Atheism on the Horizon

A Personal Treatise of Journey, Critique, and Principle

Sean Brower
Approximately 29,000 words.

Copyright 2009, Revised 2014 by Sean Brower All intellectual material herein is property of the author unless otherwise cited. This treatise is meant as a free, educational document, and will not be sold for any price, through any retailer; rather, this work is intended to be a Fair-use download, provided the document is transferred in its entirety, and credit is given to the author.

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Lazarus Long (character), Time Enough for Love, Robert A. Heinlein, 1973 (page 243)

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 1 Table of Contents i. Introduction of Purpose ii. Disclaimer on Prayer iii. Notes on Exposition iv. Glossary 1. My Theistic History, Or, On Journeys, Hypocrisy, and Affecting Social Suicide 2. The Sin of Naivet, Or, On Faith and Trust 2i. The Sin of Arrogance, Or, On Faith and Truth 3. The Brainwashing Onus, Or, On Issues with Christianity Itself 4. Atheism, Or, On Knowledge, Belief, and the Rejection of the God Hypothesis 4i. Science!, Or, On The Explanation of a Few Gaps 5. Discombobulation, Or, On How I Label Myself 6. FAQ, Or, On Issues I Have Seen 6i. Logic 101 Or, An Explanation of Fallacies 6ii. The Process Or, The Stepladder to Arguing Gods Existence 7. Bibliography Or, Works Cited and Suggestions for Further Reading/Viewing (page 2) (page 3) (page 4) (pages 5-12) (pages 13-20)

(pages 21-24)

(pages 25-30)

(pages 31-37)

(pages 38-41)

(pages 42-43)

(pages 44-47)

(pages 48-50)

(pages 51-57)

(pages 58-59)

(pages 60-62)

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 2 i. Introduction of Purpose I am an atheist. I am not a Christian nor religious, nor spiritual in any way and I have not been for some time. No doubt this is a shock to friends and family, as I grew up taking my faith seriously and living within a devoutly religious social base. Surely, there are questions. This treatise is meant as a primer to answer many of those questions. I will be blunt, straightforward, honest, passionate, and yes, even anti-theistic. While I do not wish to insult people, I will not pull my punches as I challenge ideas. As thorough as I have tried to be with some of the main points, this is in no way an exhaustive work; the biggest problem with religious discussion is that it is so incredibly nuanced that exhaustive becomes a null word. My aims are as follows: 1) to codify, for my own personal insight, the vehement dissent I now take from religion, spirituality, faith, and other irrational beliefs, 2) to convey to others the intricacies of my non-belief, 3) to educate others about theism and atheism, logic, and evidence. I do not intend this to be seen as a personal attack on anyone involved in my life.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 3 ii. Disclaimer on Prayer Please, do not pray for me. Ultimately, I feel demeaned when prayed for. If you think I am wrong about something, try actually communicating with me rather than pawning off that responsibility to some invisible force. If you do not think I have the capacity to do something, help me rather than pity me. If you think me inferior, improve me rather than hoping I will be improved. Praying for someone is to condescend to them in the most self-righteous and hypocritical way. But, put even more simply, I do not want to be prayed for because it is a waste of time. The following chart by Wellington Grey1 illustrates this point beautifully (what a false and overblown sense of being helpful!):

Talking to the air does little (read: nothing) to finagle chance into your favor; clasping your hands and closing your eyes does not bring you closer to understanding the universe; thinking to yourself does not have any actionable or manifesting benefit to the real world. Please, if you care about my opinions, talk to me about them.

Wellington Grey, 2008 (website now defunct); used under the Fair Use policy, Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107, factors 1-4.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 4 iii. Notes on Exposition The author provides an extensive and intensive glossary at the beginning of this treatise. This is intentional: many terms and concepts have been continually obscured and misunderstood by the religious and non-religious alike, and the author feels that it is of the utmost importance to spend time parsing through these words in order to fully understand this field. Please, do not skip this section! While the authors specific objections to Christian theology are discussed in sections one and three, his more substantive and foundational objections are against the concept of faith, which is tackled in sections two, two-one, and four. The author offers a number of digressions in brackets, and informative information in footnotes. While these can be distracting, they do have legitimate, real-world value. Via the prudence of the author, certain people who are integral to both the subject matter and the authors personal life have generally had their names removed and/or masked. This is due equally to both private reasons and issues of libel. Bolded phrases are generally subject headings. Italicized words are generally important and stressed single ideas. The author also identifies book titles with italics. Underlined sentences are important expressions that directly support the section heading. [Red sentences in brackets] are digressions.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 5 iv. Glossary: Antitheism Against belief in gods. This does not necessarily mean that one is hateful of a specific god, though it can be used in that way; the author instead uses this term in its general meaning: an active hostility against theism as an idea that the very concept of gods is dangerous to people and a progressive, civilized society. An antitheist is someone who feels that religion, faith, supernaturalism, and/or spirituality are to some degree malignant and/or hurtful. This is perhaps better explained by the renowned author Christopher Hitchens, when he says on page 55 of his book Letters to a Young Contrarian, I am not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. Apologetics Originally, to apologize for something meant to defend it, or to provide a justification for it. Today, the term apologetics is specifically used to describe the religious attempt to supply a defense (or some logical syllogistic proof) for its theology. These defenses are almost universally accepted as post-hoc rationalizations for religious belief; in other words, people generally do not convert to religion because of them, but develop them once they have already arrived at their conclusion. All current, common religious apologetics have been either outright refuted or shown to be logically fallacious. RationalWiki has some common refutations. Atheism Without belief in gods, or no belief in gods, or a lack of belief in gods, or occasionally (for strong atheists), a belief in no gods. Pedantically, atheism says very little; its descriptive and explanatory powers are small2. It is certainly not a religion it has no doctrine, worship, tradition, or dogma. Moreover, atheists are not a homogeneous group, though some do make attempts at social unity for secular causes, such as standing for the separation between church and state, or voicing opposition to religiously-inspired injustice and bigotry, or crafting support groups for atheists who have come out in religious cultures. That said, atheism can be broken up into different subdivisions that imply a bit more. For example, strong atheism makes the knowledge claim that no gods exist. This is a much different statement from the weak atheists belief position: the lack of belief in gods. Most atheists are generally of this weak variety, and are simply being skeptical. Weak atheism (or the similar, more general term of non-theism) only describes the fact that someone has not accepted the claim of god as yet. People often get caught up with being sure, but the sure position answers a different question (gnostic/agnostic as opposed to the belief position that theism/atheism seeks to answer).
2

The description is that the person does not believe in god, and the explanation derived via reasoned logic and evidence is that the god hypothesis is unsupported and unsubstantiated. That is all.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 6

It is also interesting to note that virtually everyone is an atheist of a kind. As Richard Dawkins put it in a TED speech, An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf. .[W]e are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. Deism Deism is a uniquely different theological position from theism. Its main premise is that there is a creator a Primal Urge or Force that can supposedly be determined by reason alone without a need for faith. This Force caused the universe, but has no other relation or responsibility to it; theologically, this god is therefore transcendent, but not immanent. This contrasts with theism, which is generally the faith in a distinctly single, personal deity. Because of this gods nonimmanence, the god of Deism is a distant, uncaring god who does not interfere in the universe (preferring to let Its Laws of Nature take their course). Deism thereby inherently rejects the supernatural character of most religions, especially the monotheistic Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Examples of such supernatural doctrines that are rejected would include the notions of Christ (or other incarnations), of salvation, of prayer, of miracles, of revealed revelation and holy scripture, and (often, though not always) of sin and judgment (the Deist afterlife is debatable). As an interesting aside, most of the founding fathers of the USA were Deists, not Christians, and it should be noted at this point that America was not founded as a Christian nation or on Christian values as the American right-wing pronounces. In fact, many of those founders spoke out vehemently against Christianity and its supposed supernal morality most notably, Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence and the 3rd President of the US), who even went so far as to rewrite the Bible into the Jefferson Bible, which omitted all references to the supernatural. Pantheism, Pandeism, and other derivatives like Panentheism are similar to Deism but not necessarily synonymous. These views generally take the concept of a Force and apply it to the universe as a whole, positing that God and the Universe are to some degree the same that all is god; Einstein was loosely of this persuasion whenever he spoke of God, he was not talking about the Jewish Yahweh, but instead using a linguistic crutch to describe the universe itself as a dominant will (see Wikipedias article on Einsteins religious views for more; he did not believe in any religious god). [As an atheist, the author rejects Deism; moreover, he feels that the attempt to claim that Nature is God is a redundant and unnecessarily confusing relabeling that ignores the significant baggage of the word God.] Fallacy Fallacies are mistakes and errors in logic and reasoning; they are manipulations and problems within the structure of arguments. Fallacies are deceptions and miscommunications that may actually be psychologically persuasive, even though they are illogical. Understanding

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 7 how these rhetorical pitfalls work will make one a master at critiquing and analyzing arguments (and this understanding should be used self-reflexively just as often as it is used accusatorily!). In an effort to make this glossary a bit more concise, the author has moved the list of fallacy examples and explanations to the end. Please, at the readers leisure, study this final section which explores, in detail, a number of the major fallacies often present in religious discussion. If nothing else, be familiar with arguments from ignorance, strawmen, question begging, and false dichotomies. Faith Absolute belief in the truth of an assertion without evidence for the assertion. In some cases, the belief is because of the absence of evidence, and in others, it may even be belief in light of evidence to the contrary. Faith is when belief in a claim is asserted without proper reasoning or evidence or understanding; it is the excuse people give when they have no good reason to believe. Sadly, faith is often seen as an admirable and respectable trait. [Faith is also fundamentally different from, but habitually confused with, trust. Section 2 discusses the destructiveness and intellectual ruin of faith, as well as a clarification of its meaning.] Falsifiability The scientific and philosophical term, similar to testability, used to talk about somethings provability. If something can be shown to be true OR false, it is then called falsifiable. If something cannot be evidenced in some way, it is then unfalsifiable. Examples of falsifiable claims: There are eggs somewhere in that house. o This claim can be easily investigated: physical evidence could be gathered, and a true or false assertion could then be made. Chickens lay eggs. o Similarly, this statement is demonstrable in some logical or factual way. Examples of unfalsifiable claims: There are kljadfois somewhere in that house. o This statement lacks a definition for kljadfois and/or is too vague to investigate or be demonstrable. Therefore, one cannot examine this statements truth-value until a definition is given and clarified. This is why defining the term god is extremely important. Unicorns exist in this universe. o This claim offers no means by which it could be investigated. It is quite impossible by current standards to even attempt to prove or disprove this statement. Onus probandi comes into play at this point: the person making the claim would have to provide evidence for the claim. Apply this to gods: theists make the claim that a god exists, so they must offer evidence. If someone finds the evidence not to be convincing, they are an atheist (weak) automatically.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 8 Gnostic Knowledge, as opposed to belief. Agnostic then means, without knowledge. Knowledge is the core of human understanding, but beliefs extend far beyond our core. When talking of religion, it is necessary that we acknowledge, clarify, and discuss both terms. [As a philosophical aside: if we held omniscience up as our standard for understanding things, then everyone would be agnostic; however, since we do not do that, and instead hold reasonable, common certainty as our standard, we can and do have claims to knowledge.] Gnostic theists: posit a god(s), believe in god(s), and claim to know there is one/are some, usually based on a revealed holy text or some kind of personal truth. Agnostic theists: posit a god(s), believe in god(s), but do not claim to fully know if there is one/are some. Agnostic atheists: do not believe in theists god(s); do not claim to know there are none. o An interesting note: while this can be a coherent position that someone chooses, it is also the default, implicit position where all people begin their lives. If someone (a baby, for instance) has never even heard of the god-proposition, how could they define their knowledge about that claim? Likewise, they clearly must lack belief or conviction in a god, as they have no idea what god means; if you do not even know the claim exists, how can you believe? An unhelpful technicality, to be sure, but something to be cognizant of. Gnostic atheists: do not believe in theists god(s), and claim to know there are none based on reasonable common certainty (not absolute knowledge), in response only to the definitions of god that are provided by the positing theist.

Visual learners, see here:

God of the Gaps An often used compound fallacy in which there is an assumption that all the mysteries of the universe (the gaps in our scientific knowledge) can be filled in with the concept of God and are thereby explained by God. This is, of course, absurd, as this answer explains nothing.

Unknown credit. Used under Fair Use.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 9 A linear thread example follows. In each case, God is used to explain whatever is unknown: God makes the sun come up. / Scientists begin to understand stars, planets, and orbits. / But God put the Earth in orbit around the sun. / Scientists begin to understand the birth of our solar system and the orbital mechanics that made the Earth travel around the sun. / But God allowed it to happen. This argument is flawed three main ways: one, the arguer always assumes that simply saying God did it will actually explain something, when this is not the case. God as a concept has no explanatory power4; apologists are attempting to use a mystery to explain (hide) a mystery; two, the God of the Gaps is a classic example of goalpost moving a fallacy where more evidence is demanded for a slightly different claim each time the previous claim has been disproven; three, the God of the Gaps will inevitably include a strawman, non-sequitur, or argument from ignorance, as seen above. In the authors opinion, because of this arguments compound nature and prevailing use in not just academic apologetics, but also in everyday laymen debates, this is one of the main paradigm disconnects that causes contention between theists and atheists. Ignosticism Different from agnosticism, but quite similar to the idea of theological noncognitivism, ignostics believe that the concept of god is not clearly defined. Firstly, someone must offer a coherent definition for the god they are discussing. Secondly (and this is what oftentimes sets ignosticism apart from simple theological noncognitivism), if that definition is unfalsifiable, then the ignostic believes that the question, Does god exist? and all other discussions based around that god are seen as meaningless. A fair rebuttal to this view is that it is just another version of Lokis Wager a logical fallacy that insists that because a concept cannot be clearly defined, it cannot be discussed. Lack of Belief vs. Belief in Lack The difference between agnostic atheism (where more atheists stand) and gnostic atheism. Saying, I do not believe X is not the same as saying, I believe X is false; the first is a position of skepticism, while the second is an assertion of response. Debates can becomes tricky when these terms are thrown about; be careful where you put the no in a statement not believing in god is different from believing in no god. See false dilemma in this appendix.

To make this clear, one may ask, How did God do [insert situation]? If there is no answer, there is no explanation. God did it, is a what, not a how. God spoke, is a what, not a how. Slapping God down to an argument does not explain, but rather fills in a descriptive hole with something that is, for all intents and purposes, practically meaningless.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 10 The Logical Absolutes The three, fundamental axioms of propositions, upon which every discourse is based. Law of Identity: A=A. An object is itself. Law of Non-contradiction: A is B and A is not B cannot both be simultaneously true in the same sense. Law of the Excluded Middle: For any proposition, the proposition is either true or the negation is; there is no middle ground. [This is a definition of metaphysical truth, and whether we know or believe anything about the proposition is irrelevant; the proposition is either true or it is not.] The Omni- Words5 A set of (usually) four words, used to describe the most commonly accepted version of God. Unfortunately, all four words are logically fallacious and/or demonstrably false. Omnipotence: a self-refuting term meaning anything from all powerful to a significantly modified almighty. The simplest paradox is able to break the original term: Can an omnipotent God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it? Since omnipotence is a logical impossibility, anyone labeling god as omnipotent has either defined their god out of possibility and therefore out of existence (and they have thereby done my work as a strong atheist for me), or they must seriously modify the term to something less-inclusive, less powerful, and therefore, less god-like. If the response is that God is above logic, then we know they are, one, making things up, and two, again, positing an impossibility. Omniscience: a completely impotent term meaning anything from all-knowing to only knowing the truth-value of all propositions with certainty. A simple question is all it takes to make the apologist modify the original: Does God know what it is like to commit a sinful act? As for the second definition, what about this: If God thinks that He is truly all-knowing but is actually wrong, He would still think He is truly all-knowing. How can He then be certain He is actually omniscient? Is knowing all things, in any meaningful sense, knowable? No, this is this just another logical contradiction. Omnibenevolence: a generally problematic term meaning all good. One obvious problem is the conflicting nature this has with omnipotence: If God cannot perform evil, then God is not omnipotent. But perhaps a deeper problem is the relative uselessness of the term, as explored in the Euthyphro dilemma: Is an action good because God commands it, or does God simply command good actions? If an action is good only because God commands it, then morality is arbitrary and a useless measure of human interaction. If God only commands good actions, then why is God necessary at all? This term may not be entirely logically contradictory, but it is pragmatically meaningless. For more, see here.

Many of these explanations are lightly paraphrased from a YouTuber called antybu86, whose omni- videos can be found here (part 1), here (part 2), here (part 3), and here (part 4).

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 11 Omnipresence: a generally problematic term meaning anything from existing at every place at every time to being cognizant of, and causally active at, all points. Both definitions inherit the logical and physical problem of two things existing at a single point at the same time, but more than that, they both seem to make nature and physical cause irrelevant (they also tend to make God responsible for all the bad in the world as well). Onus probandi Latin for the burden of proof. The side in an argument or debate that makes the most ontologically positive claim (the claim that something exists / is true) is the side that inherits the burden for evidencing or proving its claim. For religious discussion, weak atheists are seen to have no burden of proof, for they simply do not believe any claim, and make no gnostic claims of their own. The largest burden will fall on those claiming that a god exists (the gnostic theist, for they will have to provide one). The strong atheists negative claim that no gods exist has a somewhat smaller burden of proof, as they need only to respond to the positive claims that have previously been made, or to show that gods cannot logically exist given a certain definition of god. Both strong and weak atheists have been known to use the quote, I am not asserting a position, I am responding to one, to make the burden of proof clear. To put this idea into context, consider the following example: unicorns are not assumed to exist until they are proven to exist, and the person who claims that unicorns do exist has the largest burden of proof. The one who does not believe in unicorns has nothing to prove and has no onus. Finally, the one who claims that unicorns do not exist needs only respond to the first person who initiated the claim. Proof vs. Evidence Evidence aids one in understanding the specific knowledge and detail of a given situation, and may include observation, a logical argument, or physical exhibits. Evidence, by itself, does not assume a conclusion, and is descriptive rather than explanatory. Proof (speaking vernacularly, and not discussing math) is when the amount and validity of the evidence is sufficient enough to arouse common certainty, and by and large includes a combination of logically reasoned arguments, research, and peer-review. Proof is descriptive (as it inherits evidentiary description), explanatory (as its analysis will contain a conclusion), and predictive (as its explanation will apply to future iterations of the same event/situation). Teleological, Ontological, Cosmological Arguments These are three of the main arguments used by apologists for the existence of God, all of which attempt to use the laws of logic to show that a god exists, or at least that the god hypothesis is a valid one to some degree. Needless to say, they all have been refuted (often).

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 12 The Teleological Argument is essentially the argument of design that the universe was designed and therefore the designer is god (the watchmaker argument). This argument fails in both the bare assertions that the universe appears designed, and that, if the former was actually evidenced in some way, a specific god can be labeled as the designer. Other problems with the argument are the noncoherence of the word design and the creation of a reductio ad absurdum. The teleological fallacy (an argument from the end purpose) comes from this idea We have fingers because we were meant to have fingers!. The Ontological Argument attempts to prove that the statement, I cannot think of a greater being than God, actually proves the existence of god (i.e. it attempts to prove a priori that god exists). Even the devoutly religious philosopher Thomas Aquinas did not accept this as valid. One significant problem is the Gaunilos Island counter, which uses the ontological premise that, I cannot think of a greater island than the greatest island, to show that the greatest island does not necessarily exist. The Cosmological Argument attempts to argue that everything that exists has a cause, there cannot be an infinite causal chain, and therefore there had to be a first cause. This argument is often used without a clear understanding of the various problems, such as: what caused the first cause? Making up an exception to your own rule makes no sense. Or what about this: even if a first cause is evidenced, how does one identify a specific god? To continue on, it might be possible that there are infinite causal chains or loops; before time, before the universe, and even the word nothing are non-concepts; and so on. The Kalam argument is a modification to this apologetic (most recently championed by the undeservedly pompous, intellectually dishonest, and frustratingly dull William Lane Craig) which changes the premises to everything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore there is a first cause oh, and by the way that first cause is god, and that god is the Christian one. There are a number of other arguments such as the appeals to transcendence, beauty, degree, etc., which all fall into similar logical fallacies, and are not used as often.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 13 1. My Theistic History, or, On Journeys, Hypocrisy, and Affecting Social Suicide And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors. Thomas Jefferson (the Deist); letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823 My journey began, quite simply, when I was born. The biologist Richard Dawkins would make sure it was clear that I was not born a Christian child, but instead was born simply without knowledge of god, and unto Christian parents. That really is an essential clarification which I never really thought about before I made my transition back to atheism, and it acts as a valuable reference for me. One could not claim that my parents were at all fanatical in their belief, but my mother was raised in a Southern Baptist church and my father did go to Seminary and was a Presbyterian pastor. Technically, I was a PK, a pastors kid, though I never identified myself as such (nor did my brother, I think). This parental background, in addition to the relative impossibility of finding a babysitter every Sunday morning, made it natural for me to be raised (i.e. to be brainwashed) in the Christian faith. [It may seem harsh that I use the brainwashing card. After all, as a child, was I not interested in church? Did I not want to get in on the sermons? I was, and I did. I was a curious child and I wanted to be with the adults, and it still stands that I am an adamant pursuant of knowledge. But I did not have the capacity to understand the difference between faith and evidence, or between academic and ecclesiastic/ecumenical knowledge at that point. In fact, religious instruction for children (i.e. Sunday School for Christians) does its best to never actually raise those distinctions. Sunday School is a class in ancient myths and legends, but the children are told over and over again, by adults and authority figures, who are not necessarily versed in history, philosophy, or theology, that those fairy-tales really happened. Couple this with definitions of brainwashing as a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, or the application of a concentrated means of persuasion that uses repetition or confusion, and it becomes clear that I am warranted in calling it, at the very least, indoctrination (with a negative connotation), if not brainwashing.] I do not remember much about my early religious life. I was made to go to church each Sunday (there were times I was forced, and there were times I was willing, and there were times I was indifferent), and while in church, I remember being as inquisitive as I have always been and also as nave as I have always been. The first important events I do remember though, involve my time engaged with the youth here in San Antonio, at Covenant Presbyterian Church. Of course, I loved being drawn in with other kids; Youth Group was a safe place where I could have a semblance of a social life and that made leaving the church so much harder. I took part in VBS, was in a musical play about Jonah, went on mission trips, engaged in retreats at beautiful places in the Hill Country, discussed morality as my moral code was forming, and generally grew as a person. These social constructs tied me to the church, and though they were

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 14 not at all bad or destructive, they were inextricably connected to the problem of religious brainwashing. As the years went on, I began to wrestle with the ideas the church had instilled in me. Mind the audience, this was far before I even thought of the possibility of not being a Christian; this began to occur around and between the ages of eight and fourteen. But even then, I was forced to come up with ways to justify how the Old Testament instructed people to take gays and disobedient children outside the city and violently stone them to death as justice, but the mere act of thinking a lustful thought or coveting a luxury item was immorality at its finest (what torture to a growing American boy!). I had to do mental gymnastics around the Presbyterian principle of predestination (and try not to be offended to my very core when another Presbyterian called himself the Frozen Chosen) when that idea always seemed to me, even as a child, to be inherently flawed. I had to baste myself in ignorance as I realized that most Christians have no idea how the Bible was formed (yes, I am sure the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD was divinely inspired), or that the historicity of the entire book of Exodus has been in question for years (even most Jewish archeologists concede this point), or that most Christians have not even read the Bible (much less the Gospels) in its entirety (yes, it is that boring). Yet even all of this was not enough to make me think about not being a Christian. I knew Christianity was right the Bible told me so, my parents told me so (and their parents told them, etc.), my youth leaders told me so, and my pastors told me so. Over the next eight or nine years however, I encountered four Big Breaks which progressively destroyed my faith and respect for faith and led to my atheism. The first Big Break happened around the time of my Confirmation (freshman and sophomore years of high school) and the two Youth Sunday sermons I preached (junior and senior years of high school). [Interestingly enough, the death of my father when I was ten really did nothing for or against my faith. Perhaps that is shocking, but perhaps not.] The more I studied religion (and was expected to study), the more I was uneasy with it. With Confirmation, I was injected with a vague dissatisfaction a kind of jaded inkling about how little religion as an institution meant. Religion was simply a muddle of haphazard doctrinal elements and Sacraments of dubious origin, Catechisms of prepared words with unfalsifiable meanings, a herd mentality that leeched off of well-intended faith, and a propensity to discuss topics that could not possibly be known (like the end of days). Though those are the words of an adult Sean, and though I could not have verbalized my disquiet in a remotely similar way at fourteen, Confirmation and the understanding of organized religion was that first splinter in my mind that eventually caused my de-conversion. Even under the tutelage of the great pastor Dr. Pastor Name (for whom I have nothing but complete and utter respect), Confirmation did nothing to confirm my beliefs, but only seeded disbelief. [I have read about numerous pastors who eventually acknowledge their atheism, and cite seminary of all things as the influencing factor that broke their faith. My hero of atheism, Matt Dillahunty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) of The Atheist Experience of Austin (http://www.atheist-experience.com/), was similar. As the fundamentalist Christian he was, he took some time off to study and prepare for Seminary, and as he says, live up to my obligation

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 15 under 1 Peter 3:15, but in so doing, became a complete skeptic (and though he is dismissive of the title, essentially a strong atheist, given certain definitions6).] [Curiously, I recall that during my Confirmation I conveyed my feelings on religion to my pastor, who gave me a simple answer: at that point, I was deist (not technically a true Deist, but I held deistic beliefs namely that God was not immanent). The Session confirmed me anyway! The highest governing body of our individual church did not even understand (when I said, Basically, I am a Deist.) that I believed something fundamentally different from Christianity! To this day, I wonder if any of those Session members even tenuously understand Deism (and that is one reason why I included such a detailed description in the attached glossary). It is sickening that people do not even understand what they profess to believe!] [Though religion and theology can be seen as different things, Thomas Paines famous discussion in his Age of Reason about theology touches upon my point about religion: The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.] As stated, I was unaware of this seedling of disbelief. While I was certainly confused, I labeled this doubt as a legitimate and inevitable challenge to my faith. The thought of abandoning Christianity was still nonexistent in my mind I wanted to be confirmed, and I was. In fact, the second part to this first big break involves the preaching of sermons. I had been groomed, so to speak, to be the voice of the next generation in my failing church. I could speak intelligently about topics in front of an audience much better than the others of my age in my youth group (classic introvert personality, by the way: I generally do not like people, but I can pulpiteer to groups well enough in a pinch), and was generally seen as pastor material (or, cynically, matriel). It just seemed expected that I would be that kind of person. And what is more, I volunteered to preach. I do not remember the exact topics of either of the Youth Sunday sermons I preached, but I do remember having a hard time reconciling what I wanted to say with what I knew I was allowed to say. It was very ironic then, at the end of it, when literally dozens if not hundreds of people out of the congregation congratulated, thanked, and otherwise ooed and ahhed me for weeks after each sermon, praising my understanding, my belief, and my rhetoric. It reminded me at the time of my favorite book, Enders Game, in which a character speaks about one of the antagonists, saying, He is winning, but that scares him worst of all, because he doesnt know why he is winning7 I began to see the power of persuasion at work; I began to become disillusioned and strangely empowered with charisma and its effect on the masses. I bought in to it (the charisma I seemed to have) for a while (my senior year of high school), and I even considered going to seminary to reaffirm my faith. Yes, I admit, the lure of
6 7

Implied and/or stated in numerous episodes of The Atheist Experience. Card, Orson Scott. Ender's Game. New York: Tor, 1991. 78. Print.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 16 the pulpit was strong enough to make me consider going to seminary I was good at it and it manifested a power in me that I had not seen before. Am I admitting that the only reason I preached was the gravity of power? No, I think that would be a betrayal of what I felt. But preaching those sermons, and realizing that anyone could preach to manipulate a crowd, did miscarry my resolve and the first break in my faith was finalized. Well, if this first break was such a serious crisis of belief one in which I nearly stopped having faith without really realizing why should not have my association and involvement with the Church and organized religion been terminated once I reached the freedom of college? Well no. I continued to go to church once I got to college, and for all four years of it, too; in fact, seeking out a church was one of the first things I did when I got to Austin. I found University Presbyterian Church (UPC), and I needed it. UPC in Austin was a massive help for my depression of that first year I found friends and people to talk to that I was comfortable with. And indeed, Pastor Two, the campus pastor, and Pastor Three, another pastor from Covenant, were mentors to me for my depression far more than they were mentors to me for Christ (I use that as a huge compliment). I was raised to look to church for the comfort of social bonds. It was what I knew and so that is what I naturally sought out. It took me some time all of my college career, in fact to break from that mold. At UPC I continued to do the same things I had gotten used to doing. I went on retreats, mediated (I had stopped praying by this point), avoided talking about Christianity in specific terms and listened to sermons. Oh, that was the greatest part. Looking back on my experiences, I think it was mastering the rhetoric the pacing the diction of sermons that helped me become a better writer (or at the least, become a better English major). [An interesting note would be that during this time, I also began to study more and more history, even taking history on as a second major. With a focus on the medieval and Renaissance periods of Europe, I had a wealth of devastating information at my fingertips about the atrocities of the Church. Learning about the beginnings of the Church and the barbarity committed in its name, I was certainly more susceptible to changing my faith.] The one thing that first year of college made me sure of was that I had no faith in religion as a concept. And I was beginning to lose my faith in a higher power (God) all together. The second Big Break was much more sudden, and occurred a couple of years later. When I had thoroughly sedated myself in a swamp of spiritual indolence, I put forth the effort to apply for and work at a Christian summer camp called Cho-Yeh. For nine weeks during the summer before my senior year of college (2007), I taught the tenants of Christianity to hundreds of kids. [I should be honest: I was not looking for a way to involve myself more in religion, and I certainly was not looking to make or break the remnants of my faith. I needed a job and money. I needed experience. I wanted to be able to talk to and hang around with my nephew (who worked with me, but even then I rarely saw) and to be closer to my sister and niece.] Almost exactly midway through the summer, I was the counselor for a group of ten-yearolds. One day, during our thirty minute Bible study time just after noon, I had a moment of clarity. My cabin was hanging out behind Chos Post Office for some shade, and reading the

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 17 Bible verse. It was Galatians 2:208, and the internal reaction I had as I was reading it to the kids was staggering: Holy crap I dont really believe any of this I am actually teaching something I do not believe! This is basically the main creed of Christianity, and its bollocks! I am not gonna let some ideal live in place of who I really am I have too much self-respect for that! And I have not done anything bad enough for some guy to sacrifice himself for my supposed sin! What a pompous pig! This reaction was certainly the most violent and clear one I had had up to this point and it was entirely rebellious in nature. [I am proud of the fact that virtually all of my atheism has been justified by rational, logical, and skeptical reasons, but I am perfectly fine in acknowledging that causes are often emotional, and that Ive had significant moments of emotional, unadulterated, mutinous revulsion.] I then had to spend the rest of the summer knowing I was being a hypocrite, but being unable to let on or allude to any trepidation. It was not simply that I was contracted for a job that I had the loyalty to not betray, but it was that I was facing friends and family everyday whom I could not confide in; it was knowing that to own up to my truth, I would have to sacrifice everything and everyone around me. Call me a coward, but that was not something I was willing to do. And in hindsight, I still believe it was the right decision. My senior year in college was a changed one. I felt freer. I still kept up the faade of going to church every once in a while (at the very least, I wanted to keep the friendships I had built up over the previous three years), but I spent more time invested in exploring my spirituality hungry, but institutionally suspicious side. Yes, I still attended religious services, but I used that time for introspective meditation rather than doctrinal obedience, and I viewed the information I was presented (such as sermons) in a much different light than I ever had previously. [I pretty much skipped over any possibility of adhering to another organized religion. For one, the combination of the first and second Big Breaks destroyed the respect I had for religion as a model. Two, my research into Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Bah', Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, the pagan religions of Wicca, Druidism, and other animistic or shamanistic religions, and even the atheistic religion of Buddhism, yielded no satisfaction, interest, pleasure, devotion, or, most importantly, truth. All of them were human; all of them included some kind of adherence; all of them assumed they had The Truth; after considerable research, it all became one big joke.] It may sound silly (or like I was incredibly dense), but despite all of this, I did not fully realize I was not a Christian until a few months later, in my last semester in college. This third Big Break was the least important of the four; it was a slow dawning after four or five months that I could no longer categorize myself as a Christian; my identification fluctuated over this time from a kind of Deism mixed with Panentheism9, to Pantheism10, and then finally settling on Pandeism11. Pandeism reflected what I had begun to feel that the idea of spirituality was not out of the question, but an intelligible deity was a bit too loony to continue to believe in. I knew that no one (and I refer to those religious friends and family I had) would respect this conclusion I had come to, or even really understand my position without
8

NIV: I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 9 The universe is IN God; all of existence (and transcendental existence) is just a part of Gods being. 10 God IS the universe; all of existence is EQUAL to God. 11 Mix of Pantheism with Deism; God BECAME the universe, and is no longer living.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 18 lengthy discussion and so I kept quiet from most people. [When I first learned about Taoism in high school (during the first Big Break), I had a moment where I identified with the idea of the Tao12, and I told Another Person I might be Taoist. She looked at me like I was insane, shook her head, and merely said, No, Sean. That kind of intolerance simply being dismissive of possibilities was why I knew I could not tell people about my newfound feelings.] The last of my college days were free of Christianity, and though I still kept a kind of reverence for the natural world through a pandeistic faith, I would soon find the strength to abandon the chain of irrational belief altogether. To my very anxious and intense surprise, I was approached soon after I graduated and came back to San Antonio (May 2008, around six months after I labeled myself as a Pandeist) by Named Persons, the overseers of the youth program, about becoming one of the youth leaders at Covenant. I was still spiritual in some way, I had history as a leader in the church, no one was aware of my de-conversion, and the kids knew and liked me. So, after a week or two, I accepted. What? Why?! I mean, why would I put myself through something like that, when I already had a more than difficult time at a summer camp? How could I do that to the children? And how did I have the audacity to say yes to a request that was so contrary to my own belief? It makes no sense! How could I dare be such a hypocrite?! I felt I had an obligation to not disappoint those in my church and family who had grown to count on me for that kind of support (charismatic knowledge of rhetoric and theology), such as the youth, if not the youth leadership itself. The church the brainwashing kept me coming back; I have made the analogy in the past to the battered wife it was all I knew, it was where I got support, and as the church had always taught me, I was worthless without God. Admitting any kind of non-spirituality when brought up in a life like that is social suicide. [Perhaps it would not have been so, had I acknowledged atheism while in elementary or middle school, but kids do not normally mature to rational and intellectual awareness at that age.] So I became a youth leader. Now, full disclosure to all Christians and religious persons reading this, I downplayed my spiritual duties as often as I could attempted to be the cool adult who was fine with just hanging out but eventually I had to say prayers, I had to teach from the Bible, and I had to rub myself in the filth of duplicity. It was a disgusting time of my life, and combined with the other problems I was going through (such as finding an actual job, and then getting one, but merely on substitute pay), I sank into a depression that I did not show which only made it harder. But then something happened. The fourth Big Break happened when my mother came back from a TDY (Temporary Duty) in January of 2009. She had gone to see my brother for a short vacation, and there he laid a bombshell on her: he was an atheist! *Cue singing choirs of ang uh choirs!*

12

The Way; using compassion, moderation, and humility to connect oneself with nature; the principle of yin and yang belongs to the Tao.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 19 Okay, not funny (well, a little). But truly, it was another mind-opener, that faith could be forsaken entirely. Apparently, he had been struggling for as long as I, but our personalities and paths were quite different, and so it made him distance himself from family rather than force himself to submit, as in my case. Though I have not talked to him about this, and so will not say much on the subject (I will let him make his own statement if he ever wishes), I will say this: if his feelings are at all like mine, then he left San Antonio and this life because he could not live happily and freely. On one hand, there was the loss of friends and family and acceptance, but with a gained ability to live as he saw fit, and on the other hand, there was living a miserable life that felt wrong to his very core. When he finally was able to tell my mom, she said it was like a burden that he finally shed. How do you think I feel, now? Back on point, this fourth break taught me one of the most important things in my life: the utter stupidity, iniquitousness, shamefulness, inanity, witlessness, irrationality, absurdity, ignorance, recklessness, ignobility, lunacy, immorality, delusion, imbalance, and plain silliness of faith. Why was I a Pandeist? Because it was what I felt like believing what I wanted to believe. Why was I previously Christian? Because people told me to be one. So, I would believe in religion or spirituality, entirely without evidence, because why? It was asking this question that made me realize I could be nothing but an atheist. It was at this point that I realized skepticism was the only intellectually honest way to approach claims about reality, and that open-minded philosophy led me to the only possible conclusion atheism. [Section 2 is a more in-depth look into the problem of faith. Amidst all my arguments against spirituality, religion, and Christianity itself, my prime beef is with faith. And without faith, all this spiritual nonsense is brought to its knees.] While my official de-conversion date was then January 2009, I use the summer of the same year as my technical de-conversion date. I spent the spring and summer doing as much research as I possibly could into the big question theist/atheist arguments Kalam/First Cause, Pascals Wager (one of the saddest and most pathetic arguments, ever), design, non-cognitivism, quantum physics, the problem of evil, http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/, logical fallacies, and so, so, so many others in order to extend and amalgamate my learning, and establish my skeptical atheist paradigm. By the end of the summer, I was a dyed-in-the-wool strong atheist and antitheist, and I began to write the basics of the paper you now read. To sum up: 1. I was born without knowledge of the god claim. 2. I was brainwashed to be a Christian, and though I struggled with dogma, I remained in the faith for much of my life, even becoming quite dogmatic myself. 3. My first Big Break happened slowly over four years, and it was the epiphany that religion as a concept was fundamentally broken and could be manipulated. I also spent this time trying to reconcile my beliefs with the doctrine of the faith. 4. My second Big Break was a sudden and violent recognition that I did not believe certain fundamental aspects of Christianity. 5. My third Big Break was the realization that I was not a Christian. It happened faster than the first, but much slower than the second, and at the end of this period, I categorized myself as a Pandeist.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 20 6. My fourth and final Big Break was another abrupt and ardent understanding, this time about the contemptibleness of faith. This also was the acknowledgment of my atheism. After some time, I admitted Strong Atheism, and came out in October/November of 2009. During my life, I have misled and manipulated men, women, and children into believing that I was a practicing and devout Christian. I cannot apologize enough for my hypocrisy. [I am not apologizing for my atheism. I am apologizing for pretending to believe something I did not. I must emphasize that my hypocrisy was following the Christian teachings even when I did not believe. It was not some kind of promotion of atheism while professing Christianity I did not lead any kids (or adults for that matter) away from religion (sadly, in my humble opinion). I was loyal to the jobs I was asked to do, so no claims of corruption can be made. I may have been a hypocrite out of cowardice, but I am no vindictive, malignant, manipulator.]

7.

Here ends my journey with anticipation and hope: this age of instant, global access to knowledge (that so helped me make my choice) will cause a revolution that will bring down the pillars of all religions. Even those satisfied in their religious convictions will be exposed to more evidence, as well as more rational, logical, and skeptical arguments. This revolt against the Bronze-Age occult may not be satisfied in my time, but I shall spend my life striving in and for the never-ending pursuit of truth, and just maybe, my teaching will free a single human being from the dark boundaries of faith, to cheers of awakening and rational felicity.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 21 2. The Sin of Naivet, or, On Faith and Trust [S]hake off all the fears & servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson; letter to nephew Peter Carr, August 10, 1787 Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Richard Dawkins; Edinburgh Intl. Science Festival, April 15, 1992 There are those who scoff at the schoolboy, calling him frivolous and shallow: Yet it was the schoolboy who said Faith is believing what you know aint so. Mark Twain; Following the Equator, 1897 As a spiritual notion, I reject sin; judgment by an abstract deitys supposed morality is not something that even makes sense to me, much less is something that I would want to spend my life adhering to and worrying about. But in a secular context where sin is simply a reprehensible action I believe the noun goes a long way in exploring the great problems of spirituality. The first sin that I would propose is the sin of gullibility: faith. Faith is offensive, not just in its everyday use, but offensive as a concept to the progress of humankind it is a betrayal to the gift of our mind. Faith is a circular and blind system of credulity that forces even the most intelligent and wise humans to stop thinking. First, a paradigm must be asserted for the concept of faith something that clarifies and extends the glossary definition that has been offered because the nomenclature seems to have been clouded by apologetics: Faith is not trust. Trust is a propensity to rely on, and expect, an outcome that one favors, based on complex relationships and events in ones life. Faith is a confidence in both the subjective, personal truth and the supposed Absolute Truth of ones belief, regardless of the facts or values that would either contradict, or even substantiate, that belief. Trust is earned, but faith is assumed. Trust has to be earned through relationships with people, for people, over a length of time, via a rubric of criteria, while faith only needs to be accepted by a singular being, in a single moment, for whatever one wishes to believe. Trust is contingent on the outcome, but faith is certain of the outcome. Trust depends entirely on the status of what happens Will mom pack my lunch today? Can I trust her to do the same tomorrow? while faith assumes the inevitability of a specific end result, regardless of any evidence that would prove or disprove that belief I know God is real. I will see Him in the afterlife. Trust is an equation of variables, but faith is a single quantity. Trust can be lost based on the process, the status of the outcome, a change in personality, or any number of factors, while faith either exists in ones mind, or it doesnt it is accepted as truth, or it is denied as irrational. Trust is changeable,

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 22 while faith is fixed. Some religious people may say they struggle with faith, but this is not a variable in the complex relationships of trust, but an argument about a single position: Do I believe? With this clarification made, one may begin to see how the concept of faith is an illogical and irrational one, but that is not even the intention at the moment. The purpose for this foundation is to break down the failures in communication; having faith in god is not the same as trusting god, and trusting god is a non-concept; trust is an entirely physical, relatable, falsifiable thing and cannot have any relation to an abstract deity. In the same vein, if one trusts someone else without evidence, then it is not actually trust, but faith. Because of this, faith is unworthy of glorification or respect or devotion. As seen here, faith espouses a lack of empirical evidence and relies entirely on feeling and emotion in order to feign certainty. While feelings are certainly not inappropriate elements to have and use in life (no normal and socialized human could live without them), using feelings alone in order to analyze reality is a great fallacy reality is a rational, objective thing, and can only be studied with accuracy in a rational, objective way. One may take issue with my philosophical stance on objectivity and reality, but I implore one to give me a falsifiable, scientifically and socially accepted theory or advance (or any progression/development of the human race) brought about by faith. The very definition of faith is one of an irrational, illogical, and blind concept all faith is blind; none of our great scientific advances the circuits, electricity, and software that allows me to type this; the medicines, vaccines, and nutritional products that have extended modern human lifespan by decades; Einsteins Special and General Relativity which have ushered in a new age of physics; Norman Borlaugs disease-resistant wheat that has saved over a billion people were ever accomplished by illogical means, irrational beliefs, or without evidence and observation everything that makes modern society what it is has come from objective investigation and production. [As I wrote feign certainty, I thought about the platitude I learned as a Christian: the opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty line. I do not understand how someone can take the definition of a word, twist its meaning 180, and then act like they have accomplished something deep? (How did I buy it?) The opposite of faith is doubt. The definition of faith states that one is certain despite the lack of evidence: confident belief in the truthof a thing; believed especially with strong conviction. A strong conviction is quite the opposite of doubt (doubt = lack of confidence in)! Whoever came up with this phrase was outright lying and should be mortified at their idiocy and duplicity13. Many Christian leaders need to exploit an intellectualsounding catchphrase like this one in order to engage their audience (which is frequently either younger people or the born again crowd). These speakers slyly focus on the lack of proof part of faiths definition in order to expound upon how it is frightening and hard and therefore uncertain. Unfortunately, that would be a non-sequitur. Faith is the 100% acceptance of
13

Not Anne Lamott, as some people claim. Her article (http://www.salon.com/life/col/lamott/2003/12/05/advent) reveals that she heard the phrase from a friend. She also does not seem to understand that her article contradicts this phrase, as she states, Faith includes noticing the mess, and emptiness and discomfort, and letting it be there until some light returns. While she plays on the lack of proof part of faiths definition, she misses the main point that she will let it be there and yet still believe which is confidence! How is that not a reliance on ones circumstances? Language should be clear!

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 23 something with 0% understanding of it. However hard or difficult that is, it is not an uncertain position. This meme14 (the phrase itself) is so damaging to the human mind because of its inherent fallacy and pervasiveness that I would relate it as a virus.] This is why any and all faith is blind, irrational, and a force of gullibility, but what about the other claim? What makes faith circular? How and why is that a bad thing? While proof, or even evidence, is unneeded for faith to be employed (as mentioned), disproof, or evidence to the contrary, is similarly dismissed and/or ignored. This is where things start getting hairy: ignoring important elements of reality in order to persist in a belief creates an unfalsifiable circular system that cannot be challenged or appealed. Any evidence that would contradict the belief is cited as only a test: The world is testing my faith. It is the perfect noloss system for the faithful; they are always right and the argument ends! They can never be disproved, they can never be contested (like children plugging up their ears), and their faith can never be broken. There is actually another word for that delusion15. Psychological fantasy. One dissociates and distances oneself from reality by claiming faith as the end-all, be-all of the argument. Unfortunately, being stubbornly certain and unwilling to accept counterarguments does not equal logic. This should be a frightening realization to the faithful; in order for them to investigate the matter more clearly, they should begin by asking questions: Why is it good to believe something made-up (or something without evidence)? Why is faith seen as a virtue? How did this concept become noble or honorable? Why is faith seen as morally superior to authentication by religious people? The statement, I believe in leprechauns, is automatically taken as a statement of foolishness and/or of humor. So why, if one swaps out leprechauns for God, is it all of a sudden something sage and wise? Is not wisdom the use of correct judgment and discernment through factual experience? What is the difference between saying God and saying Odin? Why is the unjustified and unqualified belief in an unfalsifiable higher power somehow an achievement to be imitated and praised? What can be done to prevent this dead-end that faith creates in arguments? These questions focus on the crux of my point: faith used as the epitome of argumentation or as any argument at all is nonsense. I cannot explain how farcical this is in any better terminology or with any better rhetoric. It is purely downright zany. Witchcraft, God, the Holy Spirit, invisible pink unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, an inherent value for gold or other rocks, faith in one holy book vs. another, jinxes and other superstitions, unfounded
14

(pronounced meem) A semi-scientific term coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene which has entered the common lexicon; meme refers to the understanding of how social and cultural ideas are propagated, and very closely mimics the concept of natural selection in gene replication. Here, the author targets the precariousness of an illogical meme in the hands of charismatic leaders. 15 While some have claimed this argument sounds extreme, one needs only look to Karl Jaspers three criterion fo r delusion (which are still used in modern psychology) to see that this is a sound statement. Those three are: absolute certainty or conviction of belief, incorrigibility in how one deals with counterarguments, and the falsity or otherwise impossibility of the content of the belief. The author isnt offering an actual psychiatric diagnosis, or claiming that religious people have a mental illness; rather, the author is simply explaining that faith is a blinder to reality.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 24 belief in anything it is all just laughable. We (as a general percentage of the populace) ridicule the nut-job on the street who claims to be Elvis, yet in the same breath we (as that same population) extol someone who claims they get their moral code from an invisible space daddy. No, faith is not something to be proud of. Faith is what the cavemen had to have to emerge from the Stone Age and create their myths about fire and water and earth and air. Faith is not for the rational and scientific twentyfirst century. Faith is for a species that relies entirely on its animalistic, emotional brain. Faith is not for the progress of a species that tests and filters its ideas with a logical mind. Faith is for the bigoted, the brash, the broken, the bestial, the backward, and the blind. Faith is not for the bantam, the benevolent, the bona-fide, the balanced, the bright, or the brave. To finish, allow me some final definitions for faith, this time in short form: Faith is not a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance. Faith is hope and desire, masquerading as knowledge. Faith is the excuse people give when they have no actual reason or justification to believe what they do. Faith is the disgusting and dangerous lie humans invented for themselves in order to feel better about their own willful ignorance. Lets get rid of faith. Lets trust reality on realitys terms.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 25 2i. The Sin of Arrogance, or, On Faith and Truth Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe. Thought of as coming from Doctor Faustus (1604) by Marlowe or Faust (1808) by Goethe, though no evidence supports this view. Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. Originally from Elbert Hubbards16 book, Little Journeys: To the Homes of Great Philosophers, Volume XIV (1903), and then in Ira D. Cardiffs book, What Great Men Think of Religion (1945); although these two authors attribute the quote to a free translation of Edward Gibbon17, who freely translated Seneca the Younger18, there is no primary source evidence for Gibbon or Seneca as the true author of this quote. I wanted to start this section with two dubiously-attributed quotes, not only because they offer powerful insight, but also because they are disputed. People tend to rely on authority figures for truth. This is an obvious fallacy called an appeal to authority (taking someones word simply because they are in a seemingly trustworthy position). I offer quotes at the beginning of each section for two reasons: one, to educate the ignorant on the stances taken by famous people (such as Thomas Jefferson), and two, because those famous people said things in a beautiful and reasonable way that I just cannot compare with19. One should not devalue these quotes simply because their authorship is contested, of course; the truths of their claims are not determined by who came up with them. [In fact, considering that Hubbards Roycroft Press (which published the Little Journeys volumes) was a meeting site for suffragists and other freethinking radicals, there may be grounds to believe that he himself came up with the precise wording. If that is indeed the case, then I would have a profound respect for the succinctness of this semi-forgotten individual. One needs not be great to say great things.] But I am getting ahead of myself. Just as the previous section needed some clarification about the definition of faith, so this section needs some exposition on truth. While the philosophical community will continue to debate what they believe is meant by truth, they have at least made strides to separate their connotations into specific groups. These groups, as I, a layman, define and categorize them, are as follows: 1. Subjective truths are really just beliefs; they are made-up, personal, perceived certainties, which cannot be verified objectively (i.e. they are the random convictions which arise by faith; in other words, they are not provable facts!). 2. Factual truths are the ideas that people will discuss every day in relatable experiences (i.e. they are things that are factually apparent to our objective
16 17

Writer of A Message to Garcia. Died with his wife onboard the RMS Lusitania when it was sunk in 1915. Of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire fame. 18 The Roman stoic; an advisor to Nero. 19 The author can already hear the dissent: But you are taking it on faith that these famous people said these things! Well, no. By being intellectually honest and scholarly respectable in citing his sources, the author does not accept these specific quotes in this section as having come from said famous people (Marlowe and Seneca, respectively); furthermore, the author has verified the authors of the quotes used in other sections and is thereby taking it on evidence, not faith.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 26 experience in reality, and can be seen to be correct to a firm evidentiary degree of certainty). This is the most common interpretation of truth20. Metaphysical truths are the vague concepts which philosophers spend their careers defining and decoding, and usually have some moral or metaphorical characteristics attached to their meaning (i.e. they are things that may not be factually apparent, and which must be deduced and debated, but are seen as, at least generally or tentatively, correct in most circumstances). Finally, The Absolute Truth is a meaningless, logically incoherent, and unfalsifiable term which is supposedly the one universal, transcendent, unalterable, and perfect actuality of all existence and non-existence that is revealed by God itself.

3.

4.

As worthless as this latter term (number four) is, the faithful inevitably gravitate towards it in an attempt to use it to justify their personal, non-factual belief (number one); thus, the sin of arrogance clouds the believers mind: the religious claim that they have been chosen to be in possession of The Truth. Hence, the disastrous connection to faith. The circular paradox of faith is exaggerated and brought to fruition by this fabricated idea of The Truth the God cannot be questioned because the Bible is Absolutely True nonsense. Faith is a subjective truth for ones own life, not for mine, not for others; faith cannot be a factual truth, is not a metaphysical truth, and is certainly not The Perfect Truth for All Mankind and Reality. This is what I would call the sin of arrogance: the faithfuls belief that they, of all things and life in this universe, have The One Ticket of Revealed Superiority. No, you do not. That is narcissism. Stop it. Indeed, this egoism on the part of the religious is one reason why I am an antitheist: this combination is harmful because those with both faith and The Truth on their side cannot take pride in their own accomplishments, and, arguably more importantly, cannot take responsibility for the things that happen in reality it is all up to the gods (which is quite possibly the most dangerous attitude human beings have taken over the past 10,000 years). To illustrate these two disastrous conclusions (that accepting faith and The Truth forces one to lose both pride for accomplishments and responsibility in life), I have found the following anecdotal quotes from real people (some from friends of mine, some from myself in the past) that I will break down: God is in control [of the process or of the outcome]. o This one is a classic that is most often heard from the mouths of laypeople. This is overtly shouting, Nothing I do matters because God will save the day! and Since God brought me into this world, He can take me out! and I just have to pray, and all will be well! If there was ever a perfect example of the harmfulness of absolute belief with imperfect or missing evidence, this has to be it.

20

The saying, A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it, and the truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, seems to apply here, and perhaps to number three as well.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 27 o This one is a combination of both conclusions: not only can the speaker not take pride in the things that they themselves do because those things are really the actions of an immaterial entity controlling reality, but they are also predisposed to the notion that whatever happens in the end (including ramming planes into buildings) is Gods Will. They can take actions they feel they are not responsible for! Saying that God is in control is the same as saying, If I happen to cleanse the world of a few abortion doctors, then God wills it! No, I am not making a strawman argument, but showing a natural consequence, just as eating is a natural consequence of being hungry. If one feels that God is truly in control, then one can do anything without believing that they are in fact doing it (or at least, believing that they are justified in doing it). This is also pretty sick when tragedy strikes; lots of people die in a plane crash but one child survives? Its a miracle! Thank God for saving this child! But God just allowed all of the other people to die! Why are you celebrating! Why did the others not deserve to be saved?!

He picks me up. o No, that would be ones own brain chemistry and attitude rejuvenating ones resolve. Giving someone or something else the credit for ones own well-being is exactly why the ridiculous concepts of life-coaches and palm-readers and Christian penance are so popular. Do not mistake my position: people can learn from others, of course, and advice and tips are a very important piece to life and being human, but in the end, it is the individual him/herself who accomplishes an act! o Think of the analogy, Listening to the Rolling Stones picks me up. Part of ones brain appreciates the sounds, and causes the bodys chemistry to react. There is nothing supernatural about the feeling that one gets when one worships. No soul; just chemistry, biology, and consciousness. o This statement is a slight combination of both conclusions as well, though the first conclusion is the most obvious. If He picked you up at the end of that race, then did you actually finish? [Insert Name] loved her sin and didn't care much for Jesus until she knew she needed someone to save her. o This was an actual Facebook status update from a former coworker at Camp Cho-Yeh, and I was just blown away when I read it. Christianity corrupted this beautiful and talented womans mind to the point that she believed nay, knew! that someone needed to save her! What? Why? Had she murdered? Committed adultery? Forgotten the Sabbath? No, she was a good person but she just had not done all the right things, all the time, so she was luridly tainted by the obscene sin of purely being human, and therefore needed a savior. The reader cannot appreciate how disgusted I feel when I hear utter trash like this.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 28 o The aptitude and flair for life that she had cultivated from an early age was worthless to her, because she could not acknowledge that is was she who had gotten so far. What sadness and pity I feel for someone so deluded.

My God is bigger. o For someone not well-versed in the current Christian evangelism, this quote essentially means that because God is omnipotent, no problem is too big for him, and therefore everyone can lean on Him (the quote in fact has nothing to do with a child-like argument about which god is better). o Here, the person states that whatever happens in reality is magically going to fix itself (and thereby they take no responsibility for anything in reality), because God is bigger than the problem (think: Faith Healing). Is faith starting to sound any more delusional yet? o Pertinent question: If God is bigger than the problem, why did He let the problem happen in the first place? Oh yes, I know the usual answers free will, tests, choice to sin, punishment, etc. All these are evasions that do not address the question of why bad things happen to good people with an omnibenevolent and omnipotent god. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?21 I realised [sic] just how utterly helpless I am w/o God. I cannot do this alone. o This is Christianity: I must apologize for being human because I am worthless and filthy and atrocious and helpless. But I am saved and everything is so beautiful and I feel so happy and I am so full of love! o This is another Facebook status, this time from an acquaintance at UT. Here, the individual was so engulfed in the disturbing Christian cult called P4CM (the Passion for Christ Movement (http://www.p4cm.com/p4cm/)) that he was literally unable to function his school work became shoddy and depression took him. This went beyond not being able to take pride in his accomplishments it emerged as a physical disease. He became sick because he was convinced that The Truth made him helpless. God answered our prayers. / God is punishing us for [x] sin! o Well, no, of course his cancer going away had nothing to do with the fact that he was treated for it! It was our prayer! The simple chance of a hurricane coming? I think not! I prayed and prayed, and I finally got

21

A pithy consolidation of the sayings in David Humes Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Lactantius On the Anger of God, both of which refer to Epicurus as the originator of the aphorism, though no relevant text exists to authenticate that claim.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 29 that raise at work! Of course those scantily clad women in burqas cause earthquakes! I do not think these statements need any more exposition; people with faith and The Truth do not produce even the small amount of critical thinking required to allocate responsibility appropriately. Thanking God for always watching and protecting me...almost got hit by a wreckless [sic22] driver passing a car in a no-pass zone just as I was going over a hill. Me and baby [sic] are safe. o This person could not take pride in her own reflexes, could not be satisfied at the fact that the reckless driver had enough judgment to not hit her, and could not see a naturalistic explanation of the (beautiful) physics involved. She distanced herself from reality enough to truly believe that if God had wanted it, she and her baby would be dead. How one can lose all liability over their own life and reality is beyond me. From Kirk Franklin, the gospel singer: We can't fix ourselves or heal ourselves. That is a power only the Christ possesses. Self medication can delay healing. o Another unbelievably revolting saying that an acquaintance on Facebook felt it ethical to repeat. Factual falsehood mingles with axiomatic phrasing to psychologically inhibit peoples decision making ability. Sad sleaze. o Here, Mr. Franklin shows without realizing the danger of having no dignity with and for ones accomplishments: medication can delay healing? We are broken to begin with? Utter ruinous insanity23. And from the damn Bible (Philippians 3:7-9): But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christthe righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. o This speaks for itself. Christianity (or at least Paul of Tarsus, being one of the foundational persons of Christianity) says that physical life is trivial and all material accomplishments are valueless compared to a life with God. Humans have no redeeming features and God is responsible for all (except of course, making humans worthless that was our own doing). The churchs metaphysics have always been broken by the two simple assertions that there is a life beyond this one a world after, a continuation of the mind and that a higher power that shepherds those minds exists, even though these claims have no substantiation. The disaster is that these assumptions create an insurmountable problem of ethics: if God is responsible for everything, then what value are we, and how do we confront the consequences of our own lives?

22 23

Well, that is bundled in irony The words the author wishes to use here are generally considered to be too offensive to reproduce even in a semischolarly treatise such as this, so utter ruinous insanity will have to do.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 30 All of these are more than frightening to me, they are downright sadistic. I absolutely get sick to my stomach when I am confronted with these sayings. So much good is taken out of life that ones self-esteem dissolves? That one believes they must be spared? From life? That is horrid! Not to mention categorically scary24. A person who believes those things could say anything, believe anything do anything. And in fact, they have: the Crusades, the idea of Jihad (a righteous struggle in self defense, even so), cults, etc. faith and religion can justify whatever they want to justify. And that is purely abhorrent. In place of this morbidity, we humans should think of Faulkners great line from The Sound and the Fury25: Its not when you realise that nothing can help you - religion, pride, anything its when you realise that you dont need any aid. Be a damn human being! Be proud of it! Work your ass off! You damn well can do it! When I assert that Christianity is not The Truth, and that I in fact reject the very concept of that spirituality oh, to hell with it! when I say I am an atheist Christians see me as less of a person a dead and unsaved thing that will be condemned for all eternity unless I say some words and bring Christ into my heart26. And yet the Muslim believes the same thing about those very same Christians. And so on, religions ad infinitum, reductio ad absurdum. It is quite ridiculous. All of this faith, Absolute Truth, arrogance, gullibility is a cancer. And I want no part of that disease.

24

This is one of the main reasons the author calls himself an antitheist: if one can find a single instance where one uses the justification of God to do something bad, then religion is not a completely harmless thing and therefore should not be simply accepted without rigorous explanation and justification. To be clear, nowhere is the author saying that religion cannot in some way be good; he does not deny that. But it is the justification that religion lends to evil things that is the significant problem. As Stephen Weinburg (the Nobel laureate physicist) said in Washington, DC in 1999: Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. And just because some religious person chooses not do crazy things does not make it okay; religion still allows them to do crazy things with their God justifying it. 25 Faulkner, William. The Sound and the Fury. New York: Vintage, 1991. Print. 26 Whatever that means. The authors heart pumps blood.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 31 3. The Brainwashing Onus, or, On Issues with Christianity Itself I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. Thomas Jefferson; letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789 They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion. Thomas Jefferson; letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800 The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Richard Dawkins; The God Delusion, 2006 (Hardcover page 31) We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing, all-powerful God who creates faulty humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. Unsourced, but consistently attributed to Gene Roddenberry, creator of Star Trek The above arguments against faith and The Truth apply to all theistic religions, of course, but they also apply to polytheistic spiritualities such as paganism, as those spiritualities inevitably require some amount of faith which breaks them from the get-go. Even animist ideals (a nontheistic belief in souls residing in inanimate objects), though less potent in action, are still based on faith and can still be indoctrinated. And as I mentioned in my Journey section, a group held together by faith can be easily manipulated by charisma, if nothing else and the original intent of the religion can become corrupted in a very short amount of time. Religion, as both a physical group and a mental concept, is a bankrupt and disastrous thing that divides and enervates the human condition. But allow me to wax specific: the reason I am here is because of Christianity. I have studied the other major religions (some of them in depth), but my personal experience has been in just this one field, so for most of this section, I will explore just a simple few of my objections to the holy book, history, morality, and teachings of Christianity. There are more things to talk about in this one topic than all of what I have touched on so far, but I will attempt brevity. [I find it passing odd that I would title this section the brainwashing burden and yet relegate brainwashing to a mere digression and what is more, a digression that begins the section but it stands that brainwashing is simply an undertone of my points about religion and Christianity, so, enter aside. As seen in rituals like the Pledge of Allegiance, anything taught to people by rote will stay with them for most, if not all, of their lives. But what if people do not necessarily believe the things in the ritual (e.g. I pledge allegiance to the flag? Really? No, I do not pledge my allegiance to a flag. Maybe the Constitution...)? And what if it is children who

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 32 are taught? Before children can even understand abstract thoughts and reasoned conclusions (usually around ages ten to fifteen, in the formal operational stage of Piagets theory of cognitive development), they are indoctrinated with religious and nationalistic propaganda. Those children are brainwashed to believe whatever their parents believe, and whatever their teachers believe, and whatever their friends believe, and then they close their eyes and think (which is all prayer is) to the Spirit, and cry in a wealth of emotion, without knowing a damned thing about what they are doing (my personal experience, here). Yes, this is something else that I am truly sickened by; I am livid at this revolting use of indoctrination. I could not care less that some people find the message to be good; it is still wrong. I do not care if religion is right for you27; you should be ashamed of the gross unfairness that you are heaping on your children. Let them grow and learn and come into their own, and then tell them what you believe (and make sure you tell them why), and let them make their own informed choice. Make your children question everything. Do not hinder growth!] [There is a website called http://www.fmylife.com, in which people offer up tidbits of their lives that they consider to be fed up (I assume one can figure out my meaning). One of these briefs (April 8, 2010) went as follows: Today, after church, my 5-year-old son asked me about God, so I answered his questions in full. We talked about God for over 2 hours. At the end of it all, he pondered for a moment, before saying to me Thats the stupidest thing I ever heard. Youre dumb. FML. I have no way of knowing if this is true, but if it is, it simply highlights the rarity of the situation not many indoctrinated children can make the distinctions that this five-year-old made. For the sake of your childrens ability to reason, lay off the brainwashing!] If one is a Christian, then one believes in the Christian God (one necessarily follows the other); if these two things are true, then one believes in both Jesus and the Bible as that Gods immanent connection with humankind (again, one necessarily follows the other). The Word is widely interpreted, from the stance of an inerrant, literal, and perfect word of God, to the stance of a divinely inspired text that holds metaphorical and metaphysical Truths, to the stance of a human-flawed text that holds some sort of divine revelation. The former stance is obviously flawed on many levels (as shall be discussed hereafter), and the latter stance leaves everything to be desired (i.e. If the text is flawed, why is it a Holy Book and why does one have faith in it?), but even the medial phrase raises significant problems about contradictions and Truth. If one is a Christian, then one believes, literally or metaphorically, in the whole Bible not just the touchyfeely parts that makes one feel good, but also all of the undesirable, strange, and hurtful parts (of which there are many)28. Essentially the point is this: if one believes in the Bible, then one is actually either a cherry-picker creating ones own religion from the few good and uplifting parts of the Bible, or one chooses to be extraordinarily cruel, immoral, and contradictory.

27

The author is being metaphorical here, and not talking about the reader. Using one and oneself in this instance diffuses the potency of the argument and causes confusion. 28 The author does wish to make it clear that he understands that Christians do not necessarily follow the Torahs laws (which hold many of these undesirable parts), such as the 613 Mitzvot (even though that would presume that Moses and God by consequence were wrong or that God changed morality); nevertheless, the author finds these laws to be fair game, as the most common objection to homosexuality that comes from many Christians Leviticus 18:22 is one of those laws. An additional note: most of the following quotes will come from the NIV, though some will reference the KJV.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 33 To illustrate my point, I shall begin in the Old Testament29 with a contradiction. Genesis 5:4 states that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters after Cain and Abel, and then Leviticus 18:7-20 expounds upon the sin of incest so how were more people born? If Adam could not have sex with his daughters, and his sons could not have sex with their sisters or their mother30, then how exactly did Adam and Eve create the tribes of Israel? Is the implication that incest did occur, and that incest is supposed to be a continuation of original sin? Should I be blamed for some others keeping it in the family? Well, how else did God intend the world to be populated? Sex was then the only option, and he did command them to be fruitful! Was God just being a hypocrite (and extraordinarily cruel)? What about a little bit of contradictory and controversial trivia: the Ten Commandments that most people know of31 from Exodus 20:2-7 are nowhere labeled as such; however, there are certain rules definitively labeled Ten Commandments: once the original tablets were destroyed, the explicit covenant labeled the Ten Commandments was then created in Exodus 34:10-2832; these laws contain similar amounts of jealousy (the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God) to the original ten, but also contain significantly more ritualistic blathering (You shall not boil a kid in its mothers milk.). Oh, but those two problems are mere oversights, are they not? I have taken them out of context, of course, or I am just missing the metaphor they are obviously allegorical; I am just cherry-picking my own problems! It is simply that 4000 years has caused certain passages to be overlooked, or not sufficiently scrutinized, or perhaps corrupted. Well, I am only getting started. How can I cherry-pick out of context something that is mentioned twice? To defend Richard Dawkins quote, that this God is simply a cruel madman, see here: in 2 Samuel 6:6-8 (and 1 Chronicles 13:8-10, though these passages disagree as to where this incident happened), God murders a man named Uzzah God smites Uzzah with an anger that burned. Wow, Uzzah must have done something horrible! Well, he took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled, or he reached out his hand to steady the ark, because the oxen stumbled. So the Ark of the Covenant (holding the tablets of Exodus 34) was about to fall to the ground because the oxen stumbled, and Uzzah, wanting to be helpful, touched the ark to stabilize it and for that, God snuffed out his life. I fail to see the moral precept in that33. In fact, all I see is a sociopathic murderer. Nothing can justify killing someone for such an inane act. I am more moral than that, and so is the reader!

29

To reiterate, the Old Testament is integral to the Christian faith, and one cannot simply pass over the Old Testament because one believes in Jesus. It is the same God and the same history and the same prophecies and the same religion. Jesus himself said on numerous occasions that the Scripture and especially the Laws of the Prophets are all from God and should be kept (John 10:35; Matthew 15:3, 6; etc.). 30 It is interesting to note that the laws are all about what a man can or cannot do; women are implied to be submissive and consenting, whatever the case. 31 Can the reader name them all? 32 Called the Ritual Decalogue as opposed to the Ethical Decalogue. 33 Well, perhaps the precepts are, God is supreme, Gods command to not touch the Ark is inviolable, reason is irrelevant, and the letter of the law proscribes murder for any infraction. Certainly those are good beliefs by which to live!

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 34 Deuteronomy 22:29 states that if a man is found raping a woman, his punishment is that he has to marry her, and can never divorce her. Wow, these people really never did think about the women, did they? Deuteronomy 21:18-21 tells the people to stone disobedient children outside the city walls, while Leviticus 20:9 and Exodus 21:15 explain that people who curse or hit their parents should be put to death. In 2 Chronicles 15:12-13, Asas people took oaths to put to death anyone whether small or great, whether man or woman who would not seek the Lord. In 1 Samuel 15, God says that He wants to punish the Amalekites, so He asks Saul to totally destroy everything that belongs to them including men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some boys who call Elisha a baldhead are cursed by Elisha, and forty-two of them are torn apart by bears (no, I am not making that up). Isaiah 14:21 states that it is a moral imperative to slaughter the sons for the guilt of their fathers. In Ezekiel 9:5-7, God himself says that the killings in Jerusalem should be carried out without pity or compassion. Judges 5:30 seems to make it very clear that women are simply spoils of war, and should be taken and divided amongst the men. Leviticus 25:44-46 makes it clear that slavery is legally and morally endorsed, as long as the slaves are not the people of Israel. Do I really need to continue? The Christian and the Jew do not get to cherry-pick the personality of their God, nor do they get to pick-and-choose which laws they want to obey. And so the question remains: why is this all-loving God, who Moses called slow to anger and abounding in love, obsessed with killing, enslaving, and otherwise punishing his own creation? Does it still sound bad to call this delusional? This problem is very acutely shown in the problem of Abraham. Now, I was a Christian for twenty or so years, and I was subject to a number of sermons and discussions about this story the Binding of Isaac in Genesis 22:1-24 so I understand very clearly the supposed moral of faith (even though I do not agree with it) and the prophecy that through Isaac [Abrahams] offspring would be reckoned (even though such a prophecy is too selfish for my tastes). But what is never discussed, is the simple fact that Abraham felt that it was in his Gods character to call for his sons death. Never mind the talking points about how awesome his faith was that Isaac could and would be resurrected afterwards, and never mind whatever moral one can find in staging a test; the problem is that Abraham felt that it was perfectly within Gods proclivity to literally and seriously ask him to murder his own son. Abraham acknowledged that his God was a murderer. How much clearer can it get: the one man that began three religions understood, and was okay with, his God being infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, [and] capriciously malevolent. (Or from the skeptics view: the father of three religions actually listened to a voice in his head that told him to kill his son.) The obvious obsoleteness of this primitive book (the Old Testament), in addition to the immoral God that exists in it and the inherent contradictions of an inadequate history, are just three of the many reasons that neither I nor anyone else should ever look to this ancient scribble for guidance, truth, Truth, or a loving God. But the New Testament God is the real one, right? He is the lovable God34 who has created a place of pure bliss35 and redeems humankind36! Oh no, contradictions abound in this
34 35

who murdered his own son? where souls spend eternity worshiping Him? 36 from the flaws He allowed people to have?

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 35 slightly-less immoral and slightly-less violent volume as well. The most obvious place to start, as it really is the defining feature of the New Testament, is Jesus and the sacrifice he made. And this is the first problem: how exactly is Jesus death a sacrifice? To illustrate: if someone told me that I would be brutally tortured and mercilessly killed in order to destroy poverty, annihilate depression, stabilize government, calm peoples tempers, and prevent health problems, I would not only do it, but I would ardently throw myself upon the torture instruments, and my death would be a real sacrifice. But if someone told me that I would be tortured and killed like any other criminal of ancient Rome37 in order to be a scapegoat, and afterward, I would become God, then that is not a sacrifice. How is ascending into Heaven to sit at the Right Hand of God a sacrifice?! How can anyone make such a claim? Sure, humans get the pardon of sin out of it, but God could have done that with a wave of his metaphorical hand. Why did it have to be a blood offering? Since when does blood have power? As was shown in the Jack T. Chick Parody Dead to Rights38:

More than this logical problem of God needing to sacrifice anything, what about this idea of scapegoating? The immorality of this central Christian doctrine that a blood sacrifice can scapegoat away your ethical responsibilities, your freedom of will and identity is far worse than nonsense... it is evil. If Jack kills Anna, and then Peter comes along and apologizes to Annas family and forgives Jack and absolves him of the wrong nothings been solved! Thats not a moral (or even logical) way to redeem or forgive! Thats not love; thats perversion! But the problems with Jesus do not stop there. What about this elusive idea of the Trinity, which no theologian can adequately explain without diverting to the (quite new-age) analogy of water, ice, and water vapor as three aspects of one thing? Jesus himself did not seem to understand it: in John 10:30, Jesus says, I and my Father are one, but four chapters later, in John 14:28-31, he says, my Father is greater than Ithe world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded. So, He loves Himself, but just a different part of Himself? Matthew wrote that the messiah would be know as Emmanuel, or God with Us, but nowhere in the entire Bible is Jesus called Emmanuel. John 3:34-35 says

37 38

Or Persia, or Greece, or Macedonia, or Carthage Used with permission. Source: http://www.jhuger.com/tract/dtr/index, Copyright Rev. James Huber

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 36 that God has given everything of the Spirit to Jesus39, but in Mark 6:4-6, Jesus seems to require faith in the people around him in order to do his work; does this mean that God is not actually all-powerful, or is it saying that Jesus had too much disdain for the people he was trying to save, that he did not actually try to convince them? That brings up another point: are Jesus and the New Testament all about the love and saving grace which Christians always tout? In Matthew 13:10-13 (and on) and Mark 4:10-12, Jesus says that he speaks in parables so that only the smart can enter Heaven and woe to the dimwitted! In Mark 5:9-14, Jesus was willing to not only give the demon Legion what it wanted, but was willing to send 2,000 pigs to their deaths (so, an animal abuser as well as a destroyer of food and cash flocks). In Mark 7:9 and Matthew 15:4-7 Jesus expounds about how tradition should not get in the way of the Law, and the Law says to kill disobedient children, and in Matthew 5:17 Jesus says the he did not come to abolish the Laws of the Prophets so Jesus advocates killing disobedient children! In Matthew 11:20, Jesus calls down woe upon the towns that do not accept his works as acts of God. In Mark 11:13-14, Jesus sees a fig-less fig tree (for it was not the season for bearing figs), so he curses the tree that no one should ever eat from it40! Throughout Matthew 10, Jesus seems completely unphased by his own admission that following him would generate vitriol and war. In Luke 22:35-37, after he has prophesied that Peter will deny him, Jesus tells his disciples quite clearly to buy swords and show them to him (so they would be armed and menacing when the hostile guards arrived). How about the apostles? In Acts 5:1-11, Peter murders a man and his wife (oh, okay, they dropped dead) for admitting their mistake of lying (as children, are we not told to admit our mistakes?). In Romans 1:24-32, Paul makes it clear that God has named a death penalty for homosexuals. Ephesians 5:22-24 again addresses that wives should obey their husbands in everything41. Paul, in many of his letters (such as 1 Corinthians 7:1-7), implies that marriage is only for sex, and applauds himself for having the gift of not being able to fall into that kind of temptation. Again, do I need to continue? If one believes in the New Testament God, then one still believes in a contradictory and morally bankrupt God that holds no Truth, a very strange definition of love, and a broken message (not to mention a lunatic messiah). Should I continue with the Crusades, or the lack of any proof that Biblical stories even happened, or the street-corner-crier with the GOD HATES FAGS sign, or should I mention the lesser known crimes? The Albigensian Crusade of the 1200s in France, for example, in which Christians murdered other Christians for not believing in the right kind of Christianity, and the chilling epithet, Neca eos omnes! Deus suos agnoset!42 Or should I simply acknowledge that a book like this, the Bible, is impossible; a book that refutes itself, not only in its content, but in its very goal, cannot and will not ever be reconciled.

39

And Matthew 28:18 has Jesus reinforcing the same idea with, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 40 Not only is this insane (cursing a tree?) and seriously idiotic (he knew it was out of season), but this has no metaphorical value, whatsoever. 41 A common refutation is that in the next few verses, it says a husband should love his wife like his own body. Well, that is not the point; the point is that even in the New Testament, women are automatically assumed to be subservient and consenting in everything. 42 Kill them all! God will know His own!

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 37 And when all is said and done, the matter comes down to this: I cannot believe in a deity who would give me free will and ignorance of The Truth, and yet punish me43 if I choose wrongly in a finite period of time44. I also cannot believe in a religion that picks and chooses what it believes from its own Bronze-Age desert tales. And finally, I cannot believe in the jealous, conceited, bipolar, contradictory, spiteful, fear- and warmongering, obsessivecompulsive narcissist deity that is posited by the Christian religion. In everything, from book to creed to practice, Christianity shows itself to be an insane, immoral, and absurd ideology that I could never, ever devote myself to.

43 44

by Hellfire, or even simply by absence from His presence or worse, am not even given the opportunity to learn The Truth (say, I died in infancy)

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 38 4. Atheism, or, On Knowledge, Belief, and the Rejection of the God Hypothesis When I became convinced that the universe is natural, that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space. I was free free to think, to express my thoughts free to live my own ideal, free to live for myself and those I loved, free to use all my faculties, all my senses, free to spread imagination's wings, free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope, free to judge and determine for myself I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds. Robert G. Ingersoll; Why I Am An Agnostic45, 1896 (section XI) I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. Stephen F. Roberts; newsgroups alt.atheism and talk.atheism, 1994-1995 The beauty of Col. Ingersolls oratory is exactly what I want people to think of when they see the word atheist, and I highly recommend reading the rest of that lecture. What follows in this section is an explanation of knowledge and belief (and truth), for the purpose of exploring what atheism means. My approach is to treat this as both a philosophical issue and a pragmatic one in order to show how atheism is consistent with reality and the best possible response to the god claim. Theism and atheism are different from gnosticism and agnosticism, because the first two address a single position of belief while the latter two deal with quantities of knowledge. The grid of four possibilities created by combining these terms provides the most complete and clear way of understanding the greater god issue. Likewise, understanding these terms elucidates why the stand-alone position of agnostic is just as useless and inane as faith or omniscience. Not only does calling oneself agnostic not actually answer (or even address) the question of god-belief (and so its a strawman), but it is a perfect example of goalpost moving as well. Of course one cannot absolutely know if there is or is not a God. One cannot completely know if one has fingernails either, but that is nonsensical for practical, everyday speech; we are talking about common degrees of certainty. We do not hold ourselves up to omniscience in any endeavor of our lives science included and we could not even if we wanted to do so. Trying to contest that point by going back to the philosophical square-one of, Well, what exactly is reality? when the dispute has already reached this point, is a copout of the argument; this conversation is what we know and believe about God, and one does not get to abandon the topic merely because one feels like moving the goalposts and avoiding the practical problem.
45

The reader must realize that the title weak atheist had not been postulated at this point. Ingersoll specifically says, I do not believe, which would make him an atheist. Agnosticism is a different beast, for it says, I do not know. Ingersoll said this as well, making him an agnostic atheist.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 39 [One can choose to enjoy abstract philosophy, and even pursue it as a career in fact, the study of knowledge and the proposition of solipsism (only the selfs mind is sure to exist) are very useful academic tools but solipsism has no place when actually living ones life, which is what the author is discussing the everyday belief of spiritual people. Solipsists and nihilists have no business in debates, because they have already concluded that none of it matters, and they are basically just mentally masturbating and wasting everyones time.] One way of illustrating the difference between knowledge and belief is to imagine a ladder pragmatically thusly: belief the assumptions, convictions, and opinions that we hold, even though we lack full knowledge of their truth is the bottom half of the ladder, and knowledge the conclusions of science, reasoned logic, physical evidence, and facts is the top half of the ladder: 100: Pure Knowledge (knowledge entirely without belief an oxymoron) 99: I know my name is Sean. I know this to a significant degree of certainty.

60: I know my car is outside my house because I specifically parked it; however, it could have been stolen in the last few hours, so I do not know it to a proof degree of certainty. Nope, I just checked, so I can move this to ~98.

49: I believe there is someone in the world drinking human blood right now. There is no way I can know this (unless I find someone), but considering there are 7 billion people in the world, the history of those people, and social fads such as vampirism, it is possible, though still a baldly asserted belief.

0: Faith in God (belief entirely without knowledge a useless term)

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 40 This Venn diagram, however, would be a better and more accurate representation of the system, as knowledge is, philosophically, a subset of belief (philosophically, knowledge is called justified true belief), rather than something entirely separate. Consider the blue part of my ladder here represented by a yellow circle to be justified and true belief46:

With this understanding of the general terms involved, let us move on to how this applies to the discussion about atheism and religion. Weak (agnostic) atheism is very much like the not guilty verdict in court. The jury is asked to rule on a single position: whether the defendant is guilty or not. If the jury is not convinced that the defendant is guilty, they do not have to explicitly go on to debate whether the accused is actually innocent; instead, the jury would automatically resort to the implicit belief that the accused is simply not guilty. They have not accepted the belief that the accused is guilty, but they are not making a knowledge claim that he is innocent, either. This middle ground in religious debates is so often just called agnostic, even though it also entails a position of belief. I think this is because people are afraid of the word atheist; they think it is a claim of total, arrogant, absolute certainty, or that it is a close-minded philosophy that ignores possibility. But really, to be an atheist is merely to say: I have not explicitly accepted a belief in cats on Mars yet, and until someone can give me sufficient reasons and evidence to believe there actually are cats on Mars, I will maintain the skeptics position and retain that lack of belief in cats on Mars. Well, now replace cats on Mars with god; that is it. To sum up, here are the paraphrased words of the YouTuber pandstar: Theism is the active belief that a god exists, while disbelief is literally anything else; belief is a binary mental state either you believe a premise is true, or you do not.
46

Unknown credit; used under Fair Use.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 41 However! in the face of all of this anal-retentive clarification and nitpicking, I once again should note that I am a gnostic atheist; I am one of those people who claim that there is no god. So where is the working? How do I justify this seemingly unpopular claim of mine? First, I respond to the belief claim and answer as a weak atheist a position I may always fall back to, should my strong atheism be refuted: The proof that religious/spiritual people offer is not actual proof, as it is not sufficient enough to arouse common certainty. Holy books and other pieces of evidence like the Bible are all hundreds, if not thousands, of years old and have no necessary claims to truth; furthermore, they are mostly all copies of translations of copies of fables from mostly anonymous, uneducated, desert tribesmen. Additionally, most religions advocate some extremely morally unjust beliefs that I vehemently disagree with, or they implement wacky, nonsense ideas such as prayer. Finally, I see no reason to ever have, or ever use, faith. Therefore, I am not convinced, and I simply lack any belief in god(s). Second, I make the gnostic claim as a strong atheist: My understanding of logic47, facts48, and evidence49 though not perfect is sufficient enough to allow me to say that for all the various gods that have been presented and defined to me, and for all the evidence that has been shown to me50, I can say I know (to a common degree of certainty) that no god or gods exist. I have come to these conclusions through the proper utilization of skepticism, openminded rationality, and intellectual honesty. While I welcome challenges to these conclusions, what will change my mind is the similar application of a rigorous examination of reality, not faith or appeals to emotion.

47 48

in both sound and valid arguments and propositions both obvious and scientifically concluded 49 reasoned logic through physical experience 50 all of which happens to be categorically immoral, patently false, annoyingly unclear, and/or -at-the-very-least logically unsound

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 42 4i. Science!, or, On The Explanation of a Few Gaps If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God. Thomas Jefferson; letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814 Anything you do not understand, Mr. Rankin, you attribute to God. God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it. Dr. Arroway (character), Contact; Carl Sagan, 1985 (Paperback page 166) The God of the Gaps fallacy tends to arise in a conversation when one declares oneself to be an atheist without extensive clarification; the religious tend to make strawmen and other fallacious claims about how the atheist believes everything came from nothing, or how since science cannot give us an answer, God had to have made it that way. Fortunately though, scientists not knowing the answer does not automatically mean that a magical entity did it. Science does not claim absolute certainty or perfection, nor does the scientific method claim to be perfect51; science does not claim to have all the answers, and yes, science changes quickly and often, in some cases52. This is because it checks itself and acts retroactively by adapting to new information and new perspectives purposefully and constantly. This is not a fault, but the ideal strategy for discovering and analyzing our universe. Science offers the best explanations (theories) that we as humans have for any particular topic at any particular time, and is supported by reasoned logic, experimentation, physical and factual evidence and data, exhaustively researched and comprehensive models that are valuable in making both accurate and precise real-world predictions, and peer-reviewed, realistic conclusions to hypotheses and observations. Science just is, and it works! [This is a good time to insert the link to http://notjustatheory.com/ to provide the additional clarification some readers may need. When I mention a theory, I am not talking about the vernacularly accepted meaning of theory (as a guess), but the scientifically accepted meaning of theory, which is extraordinarily different. There are observed facts, like gravity, for example. Then there are the theories that comprehensively and ideally explain what we know about those facts and how and why they operate, like the theory of gravity. A theory is the highest form of explanatory science that humans may ever aspire to. And just for claritys sake: neither science nor scientific theories are religions or appeals to authority.] Now, even though atheism has nothing whatsoever53 to do with science, I have chosen to include this section in an effort to give a short retort to the God of the Gap-ers. Here are some illustrations of the scientific theories that these people seem to object to:

51

To accept both the scientific method and the conclusions of science itself, however, is to accept the most complete and rational way to soundly answer questions and pose additional questions when interrogating reality. 52 such as astronomy; the amount of new, peer-reviewed astronomical data that is released each year is enough to obsolete parts of an astronomy textbook after only one year in use. 53 Allow the author some repetition: atheism has nothing! to do with science or where humans / the universe came from. Atheism says nothing about what one believes or accepts. As stated, reality just is.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 43 The Big Bang Theory: an exhaustively tested model that combines all data, facts and laws, observation, and peer-reviewed research over the last one hundred years by the most brilliant scientific minds in the fields of astronomy, cosmology, chemistry, physics, et al. that accurately explains the earliest development54 of the universe based on the current understanding of spacetime physics; it is a misnomer, as these conditions were neither big, nor resulted in a bang; the basics include the hyperinflation55 of spacetime itself from a nearly infinitesimally small size to the size of a softball on a near Planck time scale56, as well as the development of filamental and galactic structure; it is evidenced by, briefly, the cosmic microwave background radiation57 and the emergence of field theories, such as electroweak interaction58. The Theory of Evolution: an exhaustively tested model that combines all data, facts and laws, observation, and peer-reviewed research over the last one hundred and fifty years by the most brilliant scientific minds in the fields of genetics, biology, anthropology, neuroscience, et al. that accurately explains the evolution59 of genes and the divergence of species over a long duration60 with no specific goal61; the basics include genetic drift and natural selection, speciation and common descent, and adaptation; it is evidenced by, briefly, transitional forms (of which there are many read something!), genome sequencing, and allele frequencies. A common (Creationist) mistake is to assume that these theories are even remotely related to each other, which they obviously are not. Neither does evolutionary theory posit an origin for life that is abiogenesis. Neither again does Big Bang cosmology state that everything came from nothing. Indeed, the irony is that it is God who supposedly existed before anything, was created by nothing, and created everything out of nothing. Lastly, even though there is no scientific theory of morality, ethical behavior should be discussed here. Morality is a genetic, social, and reasoned faculty that exists to ensure the survival of a species. Humans feel that it is bad to murder or have incestuous sex because both of those actions lead to irreparable damage to the system. But certain social factors can override such genetic programming: the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice, for example, to morally repay the gods. So finally, reason steps in to temper both the genetics which cannot acknowledge things like weapons of mass destruction and the society which oftentimes refuses to acknowledge the things that harm it. Moral laws are simply empathetic descriptions of how relationships can best survive; they are not prescribed, inviolable rules from an authority.
54 55

Read: not creation. Expansion faster than the speed of light. 56 Read: very fast. Specifically from 10-36 seconds after the initial point to 10-32 seconds; a Planck time unit is measured as about 5.4x10-44 seconds. 57 Some of the static that used to be seen (/still can be seen) on antenna-operated television sets; a 2.725 Kelvin black body radiation that permeates throughout the entire universe, the structure of which has both specific isotropic and specific anisotropic properties that support inflationary Big Bang cosmology. 58 Fundamental force interaction: the Big-Bang predicts that the compression of energy and other factors in the early universe united the four forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces), and current field theories support that conclusion. 59 Read: not origin. 60 Usually on the order of millions of years, though simple genetic change can be evidenced through the mutation that occurs from DNA replication, which is a much shorter/smaller timescale. 61 This does not imply random chance; this implies that biological change is not teleological, and does not have an end result in mind; evolution is reactive.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 44 5. Discombobulation, or, On How I Label Myself Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them Thomas Jefferson; letter to Francis Van der Kemp, July 30, 1816 Of all the strange crimes that human beings have legislated out of nothing, blasphemy is the most amazing with obscenity and indecent exposure fighting it out for the second and third place. Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love; Robert Heinlein, 1973 (page 242) We are all dying, every moment that passes of every day. That is the inescapable truth of this existence. It is a truth that can paralyze us with fear, or one that can energize us with impatience, with the desire to explore and experience, with the hopenay, the iron will!to find a memory in every action. To be alive, under sunshine or under starlight, in weather fair or stormy. To dance every step, be they through gardens of bright flowers or through deep snows. Drizzt DoUrden (character), Sea of Swords; R. A. Salvatore, 2001 (Hardcover pages 11-12) So what exactly am I? Since I do not believe in a god that fills in all the gaps and holes of understanding, and since I do not believe that a mystery can explain another mystery, it seems that I have a lot to cover for. Heres an incomplete personal list of labels I choose to take: In the Spiritual Realm Theoretical Theological Noncognitivist: o What does god mean, anyway? Before I begin a conversation about religion, tell me one, what your definition for god is, and two, what you believe and why. The chances are that I will find both your interpretation of god and your beliefs to be generally unfalsifiable and/or meaningless. However, I do not try to play the ignostic card; I find that showing the logical flaws in gods helps to disprove those gods. Weak Atheist: o Regardless of whether or not gods actually exist, I find no clear, compelling, justifiable, or rational reason to believe in any god or gods. Strong Gnostic Atheist: o There is significant evidence against the theistic claim; theists definitions of gods are demonstrably impossible, and therefore it is justified to claim that no gods (of those definitions) exist. Antitheist: o Religious belief, especially the idea of faith (belief without justification), is dangerous to humanity; religion is not an acceptable risk. Indeed, religion is actually destructive: its guilt-, fear-, and warmongering, its tithing, its obsession with faith and submission, its immorality (in holy scripture, creed, and practice), and its rejection of science and evidence, all contribute to a catastrophically virulent organization.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 45 In Some of the Moral, Scientific, Philosophical, and Political Realms (Secular) Humanist: o This is a large, multi-faceted life-stance and philosophy that entails the following tenets: I specifically reject the supernatural in determining moral and ethical decisions. My genetics, social contracts, reason, and empathy help me to determine right and wrong. I am not innately good or innately evil, but I can and do live a healthy, happy, productive, and morally-just life with a unique awareness of the consequences of my actions by not adhering to spiritual dogma. For human beings, it is an ethical imperative to challenge tradition, discrimination, prejudice, supernaturalism, pseudoscience and misinformation, bigotry, dogma, and ignorance in an effort to seek out egalitarianism, justice, dignity and agency, peace, and education for humanity both as a species and on the level of individual consciousness. As a rational agent and ethical human being, I have an obligation to myself and humanity to lead a fulfilling life one that flourishes in creativity, nurtures growth and progress, engages passionately with people, seeks truth, and acknowledges its own limitations and finiteness. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism Skeptic / Freethinker: o I am open to any and all propositions and discussions provided they are distinct and clear, have roots in reality (evidence, reason, logic, scientific and philosophical inquiry), and do not adhere to or require any biased dogma, authority, or tradition. I do my best never to accept belief in a claim until there is sufficient justification to do so with worthy confidence. Because beliefs inform actions, I want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible62, so I will always reassess my beliefs and assumptions, and constantly question everything that I can through investigation and debate. o This also means that I embrace open-mindedness as a continual means to an end, not a goal in-and-of itself. Clearly evaluating all sides of an issue in depth over a long period of time (i.e. open-mindedness) inevitably leads to a conclusion, and choosing to not accept the conclusion I have come to would be intellectually dishonest. Scientific / Methodological Naturalist and Philosophical Naturalist o Both reason and empirical experience are my sources of knowledge, and both science and philosophy quantify and qualify my understanding. I rely on my logical mind to interrogate reality; my emotional, feeling mind is not used as an analytical method for investigating reality, but a distinct and pleasurable mode of experiencing it. The scientific method is vastly useful: science is falsifiable and testable, is not biased, and does not equal common sense.

62

Cheers to Matt Dillahunty, for wording this idea/phrase so succinctly and insightfully.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 46 o The goal of knowledge is to describe, explain, predict, apply, and progress by uniting theory and practice. Reality is independently objective, physical evidence and reasoned logic are the most efficient means to explore that objectivity, and all phenomena that manifest in that objectivity are the result of material63 interactions.

Compatibilist: o Recently, I have come to accept Determinisms take on cause and effect, though I believe that elements of free will can still exist for the individual in the face of deterministic factors; of course, I am not a fatalist this compatibilist view does not imply any kind of architect or fate. Transhumanist / H+: o An emerging school of thought that endeavors to improve humanitys mental and physical characteristics and capabilities via science and technology, such as cybernetics and DNA manipulation. The transhuman64 would be free of disease, disability, and other types of suffering while accelerating far beyond the current limitations of human memory, computational power, and physical ability. While I am not a scientist and cannot possibly provide help to the forefront of this field, I take the label more as a philosophical statement that I am unafraid to acknowledge human/evolutionary limits, and seek to overcome them. Secularist: o There is an immanent separation between government and religion; no religious ideology should interfere with law, education, equality, the state, or human rights, liberties, ethics, or dignity, in any form or fashion. While my antitheism certainly informs this position, the core justification is rather that the state privileging one (or many) religions over others is both intrinsically unfair and inevitably theocratic and tyrannical. Progressive / Liberal (the US political parties are entirely bought and corrupt): o I believe in complete equality for all humans in the eye of the law, with equal opportunity for all humans to receive fair and quality education, work, pay, property, and happiness; personal liberties (such as privacy) and individual rights (such as freedom) should be inherently recognized and rationally protected from abrogation; government has a moral obligation to ensure justice (legal, social, etc.) and stability (economic, social, environmental, etc.) with the consent of the governed (not the payment of the rich).

63 64

Material here stands in for all scientifically observed systems: matter/energy, dark matter/energy, spacetime, etc. The transhuman would most likely not live during the authors lifetime, or in the near future; the goal is to improve the species as a whole not the individual and progress humans beyond their natural limits. The word transhumanist itself has nothing to do with religious transcendence, which posits something beyond physical; instead, it refers to the idea of going beyond what normal humans can know or do.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 47 In all other things that religion and gods supposedly cover (such as creation and other comparable fallacious nonsense), I am a Science Does Not Know, so I Do Not Know-er. When the science gets there, the science gets there; Im not going to assert random things about them. The things I choose to believe will be as thoroughly based in reality as possible; certainly and inevitably, I will (and do) believe things not entirely backed up by indisputable knowledge, but I will always do my best never to simply rely on faith, and I will always be open to changing my beliefs. Dan Simmons messiah figure Aenea puts it like this in The Rise of Endymion (1997): Choose again. Always challenge, always question, always choose again. And that, aside from the FAQ section and addendums below, concludes my treatise this labor of love. I sincerely hope that my efforts were to a significant degree both educational and clear, and I hope I have been logically consistent and rationally charismatic. Indeed, my final hope is that I have provided the means by which a person can safely, knowledgably, and with wisdom, abandon the illogical bind of the religious mind. If one still hungers for more, locate my YouTube channel; click on the playlist entitled The God Stuff for about one hundred select videos. My thanks to all for taking the time to read and participate in this dialogue. With all love and logic, Sean Brower

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 48 6. FAQ, or, On Issues I Have Seen I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel a solution of why Democritus laughed and Heraclitus wept. Horace Walpole; letter to Sir Horace Mann, December 31, 1769 There is a tide in the affairs of men / Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; / Omitted, all the voyage of their life / Is bound in shallows and in miseries. Brutus (character), Julius Caesar; William Shakespeare (IV.ii.270-3) These are common questions and issues which I have found in my travels. Some of these exchanges are not actually questions, but they can be addressed in such a way as if they are. This is intended to be a clarification section that is more pointed, frank, and informal. Q. What gives you the right to write this atheism crap and send it to my family and me? A. One, I feel I have a moral obligation to challenge bullshit. Two, I was fed religion crap for a long time, so why should I not get to reciprocate? (And why should you get offended over it?) Three, as I stated in my introduction, this was not only for educational purposes, but to make my own opinions known to friends and family who did not know; I would like to stand up for who I am and be an honest friend and human being. Q. I am a scientist and I see evidence for God in all of my experiments. A. One, being a scientist does not automatically make you trustworthy or objective, unfortunately. Two, you are committing a basic (and completely unscientific) logical fallacy by assuming a conclusion (begging the question the opposite of the scientific method). You cannot see meiosis and say, I see God! Are you kidding? That is not evidence for God that is evidence for meiosis! I feel compelled here to add a DUH! See here. This is what religious scientists fail to understand: they are being selective about what they apply their science and logic to, and what they do not (and what is worse, they start mixing the two). Seeing something awe-inspiring is not evidence for God, but it is indicative of reality and science that the science works and that we are still learning about the universe. You do not get to jump to, or just plain make up, a conclusion that you want! You claim to be a scientist so be one. Q. You cant call my belief stupid! You are being intolerant, ignorant, and belittling! You should respect peoples beliefs! A. So, if someone came up to me who literally believed that Texas was North of Canada, I would have to respect his belief? I could not call his belief stupid? I would be belittling him if I did? Uh that is stupid, and you know it. Religion and faith do not get a free pass just because. I do not insult people themselves (or at least, in these discussions I generally try to avoid that), but I will definitely insult their beliefs if they are legitimately ridiculous (which faith is). Q. How can you not acknowledge something and be against it at the same time? A. I assume you are referring to when I say I am an atheist and an antitheist. The problem here is that you are confusing vocabulary. To be an atheist is not to refuse to acknowledge that a concept labeled theism exists, but to not accept the theistic claim, and to be an antitheist is not

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 49 simply to be against god, but to be against the effects of theism in general. They are perfectly harmonious. Theos = god. Theism = belief in a god. Atheism = (without) the belief in a god. Antitheism = (against) the belief in a god. Q. If you believe in evolution, dont you believe that man came from monkeys? A. Nowhere does evolution even remotely imply that, and I find it sad if not downright stupid and imbecilic that some people still think that evolution states that. Common ancestry, which is what people get confused with, is extremely well documented and explains how many species that exist today have a common ancestor with one another; in the case of humans and orangutans, two very genetically similar species, there was a separate third species millions of years ago that was neither monkey nor man, which different species (such as genus homo and genus pongo) evolved from. The best book I have found on the subjects of evolution and spirituality is a tome of a book called Did Man Create God, by Dr. David Comings. Check it out and take the time to actually learn from a book instead of believing anything some random uneducated person says. (Also, I do not believe in evolution, I accept the science behind it as real, factual, tested, explained, and understood.) Q. God revealed himself to me, so I know He exists! A. One, no, that does not even tenuously provide evidence for a gods existence, as that is a subjectively individual, unverifiable, and easily fabricated claim. Two, why is your God such a selective ass that He will not reveal himself to me? I wanted that kind of connection when I was a Christian! Three, if you saw/heard him, is not faith then invalidated? Q. Some of the dumbest dregs of the world are atheists. I think it will always be that way. A. You may think whatever you wish. I will not hesitate to call your belief foolish (no ironically idiotic!) however, as I tend to think based on facts. Look here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (simple Google searching of intelligence and religiosity). It seems relatively clear that your position on the issue is just reversed. Statistically speaking, nonreligious people have a higher IQ score, and are generally better educated than the religious. I also am very curious as to who these dregs were/are. And if you try to pull out the Stalin and Mao cards, how dare you? They might have also been vegetarians or liked playing pinochle, or maybe they didnt like painting those things have just as much to do with their warmongering as did their atheism. They were dictators because they liked power and wanted to be dictators, and they killed people because they wanted to kill people, not because they did not accept the theistic claim. Not believing in unicorns does not make someone into a killer! But how about the religious? They actually did and do kill directly because of what their religion tells them. And here I will be insulting: those beliefs make those people into the dumbest dregs of the world. Q. Cant religion do good? Why get so upset about something that is good for people? You are cherry-picking your examples to show that religion is bad. A. There are so many answers to this, so let me offer just a couple of points: - One, that is not really the point. Nowhere did I say that religion could not be good (see note 24 on page 30). Veganism can do good. Star Wars fandom can do good. Meditation can be good. The problem is that these other things have a pretty hard time justifying being bad. Beliefs inform actions. Can you give me an example of something good that comes from

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 50 religion that could not have been achieved by secular means? And then can you give me something bad that could only be justified by religion? Having an unfalsifiable and omnipotent god creates the possibility of a justification for immorality. [Refer to note 24.] - Two, I am not cherry-picking examples; I am showing that religion should not be simply accepted on faith because of very real destructive examples. (i.e. You do not get to claim this is cherry-picking simply because it is not your cherry-picking.) - Three, this argument comes from the passive moderates of religion. The problem is that religion inherently creates a fanatic class that destroys what the moderates want. Does this happen in most things? Well, perhaps. But those other things do not get justification out of being fanatic: parents become more incensed in Little League games, but they do not claim that the God of Little Leagues allows them to do that. - Four, while some good may come to people, it actually prevents other good from occurring. What I mean by that is this: the drive and ability to pursue truth is hampered by faith and dogma (and this was seen in the Christian Dark Ages of Europe, when the Church stifled over a thousand years of scientific advancement). Q. I like to think that God exists it just feels right to me but I certainly dont know He exists. How would you respond to a believer (theist) who does not claim to know God exists? A. To be brutally honest, I find agnostic theism even cheaper, more dangerous, and more irrational than gnostic theism. At least a gnostic theist makes an attempt to justify their belief; agnostic theists merely sit there with the smug audacity to just believe something entirely for the hell of it without any knowledge to back them up, and choose not to care at all about whether or not their belief is actually true. Well Id like to believe in unicorns, so why not? To be an agnostic believer is to be the ultimate cop-out, the pinnacle of bullshiters, the epitome of callous faith. Im not even really sure this is a coherent position, as belief implies some level of actively being convinced. To cower behind a label rather than challenge oneself that is sad, especially when this is the one life you are sure to get. Care about the veracity of your lifes beliefs! Q. I am an atheist, and I dont believe/agree with X that you said. A. One, saying you are an atheist does not automatically make me trust you or think that you have true and correct beliefs; I will still judge your actions and beliefs based on your logic and facts. I know plenty of atheists who are just as selective about applying logic to real life situations as religious people are I fall into that trap sometimes as well. Two, you may feel free to disagree with anything or everything I say, but if you would like me to respond (or at the least, consider your position), you should back up your opinions with reasons and evidence. Q. Hypothetically, what do you think is the most important question to ask in life, in religion, whatever? What was the most important question you asked in your journey? A. Two questions, actually, are the most important: How? and Why? With only those two questions in ones arsenal, one can destroy faith as I did. Be the obnoxious child that is never satisfied with this book tells me so or just because or I hope. Only then will you begin to understand the world. Do not get stuck to the dead end of faith. Always question. Q. Whats with the grammar? Arent commas supposed to go inside the quotation marks? A. I use the British system because the US system ignores how logic would dictate punctuation. Consistency is what matters. Punctuation will go inside if there is directly quoted language.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 51 6i. Logic 101, or, An Explanation of Fallacies Premise a beginning statement that will justify or lead to the conclusion; a basis or foundation; a proposition or claim; a statement of fact; sometimes, it can be an assumption. Syllogism a step-by-step process for presenting a logical argument with premises that lead up to a reasonably connected conclusion. Syllogistic logic = a formal, structured logical process. Ex. Premise 1: All people are mortal. [All A are B] Premise 2: John is a person. [C is A] Conclusion: John is mortal. [Therefore, C is B] Four Properties of a Logical Syllogism 1. Consistent: no internal contradictions 2. Valid: no fallacies are present, and the conclusion logically follows from the premises 3. Complete: the system can be proven without modification or manipulation 4. Sound: the syllogism is valid, the premises are actually true, and the conclusion preserves real world truth Validity refers to the structure/form of an argument only, whereas soundness deals with both structure and content.

Fallacies Before the fallacy list begins, Id like to offer a kind of fallacy finder: 0. Reductio ad absurdum reduction to the absurd; the argument disproves itself when one follows the consequences to a logical conclusion, and only finds absurdity. This is not so much a fallacy in-and-of-itself, as it is a method of discovering fallacies; if the argument shows itself to be absurd, then perhaps there is a problem in the construction. a. Ex. 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, so the universe was caused, and that cause was god, and that god was the Christian God. Forgetting all of the non-sequiturs at the end of the argument there, what about the most obvious issue what caused god? And what caused that cause of god? And what caused that cause of the cause of god? And there stands infinite regress: this will continue to spiral on to absurdity. The main fallacy weve found here is a bit of special pleading used to get around its logical reduction to absurdity: Oh, god did not begin to exist? Because you say so? Oh, there had to be an uncaused cause? Because you say so? So, why couldnt that just be the universe? Because you say so? Okay, you dont know anything about logic.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 52 List (and examples/explanations) of (some) fallacies: 1. The fallacy of fallacy automatically assuming that someones conclusion MUST be wrong, because there is a logical fallacy in their argument; granted, MOST of the time, fallacies do lead to wrong conclusions, but its a fallacy to shut your mind off and shout, Haha, thats a fallacy, so youre wrong!. a. Ex. 2+2=4 because dragons are cool. Nope, thats fallacious, and therefore 2+2 does not equal 4. Well, my logic is fallacious, but somehow I came to the correct conclusion, because 2+2 does equal 4! I just have more work to do in order to prove it. 2. Non-sequitur (Latin for it does not follow) a general term for many types of fallacies that have logical disconnects between premises and conclusions. a. Ex. 1: I will have great pizza tonight because Burger King is awesome. What? How does that follow? Show me the steps b. Ex. 2: If you do not believe in God, then you cannot possibly be a good and moral person! Simply because one interpretation of God claims that He is the moral giver does not mean that the concept of morality was caused by God. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. This becomes obvious when one asks the anecdotal question: did the Jews not know murder was bad before God told them so? 3. Ad hominem (Latin for to the person) rejecting a claim by attacking the person making the claim, rather than the argument; making an insult part of the premises in an effort to reject the conclusion without doing any work. An ad hominem is an accusation about the claimant, and that strategy has no bearing on the merits of the claim itself. Be careful: insults in the conclusions of arguments are NOT ad hominems (but you should still avoid them). a. Ex. i. Premise 1: Bob claims that the sky is blue. ii. Premise 2: But, you know, Bob is an idiot. [an insult as part of the premises] iii. Conclusion: So, Bob is wrong about the color of the sky. [actually rejecting the claim] 4. Poisoning the well a specific kind of ad hominem where you try to discredit your opponent by sowing mistrust and disfavor. a. Ex. i. P1: Bob claims that the sky is blue. ii. P2: But, you know, Bob is a communist. [not an insult, but intended to discredit] iii. C: You shouldnt believe what Bob says about the color of the sky. [discredited] 5. Circular reasoning / Begging the question (i.e. avoiding the premise) supporting your claim with the claim itself, rather than any evidence; using a premise which automatically leads to a certain conclusion; believing youve proved something simply by assuming it.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 53 a. Ex. 1: You cant give me a C Im an A student! Here, the student argues for a claim (that they are an A student) by ignoring the actual evidence (that they got a C), and instead attempting to use the claim itself as evidence which is circular and silly. b. Ex. 2: When did you stop beating your wife? Here, the accuser assumes that the defendant has stopped beating his wife; this implies that the defendant actually did beat his wife at some point, and has now stopped. This multi-layered accusation is selfreinforcing and is not valid logic. c. Ex. 3: The Bible says God exists; the Bible is the divine and perfect word of God and cannot be false; therefore, God exists. Here, the book which attempts to prove the existence of God already assumes the conclusion of God, creating circular reasoning. Any argument that uses a holy book as a premise to conclude that the respective deity exists is immediately and fundamentally flawed via this fallacy. Cherry-picking books by calling them holy or revealed truth is dishonest and begs the question. d. Final clarifying point: Circular reasoning: A implies B which implies A Begging the question: B is assumed, which implies A which implies B. 6. Creating and attacking a strawman misrepresenting or distorting the opponents position so you have an easier claim to attack; this derails all legitimate discussion. a. Ex. 1: I like snow! How can you love shoveling snow out of your driveway on your days off?! Um, thats not what I said, and I didnt imply that, either! b. Ex. 2: I am definitely pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Murderer! How can killing babies be good? Person A never said they wanted to kill babies, nor that killing babies was good (Person A probably considers a baby different from a fetus, probably does not agree that terminate a pregnancy means killing a child (think of Csections, for example, which terminate pregnancies), and is probably thinking more about the philosophy of bodily autonomy than advocating some kind of nihilistic sadism). 7. Equivocation using a word that has multiple definitions (denotations/connotations), and, mid-argument, freely substituting one definition for another; this is a kind of strawman. a. Ex. i. P1: A feather is light. [referencing weight] ii. P2: What is light cannot be dark. [changing definition to color/brightness] iii. C: A feather cannot be dark. [false conclusion] 8. Shifting the burden of proof (onus probandi is Latin for burden of proof) the burden to prove a claim rests on the person making the claim (our entire court system is built on this principle you are not believed to be guilty until someone can show that you are). However, this turns into a fallacy when someone tries to SHIFT the burden onto someone else. a. Ex. You killed him; prove me wrong! Nope, you cant shift the burden of proof; you made the claim, and you have to provide evidence for it.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 54 9. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (Latin for after this, therefore, because of this) assuming causation simply based on the order of events (mistaking order/timing for actual cause-andeffect); correlation does not decide causation. a. Ex.1: I had pizza, and then I won the lottery; therefore, the pizza made me win. b. Ex. 2: As the number of sea-going pirates has decreased, global temperatures have increased. Therefore, pirates help keep the Earth cool. One cannot assume a causal relationship where only a temporal correlation exists. c. Ex. 3: I prayed, and she got better. Therefore, my prayer was what made her better. First, other, more physical and falsifiable factors should be investigated thoroughly: remission, medication, rest and fluids, healthy exercise, etc. 10. Fallacy of composition assuming something is true of the WHOLE, because some or any PART is true (or asserting that what is true of the whole must also be true of the parts). a. Ex. 1: Standing up in this packed stadium allows me to see the game better; therefore, if everyone stood up, everyone would see better. b. Ex. 2: Some of A = B; some of B = C; therefore, some of A = C. This is possible, but not necessary, and therefore the syllogism is incorrect (it fails the validity test)! 11. Cherry picking (also called confirmation bias or quote mining) favoring information that confirms your already-held beliefs (and ignoring other information, or refusing to seek out contradictory/challenging points, or taking quotes out of context). a. Ex. I drink and drive, but nothing happens to me. Sonya drove home drunk yesterday, and shes fine. Its what Ive been saying all along! Its not as bad as people say 12. Special pleading making an exception for your own side (i.e. creating a double standard); claiming that the standards of evidence should be modified/exempted for your position/claim. a. Ex. You have to prove your point, but Im just using common sense! 13. False dilemma (false dichotomy) falsely limiting the alternatives/choices for a claim, when there are actually more possibilities than just those that you present. a. Ex. Either youre a monster, or you love children! There is no middle ground. b. True dichotomies are mutually exclusive elements that are also collectively exhaustive. True vs. false is actually NOT a true dichotomy, because it is not exhaustive (i.e. it leaves out positions like unknown or without belief or certainty). The correct dichotomy would actually be true vs. not true. Likewise, guilty vs. innocent is not exhaustive either (it leaves out options like unable to be determined or I dont care); the correct setup is guilty vs. not guilty (which is why our courts dont determine innocence; we focus on one prong of the dilemma guilt). 14. Hasty / Sweeping generalization reaching broad conclusions too quickly and/or with insufficient evidence; remember that nuance and specifics are required for good arguments!

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 55 a. Ex. I visited that town and all I saw were two children running around on the playground. Therefore, the town must be entirely made up of nothing but children. 15. Slippery slope assuming that a small first step MUST lead to an inevitable conclusion. a. Ex. If gay marriage is legalized, people will soon be allowed to get married to dogs! This is nonsense, as dogs cannot consent to marry, whereas people can; therefore, this is a slippery slope fallacy that skips steps, makes assumptions, and ignores other points. 16. Red herring an irrelevant detail or story (that might actually seem somewhat relevant in the moment) used to divert the discussion away from the central point. a. Ex. We should enforce stricter standards in our work. After all, with all of these cutbacks, we wouldnt want our salaries to take a hit. Here, the talk of salaries diverts the conversation away from the stricter standards; these ideas might even be related, but shifting the spotlight to keeping our pay rather than staying focused on enforcing ethical and efficient work standards is a dishonest diversion. 17. Moving the goalposts changing the goals/definitions/expectations in mid-argument; this also occurs when the opponent refuses to accept a valid counter-argument, and asks instead for more points to be addressed. a. Ex. I dont think Obamas a real citizen. He released his short-form birth certificate a long time ago. Thats not specific enough! And he released the long-form certificate and the newspaper announcement. Prove those werent forged! Umm 18. Perfectionist fallacy maintaining that perfection is the ONLY viable option. a. Ex. Science sometimes gets things wrong, so its worth nothing. Perfection is ultimately impossible and irrelevant; any success is better than none, so this fallacy is just an attempt to shut down discussion with no subtlety or nuance. 19. Ad hoc rescue (ad hoc means to this point or on the fly or thrown together) making up excuses as to why a belief could still be true, in light of evidence to the contrary. a. Ex. A girl says, I dont care that hes been with her for two years and who cares about those promise rings? Hes just trying to make me jealous so Ill like him more. 20. Misleading vividness detailing a lie; adding imagery to be more convincing. a. Ex. Well, it was just a paper cut, but she really believed I cut my finger off after I told her about the stitches and the dark, thick blood, and how the nurse fainted 21. Suppressed evidence intentionally downplaying evidence that contradicts your point. a. Ex. Dont mention that I failed the test I need to get my tutoring paycheck!

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 56 22. No-true-Scotsman fallacy completely believing in a universal claim (like a stereotype) and then not accepting any contradictions to that claim. a. Ex. 1: No true American likes foreign cars. Im an American, but I really like foreign cars. Then youre not a REAL American! b. Ex. 2: True Christians dont harm people Yes, Hitler claimed to be a Christian, but he wasnt really a Christian. Sorry, you dont get to negate someones beliefs just because you dont like what they do in the name of those beliefs. 23. Reification fallacy (reify means to make an idea into a thing) using personification in problematic ways; treating something thats abstract as something thats concrete. a. Ex. The government has a hand in everybody's business and another in every person's pocket. We should make government small so that we can limit its incursions on our freedom. The government isnt a thing its not a person, has no volition or agency, and cannot act. What this person is saying is that the people who collectively work as the govt. try to pass laws to limit our freedoms. This fallacy is frequently defended as simple poetic license to use metaphors, but its real purpose is often an attempt to poison the well or to demonize an abstract idea, as seen here with government. 24. Appeal to authority assuming something must be true because someone in authority (especially an irrelevant authority) said it was true; remember, theres a difference between authority and expert. a. Ex. Mr. Brower told me so; therefore, it has to be right. Mr. Brower though he knows a lot is not infallible, especially about subjects like agriculture or weaving. 25. Appeal to consequences motivating someone based on the perceived consequences (whether they are good or bad doesnt matter) of a claim. a. Ex. You should be a Muslim, because Allah will send you to hell if you arent. Appealing to effect is a way of assuming the truth of the claim before its been proven (as well as acting as an intimidation tactic) and therefore is shoddy logic. 26. Appeal to ignorance (an argument from the lack of evidence to the contrary) believing that because something hasnt been proven false, it MUST be true (or vice versa believing that a claim MUST be false if not proven true). Ignorance is not meant as an insult; its just a description for a lack of evidence or a lack of imagination. a. Ex. 1: Because I cant think of any other way to explain how my tooth disappeared from beneath my pillow last night, it must mean that the Tooth Fairy is real. If you dont know, you dont get to jump to conclusion X you just said you dont know! b. Ex. 2: The universe has to be made by an intelligence! We didnt get here by chance! Just because you are uninformed about the sciences of cosmology and evolution, doesnt mean your idea is right. This person doesnt understand the nature of the skeptical, default position not believing something until there is good reason to believe.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 57 27. Appeal to verbosity (also proof by intimidation) being unnecessarily wordy and using needlessly complicated vocabulary in order to confuse, or to sound like more of an authority. a. Ex. The substance known as dihydrogen monoxide also christened hydroxyl acid is impossible to masticate, but can be fatal if inhaled; apropos, its capacity for causing electrical fires should not go unobserved. Ergo, this substance should be banned from use, la myostatin inhibitors and benzedrine! You just said we should ban water. 28. Appeal to pity trying to make your opponent pity you instead of addressing your argument. a. Ex. I spend all my money taking care of my mother I only robbed the bank to help her with her medical bills! This is an excuse/distraction from the fact that this person violated the law and stole other peoples property. 29. Appeal to popular belief (also bandwagon appeal or jumping on the bandwagon) assuming that a claim MUST be true because many people believe it to be true. a. Ex. Millions of people love pizza so many people cant be wrong! 30. Appeal to ridicule shaming your opponent into agreeing with you. a. Ex. If you dont want to go to war with Iraq, youre just like the terrorists. 31. Appeal to moderation claiming that the middle ground MUST be correct. a. Ex. Luke says 2+2=4, and Mary says 2+2=6. Therefore, the right answer is 2+2=5. 32. Genetic fallacy favoring a claims origin as more important than its merits. a. Ex. These are true, old fashioned hamburgers, so of course theyre great. b. This fallacy can be broken down into a couple of different fallacies: 33. Appeal to tradition assuming that a claim MUST be true/correct/superior because its old or traditional. a. Ex. Circumcision is perfectly fine, because weve been doing it forever. 34. Appeal to novelty assuming that a claim MUST be true/correct/superior because its new or modern. a. Ex. Upgrading to the new operating system always makes your life easier! There are still more! For a more philosophical breakdown of types of fallacies (formal/informal, propositional/syllogistic, etc.), as well as links to many more, please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 58
6ii. The Process, or The God Stepladder to Argumentation 0. Prior to any argumentation: a. You should have a comprehensive understanding of: cause-and-effect relationships, especially an awareness of the burden of proof; logical fallacies, and why they are detrimental to any line of reasoning; the distinction between description and explanation, and the values and purposes of each; the degrees and validity of evidence; the rhetorical appeals and the means by which people are persuaded, and how rhetoric does not necessarily deal with truth; and finally, one should approach any claim with all possible skepticism. b. You should also understand that interrogating reality is about seeking truth. If you are willing to accept something, not on its truth-value, but on some other (usually emotional) value, then you have no business arguing in the first place. You are wrong before you begin. 1. Prior to initiating your claim: a. Remember that as your claim is in its infancy, it should not include any religious language as yet; you should first be working from a purely philosophical stance. b. Define all relevant terms, paying special attention to what you mean by god. c. Be able to show how that definition of god is a sound, valid, and possible one. d. Be able to show why that god is probable (i.e. why you believe it exists). e. Be able to demonstrate that this god actually does exist. f. Steps 1c-1e should include logically sound arguments that are well-reasoned, and have realistic foundations, conclusions, and implications. Material evidence is less likely to be helpful at this philosophical stage, but should never be dismissed out of hand. 2. Make your claim that a god exists, using your foundation from #1. a. If anyone challenges your basic claim, and you completed step #1 soundly and correctly, you should have no problem in defeating any counter-arguments. If you are defeated, then you must go back and revise your step #1. b. Realize that youve just made a deistic claim, and you still have all your work ahead of your to posit theism. If you wish to claim that your religions specific god is real, you have more to do. However, do not move on to step #3 until you are sure your #2 claim is impeccable and irrefutable. Otherwise, you will simply waste your time with theological and doctrinal nonsense. 3. Prior to initiating your claim that this god is the god of a specific religion: a. Remember that your claim is becoming more complex, and issues are likely to get out of hand. You should make every effort to be as specific as possible, and not get sidetracked. Complete and argue a single issue at a time. b. Define all specific religious terms and have a thorough understanding of all of the pertinent materials, evidences, and arguments associated with your explicit religion. A detailed knowledge of the history of your religion and a fair view of the greater political, social, economic, geographic, militaristic, and legal factors would also be exceedingly helpful. c. Understand that using a holy book to defend a proposed god treads upon the logical fallacy of begging the question; remember that if a bookby simple virtue of being written could stand as indisputable truth, then the Greek gods would exist because of the Iliad, and hobbits would be running around because of J.R.R. Tolkien. Be prepared to offer outside evidence that is logically and rationally convincing.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 59
d. Be able to show completelyfrom general properties to specific featureshow the god of #2 is not only compatible with, but intrinsically identical to, your religions god. e. Be able to show completelyfrom general properties to specific featureshow your religions ideology, teachings, dogma, and tenets are not only true and compatible with your #2 god, but that they are a necessary part of that god. f. Be able to show that the history and followers of your religion have not corrupted any part of the basic principles necessary to the existence of this god or to the tenets of the religion itself. 4. Make your claim that a god exists, and that the god that exists is your specific religions god. a. If anyone challenges your more complex claim, you should be able to draw up a fairly convincing argument, provided the arguments have proceeded from step #1 soundly and correctly. If, however, you are defeated, you MUST retreat back to #3 and rework your arguments, evidence, and conclusion. If a deeper problem was found, fall back to #1. 5. Prior to your claim that the god of your specific religion should be worshiped: a. Remember, this is a complex claim not simply relating to the philosophical stances on morality, value, justice, compassion, truth, and others, but an ought claim that dictates the necessity of someone actively praising such a god. Just because a specific god has been shown to exist, does not automatically mean anyone should particularly care. You must give a rationally argued and logically sound explanation as to why this god matters to humanity as a whole and to individuals, and then show why praise should be the free and favorable action humans take. b. Define all relevant terms, such as the aforementioned philosophical expressions, paying special attention to what you mean by worthy of worship. c. Establish, and then show, that your god has the inherent qualities of something worthy of worship. Logic and rationality work here. d. Establish, and then show, that your god has exhibited and demonstrated the explicit qualities of something worthy of worship. Material evidence is essential here. e. Explicitly show that the choice to worship this god would be a free decision without any sort of duress, and that, if followed through a logical and rational progression, anyone would find the worship this god favorable. 6. Make your claim that a god exists, that the god that exists is your specific religions god, and that your religions god should be worshiped. a. The complexity of this issue shows itself once this claim has been made. There is a possibility, however small, that you would be forced back to #3 or to #1; then there is the possibility that someone challenges something in your #5, which would force you back there; yet another possibility is that someone accepts your #6 claim, but still refuses to worship your god, regardless of how favorable it would seem. b. This last point is the greater point that I entered into this stepladder with: even if, by some ridiculous feat of human ingenuity, rhetoric, and evidence, a specific worshipful god was shown to exist there would still be people unwilling to join your cult.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 60 Bibliography BibleGateway.com: A Searchable Online Bible in over 100 Versions and 50 Languages. Web. 2009-2010. <http://www.biblegateway.com>. Blackford, Russell, and Udo Schuklenk. 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print. Card, Orson Scott. Enders Game. New York: Tom Doherty Associates, 1994. Print. Cardiff, Ira D. What Great Men Think of Religion. Christopher House, 1945. Print. Comings, David E. Did Man Create God? Duarte, CA: Hope, 2008. Print. Dawkins, Richard. Richard Dawkins on Militant Atheism | Video on TED.com. TED: Ideas worth Spreading. TED Conferences, LLC, Apr. 2007. Web. <http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html>. Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton, 1996. Print. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008. Print. Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print. Faulkner, William. The Sound and the Fury. New York: Vintage, 1991. Print. Harris, Sam. The End of Faith. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2005. Print. Heinlein, Robert. Time Enough for Love. New York: Ace, 1973. Print. Hitchens, Christopher. Letters to a Young Contrarian. New York: Basic, 2005. Print. Hitchens, Christopher, ed. The Portable Atheist. Philadelphia: Perseus, 2007. Print. Hubbard, Elbert. Little Journeys to the Homes Of ... Google Books. Web. 2010. <http://books.google.com/books?id=ZHMoAAAAYAAJ&dq=Little Journeys: To the Homes of Great Philosophers, Volume XIV&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=Little Journeys: To the Homes of Great Philosophers, Volume XIV&f=false>. Hume, David, J. C. A. Gaskin, David Hume, and David Hume. Dialogues and Natural History of Religion. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print. Ingersoll, Robert G. Why I Am an Agnostic. Positive Atheism. Web. 2009-2010. <http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/ingag.htm>. Jefferson, Thomas. From Revolution to Reconstruction. University of Groningen. Web.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 61 2009-2010. <http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jeflxx.htm>. Jefferson, Thomas, John Adams, Abigail Adams, and Lester Jesse Cappon. The AdamsJefferson Letters. Chapel Hill: UNC, 1988. Print. Jefferson, Thomas. Thomas Jefferson: Writings. New York, NY: Library of America, 1984. Print. Lactantius. The Works of Lactantius. Trans. William Fletcher. Vol. 2. Gardners, 2007. Print. Marlowe, Christopher, and David Scott. Kastan. Doctor Faustus. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005. Print. Mencken, H. L. H.L. Mencken: Prejudices: The First, Second, and Third Series. Library of America, 2010. Print. Paine, Thomas. Thomas Paine Collection: Common Sense, Rights of Man, Age of Reason, An Essay on Dream, Biblical Blasphemy, Examination of the Prophecies. Forgotten Books, 2007. Print. Roberts, Stephen F. History of The Quote. Freelink: Atheist Ramblings. Web. 20092010. <http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.php>. Russell, Bertrand. Why I Am Not A Christian, and Other Essays. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957. Print. Sagan, Carl. Contact. New York: Pocket, 1997. Print. Salvatore, R. A. Sea of Swords. Renton, WA: Wizards of the Coast, 2008. Print. Shakespeare, William, Burton Raffel, and Harold Bloom. Julius Caesar. New Haven: Yale UP, 2006. Print. Twain, Mark, and Roy Blount. Mark Twain: A Tramp Abroad, Following the Equator, Other Travels. Library of America, 2010. Print. Walpole, Horace. Works by Horace Walpole. Project Gutenberg. Web. 2009-2010. <http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/w#a358>. Any remaining quotations and excerpts that are not in the FAQ and/or are not the explicit intellectual property of the author can be found and verified here: Wikiquote. Web. 2009-2013. <http://wikiquote.com/[insert person/article]>. Wikiquote Issue Discussion and Talk Channels. Web. 2009-2013. <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:[insert person/article]>.

Brower/Atheism, 2009-2014, p. 62 Any remaining information that is not the explicit intellectual property of the author or cited as any other source can be found here: Wikipedia. Web. 2009-2013. <http://wikipedia.com/[insert person/article]>. YouTube. Web. 2009-2013. <http://www.youtube.com/user/[username]>. Atheist YouTubers to subscribe to (scientific, philosophical, and generally inoffensive): AndromedasWake astronomer with great videos antybu86 philosophical arguments AronRa biology advocate and anti-creationist; lots of information on evolution C0nc0rdance science and debunking channel DarkMatter2525 / DarkAntics animator; anti-Christianity vids and philosophical rants dprjones debunker; anti-religious argumentation FFreeThinker science and religion video compendium page gogreen18 / lacigreen atheist, sex positive educator GrapplingIgnorance a teacher without a face NonStampCollector animator making fun of religion ozmoroid science info philhellenes fantastic, awe inspiring vids potholer54 debunker; science info QualiaSoup amazing animator with lengthy vids SansDeity Matt Dillahuntys channel ScienceMagazine as the name implies SisyphusRedeemed philosophy professor with unique insights stevelikes2curse great, down-to-earth presenter who discusses all topics TheAtheistExperience / AtheistExperience clips from the show TheoreticalBullshit former actor; one-of-a-kind speaker; philosophical arguments TheThinkingAtheist atheist animator and radio host TruthSurge debunker; two, ~5 hour long series on the lack of evidence for Jesus Atheist YouTubers to subscribe to (more frank users, though fantastic speakers): C0ct0pusPrime Fox News debunker; strong-worded atheist CultOfDusty over-the-top speaker and antitheist MeridianFrost extremely eloquent but harsh antitheist TheAmazingAtheist purposefully unlikable, but is good as the common atheist Thunderf00t science advocate/educator; university post-doc; controversial antitheist ZOMGitsCriss straight-talking atheist and moral activist