h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've read some of your stuff (namely that regarding atheism and the flaws in Christianity), and I was wondering if you could do something for me. I am one who delights in religious/theological/philosophical discussions and debates, and I would like to hear a really good case for atheism. I don't want a debunking of Christianity (or religion in general, for that matter) -- I want the case _for_ atheism. Don't feel like you need to spare me any details. So far, the arguments I've heard for atheism elsewhere have been unsatisfying to say the least, and I'd just like to hear (hopefully) the best evidence and arguments. Thanks.

Well, as I said in the Atheism article, its beliefs are just as much a leap of faith as any theist's. Atheists have found tons of evidence in the world debunking Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu, and all the rest. An atheist then reasons that since there is no God, or YHWH, or Odin, or anybody, that there are no gods period, and that they're all a construct of the mind to explain the inexplicable. Atheists understand that we don't understand everything, but this is just a shortfall of science, which mankind will work to solve over the next few millenia. Eventually, science WILL yield all the answers, and atheists refuse to accept the simplistic answers provided by the belief in some unknown deity.

This differs from agnostics who believe that some higher power may exist, but there is no way to conclusively prove nor disprove its existence. And they're right. It's the only logically defensible stance. Then again, their are lots of people who call themselves Christian who don't practice at all; they're reasoning along with Pascal's Wager. Many more believe in the Christian god but refuse to go to church, because they distrust everything a preacher has to say. I think most people understand that there is something wrong with religion in general, and these are some of the ways people cope. Atheism is really just the radical resistance, a sort of balancing force against the influence of the fundamentalists.

So if you're asking me to defend my faith the answer is, I can't. Faith is something that cannot be reasoned, which is why most debates between Christians and atheists over faith are doomed. So I prefer to debate evidence rather than dogma.

Interesting... I'm curious, though, why you've chosen to debunk Christianity over the other religions. I have seen and heard ample evidence that has convinced me of the truth of the Gospel, whereas it seems to me that many of the other world religions are based almost entirely on faith. I would agree, though, that there must be a leap of faith somewhere along the line no matter what belief you subscribe to. Could you point me to any evidence for atheism, or is it simply faith based on a lack of evidence for other religions? I must say that, although I don't subscribe to it, I find atheism very intriguing, probably more so than the really weird New Age stuff out there.

Atheism is the lack of belief in any system, just like darkness is the absence of light, cold the absence of heat, etc. You tell me to prove that there is no god, I tell you to prove that there is. I know you're hankering for a creation/evolution debate right now, but I'm the wrong one for that, because I don't put much faith in evolutionary theory, because I don't think they've got the bugs worked out quite yet. And it's still a theory, and can't be proven. I do accept it at face value, though, simply because it makes more sense than the alternative (plants flourishing before the sun was made indeed).

I did go into a lenghty discussion as to why I chose to debunk Christianity in the debate forum attached to the article, so I'll give the highlights: I live in the US, and no Muslims or Hindus or weird new-agers are knocking on my door to convert me, or trying to ram their religions through our schools or legislatures. Only Christians are doing it, in the name of what they term the "ttruth." Therefore, if I can show them a new truth, maybe they'll let me sleep in on Saturdays, and my nephews might have a chance at a real science education. And if they choose to learn about creationism, they can do it in a church, where it belongs.

Actually, I have no desire to spark another creationism/evolution debate, nor am I trying to ram my beliefs down your throat. I'm merely trying to hear a decent defense of atheism.

-You tell me to prove that there is no god, I tell you to prove that there is.

It is much easier to provide evidence for the existence of God than it is to provide evidence against it. Incidentally, saying that a lack of evidence for something qualifies as evidence against it is one of the cardinal sins against logic.

By the way, once one has accepted that an omnipotent God created the cosmos, it's not that hard to think that He made plants flourish before He made the sun.

Please believe that I'm not trying to be insulting, but my view is that atheism cannot be based simply on dissatisfaction with religion. Even if all of the world's religions are completely wrong, that still does not preclude the existence of some type of god. For atheism to be valid, it must provide evidence that God does not exist.

"nor am I trying to ram my beliefs down your throat." Easy now. I wasn't accusing you, just Christians in general. After all, it is part of the doctrine of all Christian denominations to go out and convert the heathens.

"By the way, once one has accepted that an omnipotent God created the cosmos, it's not that hard to think that He made plants flourish before He made the sun." - An even bigger sin against logic, in my mind. I've heard someone try to rationalize that the days of creation were really millenia, and that the order of creation in science correlates exactly to the order of creation in Genesis. But the sad truth is, no water or plants or anything could have existed on earth before the sun.

This is the primary problem of arguing against creation; belief in an almighty spirit makes all sorts of illogical arguments sound plausible. Remove this premise, and it falls flat.

"Please believe that I'm not trying to be insulting" - I do believe that, and I'm not trying to be evasive, either. Atheism basically operates on the premise that religion doesn't have any answers, where the sciences are at least beginning to do so. As for belief in the Christian god, you've already read about why I disbelieve him, aside from the spiritual questions he leaves unanswered. I've never yet seen a satisfactory answer to this quote: "Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not. If he cannot, he is not all powerful, but if he will not, he is not all good."

"For atheism to be valid, it must provide evidence that God does not exist." How does one go about proving that there is no Santa Claus? He lives in the North Pole, which is a treacherous journey beyond our means. Sure, some people don't get visited by him, but that's because they're heathen materialists who worship Sears. And he's never been seen simply because he doesn't want to be. But if you close your eyes, you can almost see him; you can feel him in the air on Christmas Eve, bringing happiness and love to all the children of the world.

People disregard Santa because they know the origin of the myth, and so they know him to be a myth. It is the same way with gods. They have been around for longer, so we can't trace their precise origins, but every ancient society believed in some. As for Judaism being the first monotheistic, this isn't true at all. Most tribes in that area believed in a single god that governed their people, while other gods governed other people. And so it is that the tribe of Yahweh went to war against the tribes of Baal and others.

So, knowing that all these religions grew up in relatively the same way, for the purpose of explaining myterious phenomena like the days, the sun, the stars, the wind, etc., and also helping the rulers keep their people under control, it's easy to see that they're all, at heart, myths. But if you continue to believe in gods, then what makes Yahweh any more valid than Baal? He had his worshippers, and would likely still be worshipped if the followers of Yahweh hadn't massacred them and stolen their land.

The problem in all of this is that both of us are making perfect sense to ourselves. For every good argument that you can come up with against God, I can come up with a good counter-argument, and you can do the same with my arguments. Since I have accepted the idea of an omnipotent God, I have found arguments to support that idea that are logically sound. You have obviously done the same from your point of view. Unfortunately, I doubt that either one of us is going to come up with an argument that completely convinces the other side. Presuppositions are such a pain...

I'm not going to respond to all of your points (unless you want me to) because I think I'd probably just be re-hashing what has been previously said, so I'll just say a few quick things.

Regarding the Christian practice of proselytizing: I think I can understand your frustration towards Christians who try to force their beliefs on you. It really bugs me, too. In a lot of areas, Christians have really screwed up. Threatening someone with death is no way to get them to convert, nor is shoving a Bible down their throat. My personal view on proselytizing is that Christians should offer their beliefs to others when the opportunity presents itself, not throw it at every passing stranger. If someone doesn't want to hear what you have to say, they won't hear it no matter how loudly you yell.

Item number two: I'm not sure how satisfactory this is, but this is my response to your quote that "Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not. If he cannot, he is not all powerful, but if he will not, he is not all good." I think that there is another answer to the "he will not" clause. I would argue that He will not because He chooses not to with good reason. If there is no opportunity for evil, then there logically is no opportunity for anything but good (or at least an absence of evil). In this case, mankind is reduced to a race of robots who have no choice but to follow God. This is not what He wants. He would rather have a race of people who have seen the alternative and have chosen to follow Him anyway. Some would also argue (and I may count myself among them) that He has started the process of abolishing evil by sending Jesus Christ.

I don't know if that does much to answer the age-old problem of evil, but that's my take on it. I will admit that this is something that has caused countless theologians to lose sleep. There really isn't a complete answer out there. To some degree, it's just something we have to take on faith.

And that's the problem with this conversation...you're looking for definitive answers as well, or at least ones you can disagree with. But at least I am honest in my ignorance. All the answers will never be known in our lifetimes, but there are theologians and evolutionists alike who are convinced that they have the answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. They're the ignorant ones, if you ask me.

There are also non-believers out there who proselytize, although not in the organized way that Christians do. I prefer passive methods like my articles. My stance is out there, and people can choose to read it, or not. Then they can choose to respond, or not. But when they do decide to debate me, I am all too happy to do so.

I suppose I would agree somewhat that those who pretend to have all the answers are the ignorant ones. That's one of the reasons I started this conversation in the first place -- I wanted to hear the case for atheism straight from the proverbial horse's mouth, thereby considering other people's answers.

I do find it interesting that you've tried to show that Christianity is unreasonable. Over the years, I have made a concerted effort to disprove Christianity in my own mind, but I can't do it. I can come up with no logical way to explain Life, the Universe, and Everything without the God of the Bible, nor have I heard any decent explanations from others. Certainly, there are problems with Christianity (although I've usually found that those problems actually lie within Christians, not the doctrine of Christ), and I am still trying to reconcile those problems. However, I can find no way to explain the creation of the cosmos without some sort of god. There's no way to satisfactorily explain the nature of the cosmos without a personal God. Finally, there's no way to explain the life, death, and resurrection of Christ without the God of the Bible (granted, there are alternative explanations, but they just don't hold water).

Again, I'm really not trying to be insulting. I am in the process of constructing a series of entries on my home page that will further explain why I say all of this, and (as soon as it's done) I would certainly welcome you to poke holes in it. It's all a part of the process of finding a few more answers.

I find you in no way insulting, good Doctor. As you say, it can be difficult to perceive of all of this as a sort of cosmic accident. The human psyche doesn't approve of that sort of thing, we like to believe there is order and purpose to our lives. But the problems really tend to crop up when you examine it further. If there is a god who created all of this, who created him? For if nothing can come from nothing, then smething would have had to create the creator...who in turn had his creator, who has his creator, who has his... It's an infinite loop. It is so much tidier to say "It happened. We don't know why, we don't know how, but somehow, the big cosmic soup mixed around for a few billion years and managed to produce me, although I am humble enough to admit that that was not the reason it all happened."

I look forward to discussing this further on your page.

I'll let you know when that page is up and running. It may be a while, though...

As for who created God, the Christian answer to that is that no one did. I look at it this way: God created everything (except, of course, himself). He created matter, energy, space, time, everything. He also created logic. Logic is a construct of this creation. God, as its creator, is outside of that creation, and therefore outside of that logic. (I do realize that I'm trying to apply logic in a non-logical case, but it's the best we can do.) Logic dictates that nothing comes from nothing, but, since God is outside of Creation and logic, it is safe to say that he has always existed. He exists outside of Time itself, in a sense, so he really didn't have a beginning.

I was looking at your 'Failure of Christianity...' page recently and there are a few things in it that you might want to consider changing (some of these may have been addressed in other forums):

First of all, you refer to Mark as having the story of the birth of Jesus. I think you probably mean Luke (I'm guessing it was just a typo).

Second, your reference to John 7:42 in that same section actually says the opposite of what you say it does.

Third, in the section regarding Jesus' celibacy, you make a reference to John 19:26. If you look at the following verse, it says that that disciple took her (Mary) into HIS (the disciple's) home. Furthermore, there are numerous times in the Gospels where the phrase 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' is used to refer to John.

Fourth, your 'Quotes from the Redeemer' section should really be taken in context. Certainly, some of those sayings sound harsh, but there was a reason behind each one. Someone once said, "A text taken out of context is a pretext for a prooftext" (something that innumerable Christians have been guilty of).

Fifth, in the section regarding the evidence of tampering with the Bible, you refer to parts of the Lazarus story being edited out of Mark. However, the Lazarus story is in John, not Mark. Therefore, either you meant to say John, or the church simply edited the entire story out of Mark. The latter is not likely for several reasons: Luke and Matthew are assumed to have relied largely on Mark and they have no Lazarus story (implying that the church may have edited something out of three of the Gospels); if the church had edited those lines out, they would have left the rest of the Lazarus story in as another example of Christ's divinity (which, since the story isn't in there, implies that they took the whole story out); I find it difficult to believe that the church would have canonized the Gospel if there had been objectionable material in it; and finally, I doubt that there are any manuscripts of Mark that have the supposed edited lines in them (presumably there would have been some copies made before the lines were edited).

I just thought that you might want to take a look at those before someone writes up a massive argument against your page based around an accidental typo. I'm sure you'd rather argue for your precepts than muck around with annoying details.

Giving specific verse numbers was motivated by two factors. First, I wanted people to see that I was taking this seriously by allowing them to refer back to that which I have referred to. And second, it gives the more observant reader an opportunity to point out my errors, so that I can correct them. I'm somewhat ashamed that nobody said this before...

1) Absolutely 100% correct. I feel like an idiot for making this error, and will fix it post-haste.

2) This line was an afterthought, and I guess I wasn't too careful about how I read it. It was referenced to me in a book, and I straightaway leaped to the verse, then apparently leaped to the conclusion that it said what the authors said it did. You forced me to look into its context, however, and I recant, and will remove the offending line.

3) This one I disagree with a bit. Although it does have that "took her into his care" line, it doesn't quite fit. There are only 3 people mentioned at the foot of the cross. If John were there, he should have been mentioned as well. The fact that he is not is suspicious, to say the least. However, it is quite obvious to me, after having read the Gnostic Gospels, that Mary's role in the NT was trivialized, due to the woman-hating bent of the Church. It is not difficult to imagine an old bishop blotting out an "s" on the personal pronoun in question.

As for John being "the disciple whom he loved," a reading of the Gnostic Gospels makes it quite clear that his favorite was Mary Magdalene, who was, aside from his lover, privy to his deepest secrets.

4) My quotes in turn:

a) This one is a parable mixed in with many parables, and so there IS no real context for it. However, this language is much milder than stated in the Gospel of Thomas, as I have pointed out. As Thomas is simply a collection of the sayings of Jesus, there is no context there, either.

b) A rebuke to his disciples for failing to cast out devils. In the context, it reads the same as it does without. It shows a distinct lack of patience with his inner sanctum, and a rather explosive temper.

c) This one is too comical ever to remove. I have given the context in the piece, because it is in the context that it looks properly rediculous. He was hungry, and approached a fig tree when they were out of season. Thus the Son of God, the holiest man ever to walk the earth, the man who could turn water into wine and divide a basket of fish and bread among thousands, is forced to storm off in a huff after shouting at an innocent tree, which was just doing what trees do, as carefully planned out by his father. I laugh every time I read it.

5) I was not mistaken when I linked the Lazarus story to Mark. The entire telling had been edited out, for the reasons given. As for surviving copies, please remember that Clement of Alexandria was a Church father of the 2nd century, and no known copies of the Gospels predate the 4th century. Clement's letter quite clearly states that the passages in Mark had been removed from canonical versions, but that the older copy was still in the hands of the Carpocratians. This is why Clement had the need to detail the missing passages, because Theodore would not have had them in his own. The Church made a concerted effort to ensure that only approved doctrine was ever disseminated. In their centuries of heresy-hunting, they managed to put their hands on every non-canonical version of the NT and burn it. This is not wild conjecture on my part, this is known history.

So, on the ones which I will stubbornly stand behind, at least we can agree to disagree, and I thank you for pointing out the ones on which we can agree. Especially that incredibly glaring Mark-Luke error.