truth is that the person is evil, and the journalist says so, what is your opinion on that? Is it balanced? No. Is it unjournalistic? Absolutely not. If a science show lambastes an unscientific idea as ludicrous are they being balanced? No. Are they being unjournalistic? Absolutely not.

A certain kind of bias is necessary in journalism. Journalists should always exhibit a clear bias toward the truth. In the post-Fox News world, it's harder and harder to find a journalist with the integrity to stand up for this ideal. Now, it's all about making everyone happy by "showing both sides of the controversy," whatever the "controversy" may be, and whether it even exists at all. I'm happy to see that some journalistic sources still have the balls to fly in the face of modern thinking and maintain the integrity of their profession. I'm looking more forward to seeing this show now than ever.

Perry DeAngelis: Aug 22, 1963 - Aug 19, 2007

2007-08-27T15:00:00.000-05:00

Skepticism lost one of it's stars last week when Perry DeAngelis, co-founder of The New England Skeptical Society and panelist on The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast, died on Sunday, August 19th, after a long battle with a number of chronic illnesses. Perry was an unwavering advocate of scientific skepticism and will be greatly missed by the entire skeptic community.

A memorial fund in his honor has been set up by SGUFans.net in conjunction with the NESS. The money will be to be put to use on an ongoing project to be started in his name.

An Answer in Search of a Question

2007-07-30T14:41:00.000-05:00

My mother sent me this article from a creationist website over the weekend. I know she means well, but I cannot understand how anyone in a career (nursing) that has so benefited from scientific advances, especially from the fields of molecular and evolutionary biology, can so easily reject science in favor of 2000+ year old myths (4000-5000 years in this case).

This article offers nothing new and makes all the same mistakes/distortions as everything that I've read before it. In fact, this is one of the more poorly written ones I've recently read, as it was written for a Christian audience that already accepts at least some of the basic premises of the Bible. It confuses "Darwinism" (oooh, that evil man that all those evil godless heathens worship!) with modern evolutionary theory, confuses evolutionary theory with studies into the origins of life, confuses theory and hypothesis, makes a number of observations that have absolutely nothing to do with the point but merely serve as an appeal to emotion, and finally, puts out a number of distortions or outright lies (whether intentional or not) to cement the position. I'm not going to bother refuting anything in the article. As I said, the arguments are so old that anyone who's been studying any of this for more than a few weeks can answer every single one of them without so much as going to a reference.

Every time I get one of these articles (I think the last one I got before this was "proof" of the global flood), it occurs to me that religion is nothing more than an answer in search of a question. In every single one of these articles, the author starts with a stated premise from the Bible, then tries to rationalize a way to continue believing that delusion in spite of the facts. They search for the set of "facts" that they can connect in a careful construct to prop up their reality, and ignore all of those pesky facts that just want to test their faith. Appeals to emotion win the day, and if you can throw a hair-brained hypothesis or two in, all the better. Once you form the argument in such a way as to boost the ego of the reader, rationality can take the back seat and you can keep them from asking too many real questions that might demand real answers.

In this article, the reader question is phrased in such a way as to make it obvious that he wants to be a creationist, if only it weren't for those pesky facts. He already knows what answer he wants to come to, but can't seem to figure out how to make what he knows of the world work with that answer. The writer then proceeds to carefully construct a new reality for the reader that will allow him to push those facts to the side and ignore them, thereby, giving him the question he was seeking for his answer.

Free Energy and Blog Notes

2007-07-10T15:03:00.000-05:00

Much to the non-surprise of everyone with a brain, the Steorn Orbo free energy machine failed to generate anything even remotely resembling free energy during its first demonstration. I'm reminded of Lisa Simpson's perpetual motion machine.

I have a substantial post in the works. What originated as a "hypothetical coming out as an atheist to my family" letter has morphed into a short essay in defense of atheism from my personal perspective. I'm not done yet, and want to make sure it it well refined before I post it, but I will be posting here when I'm done, hopefully within the next week.

Also, if anyone is actually subscribed to my RSS feed, I have switched over to a Feedbuner feed, which is now available through your web browser's discovery feature, or through the subscribe link in the sidebar. This will help me track a number of stats previously unavailable to me and it would be a huge favor to me if you could switch to the new feed.

What Kind of Atheist?

2007-06-08T18:03:00.000-05:00

Haven't posted in a long while. Not that I haven't had anything to say, but I just haven't really had much time to settle down and post. Gonna try to turn that around. I have a big post idea right now, but it's going to take some time to get together.

I took an online quiz that's been going around. It came out pretty much how I expected.

You scored as Scientific Atheist, These guys rule. I'm not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into the future.

Scientific Atheist

92%

Apathetic Atheist

75%

Agnostic

58%

Militant Atheist

42%

Spiritual Atheist

33%

Angry Atheist

33%

Theist

25%

What kind of atheist are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

Huh...

2007-05-10T13:08:00.000-05:00

I guess my state says I'm a terrorist. Who knew?

Maybe We Should Try the National Day of Reason Again

2007-04-23T19:40:00.000-05:00

I'm posting this from Chambersburg, PA: nice town, nestled in the Cumberland Valley, with lots of history all around. I would definitely like to come back to this area when I have more time to see the sites and explore the region more. It's in easy driving distance to the Appalachian Mountains, Gettysburg, Antietam, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania Dutch Amish country. Since I'm here for work, I'll probably have little useful time to see sights, but I'm going to try to see what I can.

The annual National Day of Silence, a day in which high school and college students across the country spend a day in silence as a sign of solidarity for gay and lesbians who feel silenced by discrimination, was observed on April 18th of this year. As expected, there were counter-protests. In Muskegon, Michigan, a student was suspended for wearing a piece of tape with "I'm straight" written on it.

John Gardner is pastor of Holton Family Life Worship Center in Holton, a community of approximately 2,500 about 17 miles northeast of Muskegon. Pastor Gardner says his 15-year-old son David, a student at Oakridge High, was suspended for a day by the school because he wrote with a black marker "I'm straight" on a piece of duct tape and attached it to his shirt. He explains that David donned the message to voice his objection to the school's participation in the Day of Silence.

"They asked him, at that point, to take it off," Gardner says, "and David [asked] why do the rest of the kids in the class get to wear theirs and I can't wear something about what I believe?" According to the pastor, the teacher then instructed David to remove the message or he would be "kicked out" of class. "And he said, 'Well then, you'll have to kick me out' -- and that's what they did," says David's father.

I'm not sure why they would have an issue with the tape. It was a weak protest, but it wasn't offensive and should be protected free speech. The school no doubt overreacted. Perhaps they thought they were erring on the side of caution, but they overstepped their bounds. I don't think the student was completely blameless, however. Although I think he was within his rights, high schools are a controlled environment, and if the school officials have deemed something inappropriate, continuing to wear or do said thing is asking for trouble. There are better ways to fight the school that are far less detrimental to your education. The school rules may not always be right, but they do provide order. I will reiterate, however, I think he was ultimately within his rights to wear the message.

Why did I call it a weak protest? Why would someone assume that just because you are straight that you are anti-gay? Why would anyone assume that just because someone is in favor of gay rights that they are themselves gay? I am straight, but I fully support equal rights and equal treatment for gays and lesbians, and for gay and lesbian couples. Just announcing that you are straight doesn't make you against gay rights, but that is pretty much what his message wanted you to assume. Given that, he must have assumed that a lot of his fellow students were gay. If he didn't assume that, then his message was nonsense from the beginning.

A final point to consider is that, regardless of the implications of the good pastor, the school had nothing to do with the Day of Silence. It is a student organized grassroots event that spreads nationwide through word of mouth. School administrations have nothing to do with the event or participation. David's protest of the school's participation was meaningless. The school didn't participate; the students did.

It is time, says the Michigan pastor, for Christians to step to the forefront. "I tell you, I fear what's coming in the next ten years for the Church and the schools -- and children, in general -- if the Christians don't come out of their closet," he says. "The gays and lesbians want to come out of their closet; I think the Church needs to come out of their closet and stand up and be the Body of Christ that God has told it to be

I've read that three times still can't believe he said it. Has anyone ever seen a Christian in this country that was truly scared to announce themselves? I see Christians everywhere I look. Every time I go to work I see Bible verse wallpapers on computer and church fliers in the break room. I've had a perfectly intelligent coworker tell me that evolution is crap but Noah's flood happened just like it says in the Bible and science can prove it and anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves. You can stand up in any high school in this nation and yell about loving Jesus and have the whole school on your side. Try standing up and yelling that you're gay and see how long it takes before you are ridiculed, discriminating against, or worse. People don't get beaten up for believing in god. You can't say the same about homosexuality. There is nothing closet about Christianity.

I'm still here

2007-04-18T07:34:00.000-05:00

It's been about two weeks since I posted anything. I was out of town for work all last week and I've been swamped here this week. I'm leaving for work again next week, but I'm going to try to get a couple of posts in before I leave, but I still haven't even caught up on the blogosphere and news since I returned from my trip. I'm going to try to get caught up today and get some inspiration.

The Creepyness of Religious Indoctrination

2007-04-04T13:01:00.000-05:00

I've been less than motivated to post lately. I went on vacation Thursday through Sunday of last week, and that state of mind has basically continued since. I'm back now, hopefully.

On to the post.

Ed Brayton has posted on a recent free speech case involving a 4th grade student handing out religious fliers at school. He and I agree on the outcome of the case that the student should have the right to hand out the fliers, but the article stood out at me for a different reason.

According to the family's 2004 lawsuit, Nicole Bloodgood tried three times to get permission for Michaela to pass out the homemade fliers to other students at Nate Perry Elementary School. The flier, about the size of a greeting card, started out: "Hi! My name is Michaela and I would like to tell you about my life and how Jesus Christ gave me a new one."

I think that is one of the creepiest things I have ever read. She is in the 4th grade. That is about 10 years old. How hard a life could a 10-year old have had, barring homelessness/poverty (which is not likely given that she has the time and resources to make the fliers), chronic disease (which the cynic in me knows would be mentioned in the story for the compassion factor), or a situation created by her parents?

This is a situation created by the parents. It is a situation that tells the child that they have no value as a person if they aren't connected with this invisible, intangible father figure. This a fundamental problem I have with religion; especially Christianity and Islam. They tell everyone, including children, that they are evil, immoral, horrible people that don't even deserve to be alive, but as long as they believe in the sky fairy, he'll have mercy on them and keep them safe from the horrible, eternal wrath and torture that was created by that very same loving father. That knowledge would most certainly create a bad life for a 10 year old who believed it. Control through fear is the mantra of western religion, and nowhere does it work better than against a child.

Childhood is not the age that we should be instilling dogmatic thinking. Instead, we should be encouraging the skills of logic and critical thinking. Armed with those skills, a person can approach any situation with a rational perspective and make decisions based on fact and reason, not dogma. We should be focusing on creating a generation of intelligent, skeptical leaders, not religious sheep.

George W. Bush's Residence Greener Than Al Gore's?

2007-03-28T12:22:00.000-05:00

Is the claim that former Vice President and global warming documentary producer Al Gore's house uses far more energy than George Bush's private ranch true? Yes, says Snopes. In fact, while Gore's home has approximately twelve times the energy consumption, at only four times the size of the average American home, George W Bush's private residence utilizes many of the latest energy saving technologies to use far less than average.

All of that is true. However, the quoted email then gets into logical fallacy territory. Though it never comes out and says it, those facts to used to imply that Mr. Gore does not care about the environment in an attempt to discredit him. This is a form of ad hominem attack. They are attacking the individual and using those attacks to try to discredit him, when they are nothing but personal attacks and have no bearing on the factualness of the arguments he makes. We can all say shame on him for not practicing what he preaches, but we can't say that what he espouses is wrong, just because he doesn't follow them.

Random Thoughts and Notes

2007-03-27T19:16:00.000-05:00

Looks like my sudden storm of popularity has subsided for a while. I received over 300 unique visitors a day for three straight days when my post comparing the Ten Commandments and US law was linked to, first by StumbleUpon, and then by Netscape's religion portal. I'm still amazed at the popularity of that post. It was a post I had been bouncing around in my head for a while, and a combination of factors, not the least of which was the Christian Seniors Associations reaction to Pete Stark's nontheism, led to me to quickly write and post it one afternoon. It was a very cursory look at the issue, said nothing new about the subject, and, in my opinion, was some of my poorest writing since I started this blog. For some reason, none of that mattered, and it brought in a lot of new traffic. I'm not sure if anyone who found me from StumbleUpon or Netscape is still visiting, but if you are, welcome.

Since then, I've been placing a lot of focus on posting information about my beliefs and philosophies, and these are subjects I have greatly enjoyed writing about. This blog has allowed me to explore my own beliefs and worldview more thoroughly than I have ever had an opportunity to in the past. Looking back, it seems like I can come off a little confrontational and bitter. This couldn't be further from the truth, but I do get very passionate about what I view as discrimination, persecution, and bigotry against people who have done nothing other than have their own mind. I'm extremely happy in my life, and I'm just happy have a way to really make my views known, so I don't plan to change anything with my writing.

I'm planning more posts on my own views and philosophies in the future. I'm also considering widening the scope of the blog to include more posts on science and skepticism. I had originally intended for the blog to include more on these subjects, but I found so many opportunities to post on atheism that I let it takeover as the primary subject of the blog. I don't think atheism will cease to be the primary subject, but I would like to cover more related topics in from time to time.

We're All Just Figments of Your Imagination

2007-03-26T09:30:00.000-05:00

Surprise, surprise! There's a Christian doesn't think atheists exists. I've seen articles like this before, and they always amuse me because they showcase religious thinking far better than I ever could.

It’s true! I don’t believe they exist. There is no such thing as someone who doesn’t believe in a sovereign god. I don’t care how much evidence you want to provide trying to validate their existence - I cannot believe that any person is a true atheist.

This is extremely typical of theistic thinking, especially Christian thinking. They have such a "personal" relationship with their sky-fairy of choice that they just can't image how anyone couldn't have it too. Obviously, anyone who claims that he isn't there is just pretending or is in denial. We just don't want him to be there. The use of the word sovereign here is interesting as well, as it clearly defines several things about his belief; things that put his in opposition of the very large group of non-Abrahamic faiths. If a sovereign god is required in his definition of theism, that implies a single, all-powerful entity, which counts out the very large Hindu religion, the eastern religious philosophies, and most, if not all of the native religions still practiced worldwide, as atheistic.

Atheists do not exist. They’re not real. If there were ever a true atheist, they would not invest so much energy in trying to convince themselves and others that God does not exist. The thought of God consumes them.

I'll make a deal with you: if you stop legislating your religion, and you stop trying to convert me at every turn, I will be more than happy to stop talking about your god and any other god. Read this part carefully because it is important: Nothing would make me happier than to be able to stop talking about religion once and for all.

Here, we can also see how the theistic majority will never be happy with anything we as atheists do. If we talk about the flaws and delusions of religion, they say we must believe because we are so obsessed. If we know nothing of religion or it's tenets or it's holy book (and only their religion, the others don't count), then we just have never been exposed to the word and need to be taught and converted. It's a catch-22 that we can't escape from, because nothing we do will ever satisfy the theist.

If someone claims to be an atheist, I think they’re lying. What they’re really trying to say is that God let them down, and they can’t reconcile how a good God allow such evil.

The first argument is the most tired and most debunked argument in the theists arsenal. I'm quite happy in my life. I've had no major disappointments and I'm very satisfied with where I am now, and none of it is due to, or in spite of an invisible guy in the sky.

Secondly, the argument from evil is compelling, and I think it makes a strong case against a loving god, but considering that the god of Abraham (and thus, by my assumption, the god of the poster) was anything but a loving god, I've never thought it was a very productive line of reasoning against Christianity, and it's not really a line of reasoning that I would personally pursue.

In reality, it's hard for me to imagine the existence of theists. There is nothing tenable about the god hypothesis, and not one argument for the existence of a god stands up to any scrutiny. I do know, however, that, sadly, theists do exists, and they do let themselves be deluded into these very lines of thinking.

The Double Standard of Religion

2007-03-24T16:39:00.001-05:00

After writing down the story of my deconversion, I have been wondering more than ever about why theists, who are always ready to strike down inconsistencies in all other religions, seem fundamentally incapable of seeing the flaws within their own religion. Oftentimes, these beliefs may be extremely similar. A Christian will reject the Hindu account of creation as not only wrong, but even offensive, even though the myths both posit that a supreme godhead guided the creation of the universe and life. Where the Christian account assumes a single god and a single creation event, the Hindu account specifies three gods (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) working in continuous cycle of creation/destruction events. A Christian will say that the Hindu account is ridiculous and wrong, but will be no better prepared to defend their own view, which is just as baseless as any other.

A major turning point in my life was my realization that believers of every religion in the world are positive that they are right, which led to an obvious line of questioning. If all religions have believers of absolute conviction, it's obvious that they can't all be right; in fact, most religions specifically say that they are the only true religion. They can, however, all be wrong, which is a truth that seems to escape the mind of the believer. The average believer works under the assumption that there must be “something else”, which turns off the questioning part of their mind. They just “know” that the religion they've always known must be right because, from birth, they've been simultaneously indoctrinated into its beliefs and insulated from its criticisms. This creates an inevitable double standard, in which the evidence against all other religions is viewed with far more credibility than the evidence against your own, and realizing that was one of the biggest steps that I took in my journey to disbelief.

Anti-Theist?

2007-03-23T13:06:00.000-05:00

I am more than an atheist. I am an anti-theist.

Last week, I made a short post on a Sam Harris LA Times op-ed made during the aftermath of the outing of Congressman Pete Stark as a non-theist. The article related mainly to liberal and moderate theists sheltering fundamentalists and dominionists from criticism by holding to the same holy books, which is a viewpoint I agree with completely. I suppose this view makes me an anti-theist, and it is a label I will accept, with a lot of qualifications.

I think the main thing that makes me an anti-theist is that I feel that religion no longer serves any purpose. Many people may say that it should be fine if other people believe, but I feel that religion is, in fact, detrimental to our advancement as a society and as a species. We don't need it to define our morals, we don't need it to show us our place in the universe, and we no longer need it to explain our world.

Steven Jay Gould called religion and science "non-overlapping magisteria" in that they occupy different domains of teaching and therefore should never be considered in conflict. As much respect as I have for Dr Gould's work, this is one area in which I completely disagree. The ultimate goal of religion is to explain why the world is as it is. This is very centrally the same goal as science, only where science deals in empiricism, religion deals in emotion. Many great scientific findings of the past have rocked the foundations of various religions, and many lines of scientific research are difficult or impossible to pursue today, due exclusively to the influence of religion. Promising research that could ultimately save the lives of millions is prohibited based on a religious objection.

People still hold strong to many old ideas of morality that are solely religious in nature; ideas which make no sense in an age of reason. We even have a Presidential office that makes charity grant decisions based on the concept of religious faith, rather the effectiveness of the charity.

All of this must change for our society to continue its progress. I'm not calling for a banning or outlawing of religion. Atheists have a prime opportunity in the modern era for education and outreach. Already, religion is on the decline, especially amongst the young. According to the Pew Research Center, a full 19% of adult Americans born since the year 1977 profess to have no religion, and the total for the entire US population is now 12%, a 4% gain in the last 20 years. This is an encouraging trend, and one which will only improve with time. I dream of a time when someone is as cautious about declaring themselves religious as someone is today about declaring atheism; a day when religion is something that we can tell our disbelieving children, "yes, grandma really does believe in an invisible guy in the sky, but a lot of old people have crazy beliefs like that." A wind of change is blowing, and based on this latest data, this day may come faster than anyone can imagine.

So, yes, I am an anti-theist, but I think an approach of calm education is by far preferable to in-your-face evangelism.

Who Says Anti-Atheist Bigotry Doesn't Exist?

2007-03-21T12:47:00.000-05:00

I've actually heard people doubt that bigotry against atheists exists. Tell that to Possummomma, who just posted on a fairly extreme case that she just experienced.

After she posted to a newspaper site, looking for other atheists in her area, she heard from one of her friendly neighborhood fundamentalists named Dick.

Possummomma,
This is a Christian town. If you don't like it move! I'll help you pack. Go back to where you came from.
Dick

As their exchange continues, Dick really lives up to his name by proving that he is, in fact, a gigantic dick. I invite everyone to visit the linked post and see just what religiously motivated bigotry looks like, and lend your support to Possummomma. She's a great lady with a great blog.

My Personal Deconversion Story

2007-03-20T14:45:00.000-05:00

Nothing has really stood out at me to post today, and I realized that I haven’t really posted the story of my journey to non-belief. Like most people, it wasn’t instantaneous, but at the same time, I don’t think it was entirely typical. It’s the story of a natural atheist growing up in a fundamentalist evangelical family.

I grew up near a very small town (pop 7000) in south Alabama, with very fundamentalist parents from the Southern Baptist denomination. I was indoctrinated into the religion from birth and for a while, never thought to question it. I didn’t even know it was possible not to believe. I had never met any avowed non-believers, and even people like those pesky Jehovah’s Witnesses that came door to door believed in God, even if they didn’t worship him the right way. I fed right into the idea that the only reason to say anything bad about God is if you were a bad person and just wanted to justify doing wrong.

I’ve always been skeptically minded, even though I didn’t realize that’s what it was until recently. I can still remember the first time I had any kind of experience with doubt or absence of faith. I don’t remember exactly how old I was, but I couldn’t have been older than 7 years old. There was a tornado warning in our county and the predicted path came right toward our community. I was scared and my mother suggested that we pray for God to guide the tornado away from us. Even at that young age, three thoughts immediately went through my head: “if God didn’t want it to hurt us, then why did he make it in the first place”, “if God could stop it from hurting us, then why did he allow anyone to be hurt”, and “if God guided it away from us, then wouldn’t that just put other people in danger?” I can’t recall what I actually said, or if I said anything, but I do remember my mother telling me some anecdote about how we prayed about something when I was younger and I had faith and God came through. My thoughts about that were much the same then as they are right now, but we prayed and my memory of that situation pretty much ends there. I can’t recall ever really thinking much about it until fairly recently, when I was thinking about what brought me to where I am today.

For several more years, I still believed for all of the same reasons I had before. As I got into junior high and started taking more advanced science classes, I started seeing things that didn’t add up; things that just didn’t work under a young-earth view. At first I tried to ignore them, but eventually, when I no longer could, I finally adapted an old-earth view. As I went through high school I started discarding more and more supernatural elements. I was at a point where I wanted to believe. I think it still just didn’t occur to me that it was possible to not believe. At some point, I realized that the followers of every single world religion were just as sure that they were right as the followers of any other religion were sure that they were. Muslims were just as sure they were right as Christians were sure they were. Buddhists knew they had to do everything they could to achieve nirvana just as the Hindu knew they had to work their whole lives to please Vishnu. I knew that they couldn’t all be right, but, I wondered, what if they were all wrong? By the time I was a senior in high school, I was going to church regularly and participating in the youth group, but I knew I didn’t believe any of it, I just wouldn’t admit it to myself. Around the time I started college I had a major epiphany: it’s okay not to believe.

Looking back now, I realize one thing clearly: I never really did believe. My parents believed and when I was a child with no life experiences of my own, I was simply a parrot of my parents. As I did start gaining my own life experiences, every experience I had showed me that we didn’t need a god to explain the world. Everything we know works by predictable natural laws. Nothing I’ve ever observed violates them. So, little by little, my own personality replaced the one manufactured by my parents, and the less I needed God. I no longer needed that crutch, and realizing that was the single most liberating experience of my life.

That was about 10 years ago, and now, here I am thinking back over the whole experience with retrospective eyes and I’m proud. I’m proud I realized the things I did when I did or I may never have been able to break free. I’m proud I had the courage to explore reality. I’m proud I’m able to share this with the world, and I hope that just one believer can read this and realize that atheists aren’t animals; we’re just people who can’t bear to allow fear and superstition to rule over our lives.