More on morality

Another story on morality. This one takes a more aggressive stance. Having not read the book in question, I can't put forth an opinion, but here's the link.

Creation Day!

Okay, so this one is pretty darn offensive. But it's amusing so I'll link to it. So check it out- Happy Creation Day!

Nontheist Ads

I really like what's being done in DC according to this story. It'll probably piss some people off, but maybe some will take the time to check out the Coalition of Reason that put them up. It could be a step in countering all the misinformation that's out there about nonbelievers.

First Cause

"It has even been said that the highest praise of God is to be found in the denial of Him by the atheist, who considers creation perfect enough to dispense with a Creator."  -Marcel Proust

So let us discuss another argument for the existence of a god, in this case specifically a creator. It's known by various names, but is most commonly referred to as the First Cause Argument or Cosmological Argument. It's originally credited to Aquinas, but more recently it's been touted widely by William Lane Craig under the name the Kalam Argument. All of them state basically the same thing, though Aquinas goes into a bit more detail. To quote directly from the second link above-

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.

Therefore:

(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.

(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.

Therefore:

(5) God exists.

There are rather a lot of theories surrounding the Big Bang. Many of the rebuttals you can find to the First Cause argument start out by saying that the laws of conservation of mass/energy actually prove that the universe did not, in fact, have a true "beginning." The Big Bang may have been the beginning of time, but the mass/energy that comprises the known universe has always existed in some form. Something was not created from nothing. Therefore the assumption that the universe had a beginning, the foundation of this argument, is faulty.

But let us move on, and allow the assumption that the universe did have a beginning. I don't think it naturally follows that it had to have had a cause, and that cause is God. Because, of course, it begs the question of who or what created God to begin with? All the variations of the First Cause Argument make some sort of stipulation for finite beings or "everything that has a beginning" require a cause, obviously to allow God to be the exception. Supposedly he isn't finite or doesn't have a beginning or what have you. This seems like a hell of an assumption with very little proof, but then, "if we can suppose that God always existed- and thus requires no causal explanation- then we can suppose instead that the mass-energy comprising our universe always existed and thus requires no causal explanation." (David Mills, Atheist Universe)

Then there's the point that, supposing there was a beginning, and it was caused, how do we get from there to allowing him "any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, onniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins, and reading innermost thoughts?" (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion) At best this proves the existence of a Deist God. How can the average believer even claim to "know" it was their god that's responsible? "Zeus or Allah has just as much claim to being the 'First Cause' as does Jehovah or Jesus." (David Mills, AU)

There is one final point I wish to make, and it is the one I consider the most important. There is some debate, and I'm not sure how seriously to take it since it seems pretty controversial but goes way too far over my head for me to understand, as to whether fluctuation of the quantum vacuum (I wouldn't bother with the link, it makes very little sense to a non-physicist) actually proves that it is possible for something to be created from nothing. Like I said, I don't entirely understand it, but I just want to make it clear that even if it were proven that something did in fact appear out of nothing, that does not mean that one can immediately assume that God must have done it. God and conservation of mass/energy are not our only options. There were atheists before the Big Bang was discovered/thought of. Just because science has not caught up yet doesn't mean we can automatically fill the gap with God. This is an issue that we run into with creationism as well. When science is unsure of something, "we are encouraged to leap to the default theory without even looking to see whether it fails in the very same particular as the theory it is alleged to have replaced." (Richard Dawkins, TGD) If you expect me to prove the Big Bang (or any explanation for how our universe came to exist in its present state) is true, then I expect you to do the same for your theory that God did it. The very fact that vacuum fluctuations seem to create particles all the time would suggest that something from nothing may be possible, but does it logically follow that God is doing it constantly? If it happens a lot, it actually seems more likely that it can be a result of natural physical laws that we simply don't understand yet. This may not, after all, turn out to have been a one-time event that we need to conjure up a god to explain, any more than we feel the need to say "God did it" every time we jump and actually come back down instead of flying off into space. The fact that there are issues that science can't explain at this time doesn't mean it will never be able to.

So there's my opinion of the First Cause Argument. This is a serious argument in favor of belief that I had presented to me as a young Christian, and much like Pascal's Wager, at the time it seemed like a very convincing one. Hopefully I have made a good case here for why it is not.

A note on morality

I promise a real post will be coming soon, as well as replies to any recent comments I haven't gotten to. But to tide you over, here's a recent story on morality from the online opinion pages for the New York Times. It provides some more concrete examples of some of the things I talked about, and some neat little anecdotes about monkeys.

Morality

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."   -Mark Twain

 

So today we're going to discuss morality. It's a huge topic, so I apologize if this runs long. If necessary I'll break it into two, but a lot of the points are interconnected, so I'd prefer to keep it all together. I was going to wait to tackle something this big, but the question has already been raised in the comments, so I may as well go ahead.

 

These are the basic issues raised in the comments- If there is no afterlife in which we will be punished or rewarded for what we've done, why shouldn't we simply do whatever we want? What is the rationale behind altruism and self-sacrifice? And are "good" and "evil" simply words that we define as we choose, or is there some objective concept behind them?

 

The first issue I'll be addressing is actually not one from the comments, but is a common misconception that I'd like to clear up before proceeding to the main body of the post. There are many religious people in the world who believe that, since we have no fear of hell, atheists are a bunch of immoral heathens. It is true that atheists do not condemn some things, such as premarital sex between consenting adults, however, they certainly do not condone murder, rape, or any of the things one would commonly term "evil." If atheists had no morals, one would expect to see more of them in prison. In reality, the percentage of atheists in the prison population is lower than the percentage of atheists in the non-imprisoned population. Also, many countries (such as America) with very high percentages of religious people have significantly higher crime rates than many countries with a higher percentage of non-believers. "So there seems to be an inverse correlation between a nation's religious devotion and its moral conduct." (David Mills) I realize that the average believer probably doesn't think just because I'm an atheist I would think it's okay to murder someone if it was to my advantage to do so. I just wanted to make it clear for those few who do, that is not the case.

 

So, on to the real issues. Why should I bother to be good if I have no fear of punishment? To answer I will have to venture into the scary realm of evolution. However, I believe it can all be classified as microevolution (evolution within a species), which the vast majority of believers do concede is a fact. (And I can genuinely say those that don't are either hopelessly uninformed about the subject, or willfully blind to reality.)  We'll start with a very brief synopsis of how evolution works.

 

Evolution occurs through natural selection when a useful mutation occurs in a gene (useful being defined in this case as something that increases an individual's likelihood of surviving long enough to pass on the new mutation) and is then spread through the population. A simple, but horribly overused, example of natural selection is that of the peppered moth. Originally light colored moths dominated the peppered moth population, with only a small minority of dark ones.This served them as camouflage when they rested on the light colored trees. However, when pollution from the Industrial Revolution caused the trees to darken, the light colored moths were no longer camouflaged, and were nearly wiped out. The dark moths, which were once a minority, became the dominant color once the trees were dark as well. You can see how if say, there was a group of animals that lived near dangerous cliffs who were completely indifferent to heights, a mutation that caused the individual to think jumping off heights was awesome would not be useful, and the mutation would almost definitely never be passed on. However, a mutation that produced an aversion to heights might result in the individual having slightly better odds of surviving than if they were indifferent, giving the useful mutation a chance to spread through the population as their descendants inherited this aversion that gave them slightly better odds of survival.

 

So how does this pertain to morality? I believe Dawkins explains it best, so he gets the credit for most of what I'm about to say, and all quotes are from him unless otherwise specified. He starts with the reminder that the unit that is "trying" to survive is the gene. He then lists four ways in which altruism and empathy could be useful adaptations that could increase the likelihood of the survival of the mutated gene and thus easily spread through a population. 

The first is the case of genetic kinship. Early humans were tribal, living in fairly small groups. Since these groups were small, most of the individuals in them were likely related. "A gene that programs individual organisms to favour their genetic kin is statistically likely to benefit copies of itself." Since related individuals frequently share genes, this increases the likelihood that those with the gene for helping relatives will survive, and therefore pass on the gene, even, occasionally, at the expense of the original "helper." So a mutation that produces a desire to help those who are part of one's "group" could easily spread through a tribe that is closely related.

The second means by which altruism could be a useful adaptation is the case of reciprocation, and tied to this is the third, reputation. This is, basically, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. One must also include the stipulation of punishing those who "cheat" and fail to return favors. It is frequently advantageous for individuals to live in groups, for protection, help raising young, and to make it easier to find mates, among other things.  Working together within the group makes this more effective. One example is the case of vampire bats. If a vampire bat is hungry, he can go to another and they will give him regurgitated blood (yuck! ^_^). And they "learn which other individuals of their social group can be relied upon to pay their debts (in regurgitated blood) and which individuals cheat." Those who do not pay their debts won't be helped if they are later in need. Thus they are more likely to die, and thus their odds of passing on their cheating genes are decreased. Whereas those who are reliable are helped through difficult times, allowing them to survive and pass on their "nice" genes. The development of language also makes it possible for one to develop a much more wide-spread reputation for cheating or being reliable, allowing this to develop on a larger scale.

The last way in which altruism could be evolved is through "conspicuous generosity." "Altruistic giving may be an advertisement of dominance or superiority." There is a species of bird called the Arabian babbler that demonstrates this very clearly. Their altruistic sharing of food and willingness to stand watch in a position of greater risk is not tied to reciprocation. In fact, if a babbler that has low standing within the group attempts to give food to one of higher rank, they will be violently rejected. In this case, the advantage is that those who make the grandest gestures of largess are those most likely to be chosen as mates by the females (and thus have children to carry on their altruistic genes). Their ostentatious displays of generosity are the equivalent of a peacock's tail or a canary's song.

So these are Dawkins' four main ways which altruism could be a result of evolution. I would also like to add my own point. We, as a species, have an extraordinarily long adolescence. This was a natural result of our developing intelligence. It takes time to learn so much. My point being, in order to raise children through such a long adolescence, it was very helpful to mate for life. I hope by now you can see how this could have developed without an explanation. Empathy is a trait that makes it a great deal easier to mate for life, as well as to raise children, and to live in groups, which is also a necessity. Empathy could easily have developed as a result of, or in conjunction with, our long adolescence.

In conclusion, in the infancy of our species we lived in groups. First as nomadic tribes, then in small villages. This was the perfect setting for any or all of these forms of altruism to develop. Dawkins uses the example of sexual desire to explain how this applies to us today, when we no longer live in closely related groups, and our altruism often extends to those who will never reciprocate, etc. Natural selection programmed us to want to have sex,  because that's how babies are made, hence the fact that many women's libidos are at their highest when they ovulate, and are thus most likely to get pregnant. Yet when humans feel the desperate urge to mate, it is rarely as a result of a conscious desire to make a baby. Couples that know they are using birth control, or are infertile, do not feel a diminished desire to have sex. The drive is a result of unconscious programming, and in the case of those who can't have children, it is a misfiring. To quote Dawkins once again, "I am suggesting that the same is true of the urge to kindness- to altruism, to generosity, to empathy, to pity. In ancestral times, we had the opportunity to be altruistic only towards close kin and potential reciprocators. Nowadays that restriction is no longer there, but the rule of thumb persists." Our sense of right and wrong is a result of an evolutionary drive that is something of a "mistake," but a very nice one. Fear of eternal punishment or hope for eternal reward is unnecessary for the average person to do good. Which makes sense, given that we've already established that atheists, who feel neither fear nor hope towards a potential afterlife, are just as moral as those who do.

So the things that we consider good, and those we consider evil, can be derived from the evolutionary development of our species. As to whether I believe there is an objective standard of good or evil, that exists outside of our own definitions of the words, the answer is no. I see no reason to think that if it had benefited our species' development to murder on a regular basis, that we would not now consider murder perfectly acceptable, and possibly even "good." Deer probably think wolves are evil, if they are capable of thinking such things.

There is one final position that I have heard espoused by Christians which I would like to address. It's related very closely to the question of an objective standard of good. It is an argument for the existence of God that is usually attributed to Thomas Aquinas, referred to as the Argument from Degree or Argument from Gradation. Simply put, he states that we see varying degrees things in the world, such as goodness. In order to judge those degrees, we must have an ultimate standard of good to compare to. Humans are incapable of maximum goodness. Therefore there must be some other maximum good to set the standard. This maximum is God.  This is one of those bizarre arguments that just makes me really confused. It seems a great deal more like wordplay than a genuine argument. I love Dawkins answer, and doubt I can improve on it, so forgive me for quoting him yet again. "You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God." Also, since we have established that concepts of good and evil could easily have developed naturally without the necessity of positing some outside standard (particularly one that also supposedly is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, reads our thoughts, cares what we do, etc), Ockham's Razor allows us to dismiss this argument easily.

Again, I apologize for allowing this to get so long. I promise future posts will be kept to a much shorter length. And if you actually bothered to read this far, congratulations, I'm impressed, and thank you for your time. ^_^

Just some clarification

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes." -Bertrand Russell (his cosmic teapot)

So I started this blog without any clear direction in mind. I just knew I wanted to write an atheist blog. But I'm feeling now that I probably ought to have some sort of plan in mind. If nothing else, if anyone's going to take the time to read this, I ought to let them know what they can expect to get from it. So here goes.

My main goal is to merely make people aware of the issues surrounding atheism versus belief. I am definitely not setting out to literally prove there is no god. Since most believers I know are more than happy to retreat to the "God did/said it and I believe it so there" response to any argument made by nonbelievers, it's ultimately not even possible to prove conclusively that there is no god. What I do intend to do is point out what seem to me to be the logical fallacies of the arguments in favor of god's existence, as well as making some arguments as to why his existence is extremely improbable. I will focus almost exclusively on the Christian God, since that's who I was raised to believe in and it's what I know best. Many arguments will apply to all religions. Since almost all religions are based on a belief in some form of deity, it's somewhat unnecessary to disprove each religion individually if you can first simply prove, at least beyond reasonable doubt, that no god exists anyway.

I will include other things occasionally, like the survey I posted about a few days ago. I also plan a post about why, as an atheist, I was incredibly offended by last week's episode of Glee. I don't want this to become an impersonal list of proofs.

I hope some honest debate can take place, as it already is to a degree. Flaming will not be tolerated. Right now anonymous comments are allowed, but if there's too much trouble with trolling that will have to change.

If you have any specific topics you'd like to see covered, please let me know. I have several in mind, but I'm always looking for more. I do plan, at some point, on going through some apologist books (particularly some of those by Lee Strobel) and discussing my views on what is said, so if you have any books in mind, let me know. Do keep in mind though, that there are some issues that I am just not equipped to deal with (such as the "offenses against an infinite god" idea raised in a comment a few days ago).

I think that's all, so thanks for reading, and enjoy! ^_^

Noah's Ark

"The biblical account of Noah's Ark and the Flood is perhaps the most implausible story for fundamentalists to defend. Where, for example, while loading his ark, did Noah find penguins and polar bears in Palestine?"  -Judith Hayes

I must start off with a warning that this will not be one of my most in-depth posts ever. For one thing, there's an incredible number of objections to be made as to the literal truth of the story of Noah's Ark. For another, I plan to revisit the topic later, so I'd prefer future posts not be entirely redundant. So today we'll look at the sorts of obvious issues one can find, without digging too deeply.

The story of Noah and the Flood is widely known, but I'll summarize here for those who don't recall it clearly. Mankind had become "evil" in God's opinion. He wanted a chance for a do-over, so he decided to kill everyone and everything on the planet in a worldwide flood. He decided Noah was a good guy, so he decided to let him, his wife, their three sons, and the sons' wives live. He went to Noah and told him his plan, and instructed him to build an ark to allow his family and all the animals to survive the flood. As best as I can tell, plants aren't mentioned, other than ones used as food. Noah did as he was told, and over the course of about 80 years built the ark God had given him the designs for. There's some lack of clarity on how many animals were included when it came time to load up. Suffice it to say there were at least 2, and often 7 (or maybe 14?), of each animal. Once the ark was built and loaded, God caused the rain to fall for 40 days and 40 nights, until it covered the whole earth. After about a year, things were dry enough for them to finally leave the ark. They went forth and multiplied, and thus the Earth was repopulated by Noah's family and the animals he saved in his ark.

So the obvious objections. As the quote at the beginning would points out, one of the most obvious problems is just how Noah managed to get ALL the different species into his ark. Since the Christians who are likely to take this story completely literally are also those most likely to insist that evolution isn't real, presumably all the species diversity we see in the world today must be accounted for by the animals saved on the ark. According to this article, current estimates of the number of species on Earth range from 5 million to 100 million. Even taking into account the fact that the vast majority of these are very, very small, that's still an incredible number of critters to fit on one relatively small boat. Not to mention trying to keep track of them all. How did Noah know he hadn't forgotten any of them? How did he collect any marine animals in the middle of a desert? How did he provide for the unique needs of each of them? And of course, how did he keep the carnivores from eating the animals they normally preyed upon?

Along those lines we have the question of feeding all these animals for an entire year. The food requirements for just the herbivores would have been astronomical. And many of them were carnivores. Were there actually more animals included than originally specified, in order to feed them? But in order for there to be enough meat for them, most of the "food" animals would have to be kept alive for a large portion of the year. Meaning even MORE food is required. The ark, already too small to hold the animals themselves, is even more woefully inadequate for holding the thousands of tons of food needed to feed them.

Then, of course, there's the need for water. For the first 40 days, one could argue, the rain would provide all the water they could need. But how did he provide enough clean, drinkable water for so many animals for the better part of a year? We've gone from one ark to needing an armada to provide for all the animals and their needs.

Mark Twain, in his Letters From the Earth, makes some even more interesting points with regards to the survival of all the parasites, bacteria, viruses, etc. For of course, for mankind to still be afflicted with all of the diseases we now see, they had to be saved as well. As this site puts it, all of Noah's family would have to serve "as living hosts for viruses, bacteria, fungi, and other microorganisms capable of producing pathologically based ailments in humans. A population of eight obviously had no chance to survive this fatal concoction of illnesses. If everyone had gone onboard disease-free, the microorganisms would have nowhere to thrive. Likewise, the animals carrying their own specific parasitic problems could not have realistically survived such turmoil." And even if this were a less difficult scenario to have been carried out, why would God have wanted to save all the pathogens?

These are just a few of the many, many issues with the beloved story of Noah's Ark and the Flood. I'll discuss some of them at a later time, but surely these alone make it clear what an incredibly unlikely story it really is.

Check out this site for a much more thorough explanation why this story just isn't possible.

Pascal's Wager

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."   -Thomas Jefferson

Pascal's Wager was one of the first arguments for faith I was ever presented with as a teenage Christian learning how to "share the Gospel," though I didn't know it by that name at the time. And at the time I thought it was the most persuasive argument ever. To sum it up simply, it makes the point that if the believers are right, then those that chose to believe will win everything, while the nonbelievers will lose everything. Whereas if they're wrong, the nonbelievers will win nothing, and the believers will lose nothing. Therefore, with nothing to lose and everything to gain by belief, one might as well hedge one's bets and choose to believe. For a more detailed explanation, see this page.

In retrospect, I can't help but feel foolish for having been so easily gulled into believing this was a legitimate grounds for faith. I know of at least three reasons why Pascal's Wager is very seriously flawed, and there could easily be others.

The first, and most obvious, is the simple fact that this logic can be applied to any religion, to any god. How can we choose which god to hedge our bets by believing in? Most religions are mutually exclusive, no matter how much some would like to claim that all gods are really the same. So we can't believe in all of them. If we choose any particular god, based on the sheer number that we have to choose from, odds are we'll be wrong. Which isn't such a big deal if we luck out and the "real" one we meet when we die is pretty laid back. But if he's the jealous type, we'd undoubtedly be better off just not believing in any of them.

That alone, I believe, is enough to prove this argument is completely useless in determining whether to believe. But there are others. The one that actually resonated the most strongly with me when I first read it was the fact that one can't truly choose to believe anything. In Dawkins' words, "I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the Nicene creed, and I can decide to swear on a stack of bibles that I believe every word inside them. But none of that can make me actually believe it if I don't. Pascal's Wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God." In order to get to Heaven, one must supposedly truly believe.("That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9 emphasis mine) Clearly feigned belief will get you nowhere.

Lastly we have what some might consider the least convincing reason, but I think is a very valid allegation. The claim is made that we have nothing to lose by choosing to believe in a god, even if it turns out he doesn't exist. I am strongly disinclined to agree. We only have on life to live. How many hours of our lives are wasted in churches, praying, studying the Bible? How much money is spent on tithing alone, not to mention the cost of mission trips, bibles, bible study books, religious jewelry, and everything else a "good christian" should have? How many children (and adults) are traumatized by the thought of their loved ones spending an eternity in Hell, or paralyzed by guilt and fear that they themselves will go there? How many families are ripped apart by opposing religious views? "If we sacrifice this one life in doormat subservience to a nonexistent god, we have lost everything!" (David Mills)

So there you have it. What I once considered one of the most compelling possible reasons for belief I now contend is one of the worst. And yet believers continue to blithely assert that it's self-evidently true!

Surprise, surprise

"All religions have this in common, that they are an outrage to common sense, for they are pieced together out of a variety of elements, some of which seem so unworthy, sordid, and at odds with man's reason that any strong and vigorous intelligence laughs at them."   -Pierre Charron

Here's an article about a recent survey of Americans' knowledge about religion. While most articles I've read about the survey results express surprise, I expect most atheists would agree that it comes as no shock to find out that we know more about religion than actual religious people.

After all, it was an American survey. There are no definite numbers, but most studies show that less than 10% of Americans don't believe in some sort of God. Since over 90% do believe, and are teaching their children to do the same, it's far easier to simply believe by default. For most people, choosing to be an atheist is a decision that requires a lot of studying and "soul" searching, not to mention courage to be willing to face the incredible social stigma that comes with the title "Atheist." And of course, we don't have the luxury of answering any difficult question with "faith," every believer's favorite way of plugging their ears and saying "not listening!" So no, I'm not surprised.

However, it's the implications of the results that interest me most. Again unsurprisingly, I've yet to see any articles that mention this. It seems to me that the people who know the most about religion use that knowledge to make the decision to become atheistic. Does this mean that if more people took the time to study different religions, especially their own, they would also decide not to believe in them? It would appear most people's choices to follow a religion are not informed decisions. And do they subconsciously realize this, and choose not to learn more? Ignorance is bliss, right?

Along the same lines, I spent my whole adolescence being taught how horribly evil liberal higher education is. How difficult it is to maintain your faith, since everyone will be attacking it and you, especially professors. My mom even bought me the book How to Stay a Christian in College when I went. And it made sense, since most atheists are better educated than the average person. It wasn't till later that I realized, if higher education tends to lead one away from religion, is it likely that this is because schools are somehow just a bad influence? Or is it much more likely that a better education encourages atheism because once one learns the facts, it becomes increasingly clear that religion doesn't have a leg to stand on? Apologetics claims that science can be used to "prove" Christianity. So why do only 7% of our nation's leading scientists say they believe in a god, compared to around 7% who don't in the general population?

Obviously, one simple study doesn't prove any of these things. But it's interesting how few people seem to come away having even thought of them.

This essay is one I stumbled across a while back, and I feel like it really captures a lot of my feelings about my atheism very well. I'll copy it here in case the link is ever deleted.

There Is No God 

by Penn Jillette

I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?

So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.

But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

My first doubts

"If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul."   -Isaac Asimov

My first doubts as to the legitimacy of Christianity were tied to where salvation supposedly comes from. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9  I always accepted that, thought it made sense. It was all I had ever known. But one day it occurred to me (and to the best of my recollection I really did think of it on my own, though I now know it's been said many times) that it didn't seem quite fair. From what I'd been taught, someone could be a horrible mass murderer, be guilty of the most heinous of crimes, and yet if, just moments before they died, they genuinely repented and asked Christ into their heart, they would go to Heaven. Yet if someone devoted their whole life to helping others, forgoing any chance at a normal life with a spouse and children, was totally self-sacrificing, and yet did not ask Christ into their heart, they would spend an eternity  in Hell. I believe the specific examples I had in mind were Hitler and my little sister, since they were ones I could emotionally relate to. To quote David Mills, author of Atheist Universe, one of my all time favorite books on the subject, it is "a system that admittedly promises heavenly rewards for faith and proper religious beliefs, rather than for real-world ethical treatment of others." I just couldn't see how this was a moral basis for determining who would go to eternal bliss and who to eternal torture. It certainly didn't seem to be the sort of rationale one would expect from a just deity.

I've been told this has to do with the fact that God is perfect, and our sin creates a chasm between us and him that we can never cross on our own. That Jesus's death on the cross was the only way for us to be purified, if we choose to accept it. I'll go into the subject in more detail at a later time, but it seems to me that IF God is omnipotent, as we've been given to believe, there's no such thing as the "only way" anything can be done. If he is all powerful, then the way things supposedly are is the way he chose for them to be. And again, I don't see how this is just.

I've still yet to hear an explanation that seems even remotely morally acceptable to me.This certainly wasn't the only argument that led me to embrace atheism, nor even the most compelling, but it still seems a serious endictment of Christianity, and any other religion that embraces words over deeds.

Allow me to introduce myself...

...I'm RosieLass, and I'm one of the many, many people who have decided to take it upon themselves to write an atheist blog. I probably don't have anything to say that hasn't been said a thousand times, but I do feel this is one subject that can't be written about enough, so I'll give it a whirl.

I'm a 25-year-old, happily married woman from Tennessee. As you might guess from the birthplace, I was raised Southern Baptist. I spent my entire childhood in church every Sunday, and to be frank never even realized that it was optional. I never put much thought into it, but I think I assumed there weren't really many atheists out there, and those that existed were unhappy, immoral people who would eventually find their way to God. I'm not sure how this tallied with the constant messages to go on mission trips and proselytize to everyone we met, but like I said, I didn't put much thought into it.

When I got to high school, I soon realized that the ultra-conservative lifestyle I saw in my parents was far from the norm. I spent those years wavering between being super Christian, and still believing in God but not caring much. I still didn't know how I could possibly not believe in God. I was so thoroughly indoctrinated that I genuinely believed that science showed evolution was impossible, and I didn't like the idea of no afterlife at all.

I don't want this to turn into a novel, so I'll sum up the next few years quickly. I slowly realized the logical fallacies of Christianity. Still afraid not to believe in something, I turned to paganism, but soon realized it made even less sense. Finally I faced my fears and read Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion. And to be perfectly honest, it was the biggest relief I've ever felt. I no longer had to force myself to believe something that I knew, deep down, just wasn't true.

Every Christian always asks me, and no, I'm not "angry at God," nothing happened to "turn me against God" or church or religion. I have simply studied the facts, from both sides, and decided which one made sense to me. Those facts are what I plan to discuss here, as well as pertinent news stories and even personal anecdotes. I hope people enjoy reading it. At the very least, I know I'll enjoy writing it.