Tag: religion

Freedom of from Religion

KevinLeave a comment

Still playing over at Quora.com.  Here’s a recent question:

Why, despite its clear violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, is there still “In God we trust” on US currency and in courtrooms?

The Free exercise Clause:
‘GOVERNMENT shall make no law respecting any organization of religion or prohibit the free exercise there of.’

AND The CONGRESS ACTION THAT WAS PASSED UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AND IN BLATANT VIOLATION OF OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS:!!!

As a result, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution “declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States.” The law was signed by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, and the motto was progressively added to paper money over a period from 1957 to 1966.

Federal endorsement of a deity or religion violates THE US CONSTITUTION.
So, in light of this should be removed asap.

I replied:

You are aware that from the founding of the nation the Senate and the House of Representatives have each had, at government expense, a chaplain? And one of the duties of that chaplain is to open each session of each legislative body with a prayer?

Are you familiar with the “Original Public Understanding” theory of Constitutional law? I suggest you look it up. Your understanding of the First Amendment is flawed.

A reader took exception:

Lisbeth Salandar wrote:

No Kevin, ACTUALLY having a chaplain say a prayer in a secular government body is also severly unconstitutional you history oblivious fool.
My understanding of the first Amendment is based entirely on the words contained within it cûlt boy.
You are competely entitled to your opinions which are not supported by evidence.
But the moment you spread that opinion as fact you are a liar.
And if you spread it as fact knowing well it is an opinion you are both a liar and a fraud.

Government shall make no law respecting any organization of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Can you read?
It isn’t a bible you can just be an apologist for later and say is metaphor Ya non- reasoning dolt it’s an INALIENABLE RIGHT-not subject to your falsifiable and cûlt deluded opinion.

Well! As Randall Munroe observed:  I can’t go to bed, someone is wrong on the internet! So of course I had to respond:

Well, so much for Be Nice, Be Respectful. 

Apparently you’re under the impression that I belong to a “cûlt.”  I assume from this (having had some experience in this arena) that you mean I’m religious, probably some form of Christian.  However, I assure you I am an atheist, but apparently not of the same sect as you.  My beliefs are obviously heretical to yours, thus your need to verbally burn me at the stake for denying your TRUTH.

So your understanding of the First Amendment is based entirely on the words contained in it?  How nice.  You’re not a lawyer, then?  Well, neither am I, but I’ve studied American Constitutional law on my own for about the last twenty years.  I’ve read enough court decisions to make one’s eyes bleed, and I’ve read the non-judicial statements of judges and Justices in great stacks. 

And you propose to stand here and tell me that you would argue to James Madison, “Father of the Constitution,” that the First Amendment prohibits the offices of Chaplain of the House and the Senate, and he’d agree with you?

Sorry.  Not buying.  Not even close. 

The law is NEVER based exclusively on the text.  That invites “reinterpretation” over time – the so-called “living Constitution” theory.  Let me throw some quotes out to you:

“Our Revolution commenced on more  favorable ground. It presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts. Yet we did not avail ourselves of all the advantages of our position. We had never been permitted to exercise self-government. When forced to assume it, we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education. We established however some, although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” — Thomas Jefferson pp.46 – 47, The Living Thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, John Dewey, presenter.

—

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322 Paul K. Sadover

—

“It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism…. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” – George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

—

“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” – James Madison

—

“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.” — South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

And finally, Antonin Scalia:

“It is literally true that the U.S. Supreme Court has entirely liberated itself from the text of the Constitution.

“What ‘we the people’ want most of all is someone who will agree with us as to what the evolving constitution says.

“We are free at last, free at last.  There is no respect in which we are chained or bound by the text of the Constitution. All it takes is five hands.

“What in the world is a ‘moderate interpretation’ of the text?  Halfway between what it really says and what you want it to say?” – Antonin Scalia, excerpts from a speech quoted in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, 3/10/04

I’ve engaged on several occasions with what I like to term the acolytes of Dawkins – the radical anti-theists who hate all religion, but most especially Christianity – and the place at which we clash most often is with respect to Constitutional law.  They seem to feel that judges in black robes sitting at benches can unilaterally dispense TRUTH upon the masses – in short, that the Court system acts as the clergy of the Church of State, solely responsible for the well-being of our – for lack of a better word – souls.

Columnist George Will gave a speech a few years ago that hit upon this.  Let me quote:

“Madison asserted that politics should take its bearings from nature, from human nature and the natural rights with which we are endowed that pre-exist government. Woodrow Wilson, like all people steeped in the nineteenth century discovery (or so they thought) that History is a proper noun with a capital ‘H,’ that history has a mind and life of its own, he argued that human nature is as malleable and changeable as history itself, and that it is the job of the state to regulate and guide the evolution of human nature, and the changeable nature of the rights we are owed by the government that in his view dispensed rights.

“Heraclitus famously said ‘You cannot step into the same river twice,’ meaning that the river would change. The modern progressive believes that you can’t step into the same river twice because you change constantly. Well those of us of the Madisonian persuasion believe that  we take our bearings from a certain constancy. Not from, well to coin a phrase ‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’

“That has become, that phrase from Justice Brennan, has become the standard by which the constitution is turned into a ‘living document.’ A constitution that no longer can constitute. A constitution has, as Justice Scalia said, an anti-evolution purpose. The very virtue of a constitution is that it is not changeable. It exists to prevent change, to embed certain rights so that they cannot easily be taken away.

“Madison said rights pre-exist government. Wilson said government exists to dispense whatever agenda of rights suits its fancy, and to annihilate, regulate or attenuate or dilute those others. Madison said the rights we are owed are those that are necessary for the individual pursuit of happiness. Wilson and the progressives said the rights you deserve are those that will deliver material happiness to you and spare you the strain and terror of striving.

“The result of this is now clear. We see in the rampant indebtedness of our country and the European countries what someone has called ‘a gluttonous feast on the flesh of the future.’ We see the infantilization of publics that become inert and passive, waiting for the state to take care of them.“

So no, cûlt-girl, the mere words of the text are not all that matters, no matter how strongly you believe.

Curios to see if he/she/it responds further.

UPDATE:  Yup:

Lisbeth Salandar wrote:

Religions are all cults by design definition- Just large ones. INFACT that’s what a religion is technically- when a cult gets too big to contain by authorities it gets relabeled as a religion- Pickup a dictionary or look at how any religion forms. What is it that you think these organizations provide to make such huge dividends? Needless fear.
Not to burst your bubble- but this has nothing to do with me you and my perceived ego- it has to do with accuracy and honesty and a blatantly disregarded HUMAN RIGHT.
I could care less what you delude- about your percieved sect of atheism- right there you show yo don’t know what atheism is but at least you figured out part of the truth.
I didn’t have a bad experience with cults- I have to read, participate and basically evangelize about a deity being trusted everyday- understand how that is unconstitutional?

My response:

No, I don’t.  We’re discussing Constitutional law as it applies to religion here in the U.S.  Your argument is that the government cannot even mention anything religious, but from the founding of the nation we’ve opened sessions of Congress with state-paid clergymen offering prayer to a Big Invisible Friend.

Your argument is invalid.  The “original public understanding” of the First Amendment’s defense of freedom of religion is not equal to your conception that it protects a freedom from religion.

You live in a society where a significant majority believe in a god or gods.  The First Amendment protects their belief.

So suck it up, buttercup.  Grow a thicker skin.  If your atheism is so delicate that it cannot withstand evangelization and must be protected from same by government force, then I suggest it isn’t all that solid to begin with.

UPDATE II:  The conversation is also going on in the comments to the original question.

UPDATE III:  Original comment thread DELETED.  Why am I not surprised?  Here’s the rest of the exchange:

Lisbeth Salandar wrote:

Government shall make no law respecting any establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.
That answers what I think.
Endorsement of monotheism on legal tender is without QUESTION UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why do you think we have a free exercise clause? So cults and non-reasoning illiterates as an ignore it? Surely not.

To which I replied:

And, once again, where do you get your oddly worded version of the First Amendment? I assure you it does not use the word “organization.” The word used is “establishment,” oh great Constitutional Textualist. Do some research on the “Establishment Clause” in Constitutional law.

The premise of your argument is flawed. All other error flows from there.

Her return volley:

Lisbeth Salandar wrote:

There fixed it. Thanks- but you are dead wrong about the rest.
Monotheism establishes a singular God. Be honest would you- that is establishing MONOTHEISM excluding all else; hence a direct violation brainiac.
Monotheism is established as being only one God worshipping. That isn’t religious establishment to you? It is to everyone who doesn’t have schizophrenia and even a smidgen of science literacy.

And the reply that, I think, caused her to delete her initial comment:

So we’ve established that you, self-proclaimed Constitutional Textualist, cannot accurately quote the particular Constitutional clause you’re basing your position on, that you accuse ME of being a “history oblivious fool,” (though you’ve now deleted said comment), you accused me of belonging to a cult – sorry, “cûlt,” for not agreeing with you, and now you’re banging your MONOTHEISM! gong.

But we were discussing LAW. As I pointed out, what the law meant when it was adopted is what the law means NOW, unless and until that law is CHANGED through legislation – NOT by the proclamation of some robed priest sitting at the judicial bench handing down Truth.

Is “In God We Trust” unconstitutional? I very much doubt it, given the HISTORICAL FACT that both houses of Congress have government-paid clergy on staff, and have had since the inception of those legislatures. The law DID NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS when it was adopted. It doesn’t mean that now. I’m sorry that this historical FACT harshes your mellow, but there it remains.

You want to change that? Lobby and get new legislation passed. Don’t go looking for the solution in the courts.

Quote of the Day

KevinLeave a comment

From What Scares the New Atheists, an op-ed piece by author John Gray in the UK’s Guardian:

It has often been observed that Christianity follows changing moral fashions, all the while believing that it stands apart from the world. The same might be said, with more justice, of the prevalent version of atheism. If an earlier generation of unbelievers shared the racial prejudices of their time and elevated them to the status of scientific truths, evangelical atheists do the same with the liberal values to which western societies subscribe today – while looking with contempt upon “backward” cultures that have not abandoned religion. The racial theories promoted by atheists in the past have been consigned to the memory hole – and today’s most influential atheists would no more endorse racist biology than they would be seen following the guidance of an astrologer. But they have not renounced the conviction that human values must be based in science; now it is liberal values which receive that accolade. There are disputes, sometimes bitter, over how to define and interpret those values, but their supremacy is hardly ever questioned. For 21st century atheist missionaries, being liberal and scientific in outlook are one and the same.

It’s a reassuringly simple equation. In fact there are no reliable connections – whether in logic or history – between atheism, science and liberal values. When organised as a movement and backed by the power of the state, atheist ideologies have been an integral part of despotic regimes that also claimed to be based in science, such as the former Soviet Union. Many rival moralities and political systems – most of them, to date, illiberal – have attempted to assert a basis in science. All have been fraudulent and ephemeral. Yet the attempt continues in atheist movements today, which claim that liberal values can be scientifically validated and are therefore humanly universal.

If the topic interests you, RTWT.

No, Ann. Just, NO.

KevinLeave a comment

Ann Barnhardt bloviates about the election:

Look, you can tell me about how the United States is “turning it around” when abortion is a capital offense and sodomy is recriminalized. You can tell me all about how the U.S. is on the road to recovery when there are people in the streets weeping and sobbing on their knees begging the Triune Godhead for His mercy and forgiveness for spending the last fifty years proverbially kicking God in the crotch non-stop.

(*SIGH*)

I don’t want her on “my” side.

George F. Will on Religion and Politics

KevinLeave a comment

Former Blogger Jed Baer sent me an email New Year’s Eve with a link to a recent speech given by George F. Will at St. Louis’ Washington University for their John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics.  I respect Mr. Will quite a bit, having quoted him numerous times on this blog including the entire text of his keynote speech at the Cato Institute’s biennial Milton Friedman Prize dinner from May of 2010.  I won’t do that again, even though I have much better PDF version of this speech from which to work than I had of the previous one.  No, this time I’ll just embed the video.

Mr. Will explains that he is “secular,” by which I assume he means small-“a” atheist or agnostic, but his defense of religion in America had me nodding along throughout the speech.  If you’re interested in this topic, I highly recommend the speech and Q&A that follows:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbA5ab18SCo?rel=0]
I will excerpt a short bit, though, to whet your appetite:

When people today speak of nature, they generally speak of flora and fauna, of trees and animals and other things not human.  But the Founders spoke of nature as a guide to and and a measure of human action.  They thought of nature not as something merely to be manipulated for human convenience, but rather as a source of norms to be discovered.  They understood that natural rights could not be asserted, celebrated and defended unless nature, including human nature, is regarded as a normative rather than a merely contingent fact.

This was a view buttressed by the teaching of biblical religion,  that nature is not chaos, but rather it is the replacement of chaos reflecting the mind and will of the Creator.   This is the creator who endows us with natural rights, that are inevitable, inalienable, and universal, and hence the foundation of democratic equality.  And these natural rights are the foundation of limited government, government defined by the limited goal of securing those rights so that individuals may flourish in the free and responsible exercise of those rights.

A government thus limited is not in the business of imposing its opinions about what happiness or what excellence the citizens should choose to pursue.  Having such opinions is the business of other institutions, private and voluntary institutions, especially religious ones that supply the conditions of liberty.   Thus the Founders did not consider natural rights reasonable because religion affirmed them, rather the Founders considered religion reasonable because it secured natural rights.

There may, however, be a cultural contradiction in modernity.  The contradiction is that while religion can sustain liberty, liberty does not necessarily sustain religion.  This is of paramount importance because the seminal importance of the Declaration of Independence.

And he goes on to explain why.

Worth your ninety minutes.

15 Questions for Atheists

KevinLeave a comment

I just saw this over at the Nerd’s place, and instead of reading LabRat’s responses, I thought “I’d better do the same thing and hit these questions fresh.”  I recently received a quite complimentary email from a new reader who is unabashedly Christian, and seemed to assume I was as well.  I don’t know what it says about me that I didn’t dissuade that belief with an immediate response, but I didn’t.  So, here we go:

1. Why are atheists so obsessed with religion?

If life were meaningless and ends at the grave, why even bother. If life is just a monopoly game that’s going to be put up, why even try to take the property and money of others (in a metaphoric sense, of course)? It doesn’t make much sense. Given atheism, nothing really matters since it’s not going to last. So, again I ask you, why bother with religion and its negative effects?

Well, I don’t. This question is directed at those I term anti-theists, or “Big-A” Atheists like Dawkins and Bill Maher. The only time that I ever concern myself with religion is when someone is trying to force theirs upon me.

2. Why are atheists so obsessed with monotheistic religions?

Why only the big three? If all religions are equally false, why only bother with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam? What about Hinduism or deism? Again, it doesn’t make much sense. Perhaps there’s a reason that atheists are so amazingly obsessed with Christianity?

Again, see the answer to Question 1. Personally, one of the reasons I’m an atheist is that I cannot grok, given the myriad of gods from which to choose, how anyone can be so convinced that the dominant god of their culture must be the “one true God.” But that’s just me.

3. How do atheists explain the beginning of the universe?

Often atheists have pointed to the Big Bang to justify their worldview, but the Big Bang actually proves theism. Here’s a simple syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

There is great evidence for the Big Bang. We can be led to it by first stating this fact: The universe is either eternal, or it is not. If it’s not, than my argument is scientifically supported. The universe cannot be eternal because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy is running out. If the universe is eternal, it should’ve run out a long time ago. The Big Bang proves God because it proves the universe came into being from nothing, and nothing cannot create nothing, for it is nothing. Therefore, Something must have caused the Big Bang. So how do you explain away this evidence for the existence of God?

How do I explain the beginning of the universe? I don’t. THAT it happened, I don’t doubt. HOW it happened I don’t know. Why cannot the religious be comfortable with not knowing? Let’s look at that syllogism. OK, the universe was “created” by something, and that “something” was, ipso facto, “God?”

Where did God come from? And if the Creator of the Universe is God, why is He the God of Abraham? Isn’t that quite the logical leap?

Here’s an image by a somewhat more militant Atheist than I that expresses (poorly and unfortunately offensively, but generally accurately) my problem here:


(Click for full size)
So you accept the Big Bang, but all of it was just to create Earth? That doesn’t strike you as just a bit hubristic?


4. How do atheists explain away objective moral values?

Objective moral values are ones that are independent of human thought. If God doesn’t exist, they wouldn’t exist either. There’d be no one in charge to make a universal standard of right and wrong. It’d simply be a matter or opinion. But moral relativism fails. For one, it says that moral claims are only a matter of opinion but it asserts that as a fact. Also, we know things such as rape, murder, and child abuse are wrong, and if everyone agreed that they were right, they’d still be wrong. We know things are objectively wrong because we feel guilt when we do what is wrong; If morality was just our opinion, we wouldn’t feel guilty, for we would be doing what is right for us. So how do atheists justify the fact of objective morality?

“Objective moral values are ones that are independent of human thought.” BZZZZT! Oh, I’m so sorry! That’s a non sequitur. Morals are HUMAN VALUES. They CANNOT EXIST outside of human thought, unless they belong to non-human sapients. I’ve covered part of this discussion before. I don’t have to “explain away objective moral values.” I remain unconvinced of their existence. Those seemingly universal ones are the result of experience through the relatively short history of humanity, and even those aren’t truly universal.


5. How do materialists justify immaterial realities?

Logic, math, morality, and other things such as free will, human dignity, and time exist. These things are all immaterial. We can’t put the number 7 or the Law of Noncontradiction in a test tube. But if God doesn’t exist, matter would be all there is, since there’d be nothing to be the foundation of immaterial things. Everything would come through by matter, and thus, be matter. How can atheists give an answer to this argument?

I don’t grok the question. I do not grasp the (or the need for) the indivisibilty of the immaterial and the ecclesiastical. Logic, math, morality and other things such as free will and human dignity are human. Are you saying “Thou art God”?

Time? Time exists whether we do or not. This is a deeply odd question.


6. How do atheists explain the existence of the universe?

If atheism is true, there isn’t a reason for anything. It’s all an accident. There isn’t any purpose. But if there weren’t a purpose for anything, how do things exist? If God does not exist, the universe would have no meaning for its existence, and would, thus, not exist. So how can we living in a universe that both exists and has no reason for its existence?

This is a rewording of question #3. My answer remains the same: I don’t try to. I accept the fact that it IS, and that it’s AWESOME, and I hope some day to sail among its stars.


7. How do you explain away circumstantial evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

Here are just two facts that help lead up to the conclusion that Christ is risen: 1. The early Christians died for their belief that He rose from the dead. You don’t die for what you know is a lie. No one does, and no one ever could. 2. Christianity started in Jerusalem. If the tomb weren’t empty, the Jewish pharisees could’ve proved it and ended the Christian movement. But they didn’t. How can an atheistic worldview explain this?

And atheists are obsessive about Christianity? We go from “Where’d the Universe come from” to “But what about the resurrection of Christ”? That’s quite a leap.

No offense, but let me comment here: “The early Christians died for their belief that He rose from the dead. You don’t die for what you know is a lie.” How many devout Muslims have strapped on explosives and gone to their 72 Virgins in the sincere belief that “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”? Belief in something is no guarantee that belief is true. “If the tomb weren’t empty, the Jewish pharisees could’ve proved it and ended the Christian movement. But they didn’t. How can an atheistic worldview explain this?” I don’t have to. I don’t know what happened to the body. The Mormons said Jesus came to North America after the Resurrection. Are they wrong? Can you prove it? This seems to me another version of “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”.


8. If the gospels are just pieces of historical fiction, why are there embarrassing details in there?

Jesus being accused of being a demon. A prostitute wiping Jesus’ feet, which was seen as a sexual approach. Peter being called “Satan” and denying Jesus three times. Jews being told to pay taxes to the Roman empire. One criteria of finding a historical truth is to see if the text is embarrassing to the writer. If it is, they probably didn’t make it up. Could you clear this up for me?

Nope. Didn’t realize that was a requirement. What about all of the scrolls that didn’t make it into the final edition? Can you explain to me what was left out and why?


9. If we are just matter, and not souls, why would some atheists support life-sentences?

The matter in our body is totally changed out every seven years. If Cartesian dualism—a view I embrace—is false, and we are just matter, that means I am not the same person as I was seven years ago. And this is also true for a criminal.The justice system is completely futile if atheism is true. If matter is who we are, why don’t we change as our matter changes?

It so happens that I agree with you on the topic of Cartesian dualism (and cannot prove it either), but that doesn’t mean I’m automatically a Christian, or even religious. However, short of traumatic brain injury, we remain the people we are because of the way our brains are wired, not due to the specific wiring components. And, realistically, the “me” of today is not the “me” of fifteen years ago, but what I did fifteen years ago, I did, and not some other “me.”

Personally, I think life without parole is a particularly cruel sentence, but given the fact that it takes decades sometimes to get someone through the appeals process, it can be less expensive to just house and feed them till they die a natural death.  And hey, the system has been wrong before.  Death is irreversible.  You can get out of prison if you’re not dead.


10. Why do so many atheists deny historical facts?

The common view today that most atheists hold is that Jesus didn’t exist. But Jesus did exist. How do I know this? Historically reliable sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, the Jewish Talmud, and Pliny the Younger wrote about Jesus. So why do atheists hold to the Christ-myth hypothesis in spite of what we know through historical facts?

Don’t know. Why do so many people deny that Mohammed was God’s messenger? Doesn’t fit their worldview. Personally, I find it highly doubtful that Jesus didn’t exist. I just question his divinity.


11. Why do most atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Denette, equivocate evolution with atheism?

Evolution does not prove God exists, nor does it prove God doesn’t exist. Darwin did not kill God. Most Christians accept evolution. Why, then, do so many atheists point to evolution as if it disproves Christianity?

I don’t believe “equivocate” was the word you wanted to use there. “Equate” was. Freudian slip?

Why do so many Christians insist that evolution is a tool of Satan? That’s always flipped me out.

Evolution says precisely nothing about the origin of life, it just explains the mechanism of speciation. If you’re good with it, so am I.


12. Why don’t atheists actually question everything?

They’re always advocating skepticism, but fail to question their own views, including that of skepticism. If we should doubt everything, why not doubt atheism?

Those weak sisters are called “agnostics.”

Just kidding.

Doubting atheism does not equate to faith. I’ve done this before, but here are two statements:

I believe there is no God.
I do not believe there is a God.

See the difference? One is an active belief. The other is not. One is an act of faith, the other is skepticism.


13. Where do rights come from?

Most atheists are supporters of the gay rights movement, and are furious when someone denies a homosexual of his or her rights just because of their sexual orientation. So it’s pretty clear that atheists believe inalienable rights exist. But where do they come from? How can they be explained naturally?

Oh, Jesus. (No pun intended.) See the left sidebar over there under “the ‘Rights’ Discussion.” I’ve written probably a hundred thousand words on the topic, and I’m not reproducing them here.

14. How can there be no objective evil, but religion causes it?

A top argument in the atheist arsenal is that religion causes evil. This doesn’t prove a thing, for Pythagoras caused evil but no one doubts that a2 + b2 = c2. But when atheists argue against religion by pointing out its sins, they assume that objective morality exists. If morality were a matter of opinion, there’d be no point in asserting it as a fact. So why do atheists use religious evil to try to disprove theism, when it actually does the opposite?

Because a lot of atheists are assholes? And a lot of ostensibly Christian people are hypocrites? Can you, for instance explain “Thou Shall Not Kill” and “Kill them all, God will know his own”?

A lot of the problem that big-“A” Atheists have with the religious is the amount of slaughter done in the name of some deity, but as one of my readers has pointed out, Atheists have done some major slaughter of their own, once they got their hands on the levers of power. They haven’t had as long a history at it, but they’ve slugged at way over their weight in the short time they have had.


15. Why are there no good reasons to believe atheism is true?

Whenever I ask an atheist to disprove God, they can’t do it. When something is true, there are good reasons to think it is true. But there are no good reasons to believe God does not exist. So why do non-believers count me as irrational when I embrace theism?

Because belief without evidence is, by definition irrational. OK, you’ve convinced yourself that you’ve come to Christianity rationally. You are not alone. But faith is only faith if you can believe no matter what. Faith says “nothing can shake my belief.” This requires irrationality. Bear in mind, this is not a judgmental word, merely descriptive.

I am an atheist because I cannot bring myself to believe, and I won’t fake it.