-~~

m~iJ ~

diu (Ji).Q) ~

~ 1M","~
~

American Atheists Essential Reading List

Enjoy the introductory information provided in these books, which are of topics of interests to Atheists. These titles represent only
a fraction of the books available from American Atheist Press, yet collectively they provide a broad overview of Atheist thought.

Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Free Thinker by David Eller

An anthropologist advances Atheists and
Atheism beyond belief!

16010

$22.00

490

Paperback

Christianity before Christ by John G. Jackson

Christian doctrines are traced to their
origins in older religions.

5200

$14.00

237

Paperback

The Case Against Religion by Albert Ellis

A psychotherapist's view of the harmful
aspects of religious belief.

5096

$6.00

57

Stapled

Living in the Light by Anne R. Stone

Subtitled "Freeing Your Child from the Dark Ages"
This book serves as a manual for Atheist parents.

5588

$12.00

157

Paperback

Our Constitution: The Way It Was by Madalyn O'Hair

American Atheist Radio Series episodes about the myth
that our founding fathers created a Christian nation.

5400

$6.00

70

Stapled

What on Earth is an Atheist! by Madalyn O'Hair

American Atheist Radio Series episodes on various topics
of Atheist philosophy and history.

5412

$18.00

288

Paperback

The Bible Handbook by G. W Foote, W P Ball, et al.

A compilation of biblical absurdities, contradictions,
atrocities, immoralities and obscenities.

5008

$17.00

372

Paperback

An Atheist Epic by Madalyn O'Hair

The personal story of the battle to end mandatory prayer
and bible recitation in schools in the Uniied States.

5376

$18.00

302

Paperback

65 Press Interviews by Robert G. Ingersoll

Ingersoll's 19th-century newspaper interviews
as a Freethinker and opponent of superstition.

5589

$15.00

262

Paperback

An Atheist Primer by Madalyn O'Hair

A humorous look at god concepts will help
children (and adults) have a clear view of religion.

5372

$6.00

30

Stapled

An Atheist Looks at Women & Religion by Madalyn O'Hair

Why attempts to reconcile religion with civil
rights for women are self-defeating.

5419

$10.00

42

Paperback

The Jesus the Jews Never Knew by Frank R. Zindler

A search of ancient Jewish literature yields no evidence
for the existence of any historical Jesus.

7026

$20.00

544

Paperback

The Great Infidels by Robert G. Ingersoll

How nonbelievers and Atheists have contributed
to civilization and enriched our lives.

5197

$7.00

80

Paperback

The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus by Rene Salm

Jesus couldn't have come from Nazareth
because no one was living there at the time.

16014

$20.00

401

Paperback

Illustrated Stories From The Bible by Paul Farrell

You can bet this book won't ever be used
In Sunday Schools!

16000

$16.00

172

Paperback

Jesus is Dead by Robert M. Price

Not only is there no reason to believe Jesus rose from the
dead, there is no reason to think he ever lived or died at all!

16005

$18.00

291

Paperback

"

Please see the order form located in the center of the magazine for member discounts and shipping & handling.
www.atheists.org

AMERICAN ATHEIST

FEBRUARY 2009
Vol 47, No.2

CONTENTS
4

From The President

New Editors Are Announced
Ed Buckner

From The Out-Going Editor

Frank Zindler

Editor Introductions
Bill Hampl & David Smalley

Letter from the Editor

Bill Hampl

Legal Update
Edwin Kagin

10

American Atheists National Conference

Atlanta, Georgia April 9-12

12

Surrounded by Marxists
Dr. Massimo Pigliucci

14

Spirit, Soul, and Mind

Frank R. Zindler

17

Foxhole Atheist of the Month

Sergeant Brooks W Dingus, by Kathleen Johnson

American Atheist is indexed in the

Alternative
Press Index.

18

American Atheist Magazine

is given free of cost to members of
American Atheists as an incident
of their membership.

Prayer & Babies

Guy P Harrison

21

Why Atheists Make the Best Type of Citizen

Marie Alena Castle

22

Does Science Make Belief in God/Allah Obsolete?

Secret Authors (Courtesy of Humanist International)

24

The Faithful Atheist

David Smalley

28

Thoughts on some Material Atheist Freedoms

Greg Lammers

ISSN 0516-9623
ISSN 1935-8369
AMERICAN

(Print)
(Online)

ATHEIST

PRESS

Editor
Frank R. Zindler
editor@atheists.org
AMERICAN
ATHEIST
'A Journal of Atheist News and Thought'
General Editor
Bill Hampl
editor@americanatheist.org
Design & Layout Editor
David C. Smalley
dsmalley@atheists.org
Cover Design
David C. Smalley
Published monthly
(except June & December)
by American Atheists Inc.
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 158
Cranford, NJ 07016
908.276.7300
P
908.276.7402
F
www.atheists.org
2009

American Atheists Inc.

All rights reserved.
Reproduction
in whole or in part without
written permission
is prohibited.

Subscription
fees for one year of
American Atheist:
Print version only: $45 for 1 subscription
and $30 for each additional gift subscription
Online version only: $35
Sign up at www.atheists.org/aam
Print & online: $55
Discounts

for multiple-year
subscriptions:
10% for two years
20% for three or more years

Additional postage fees

for foreign addresses:
Canada & Mexico: add $15/year
All other countries:
add $35/year
Discount for libraries and institutions:
50% on all magazine subscriptions
and book purchases

hange keeps coming

to American Atheists
and no doubt will never
cease to come. We have recently
completely revamped our Website (and I say 'We' only because
I'm the president and therefore
have the formal privilege of
including myself for credit
even when others have done
all the work), using impressive
talent and many hours of work
from David Silverman, Jared
Alessandroni, Blair Scott, and
others, and I join many others
Ed Buckner, PhD
in welcoming this change and
President of
delighting in it, but I also know
American Atheists
that Ed Gauci and many others
deserve great credit for the valuable Web-site that gave
way for the new one. In a similar way, I am proud to
introduce two new names-Bill
Hampl and David
Smalley-to our readers and members but also proud to
acknowledge the irreplaceable contributions of the people
they succeed. Frank Zindler, a leader of leaders, has
succeeded in finding two people to partially replace him
and Ann Zindler-or more accurately to do an important
part of the work they have done. Frank has been editor of
American Atheist magazine for many years, both before
and after Ellen Johnson served in that capacity. Ann
has given untold hours of creative and technical work to
layout and the design of the magazine. Both have also led
the crucial efforts of American Atheists Press to publish
books of singular importance to Atheists and other readers
and thinkers world-wide-and happily, the Zindlers will
continue to lead that effort. All who care about booksand every member of American Atheists ought to be in
that category-can breathe a sigh of relief about this last
piece of information.
When it comes to taking credit as president, whether I
deserve it or not, I'm eager to take some of the credit for the
results of Frank Zindler's exhaustive search for editorial
renewal for American Atheists Magazine. We-especially
Frank, but I did do some of this, too-talked to many truly
outstanding creative and technologically accomplished
people who offered American Atheists their services.
Smalley and Hampl stood out as candidates highly likely
to succeed, but their competition was plentiful and strong.
Frank and I are agreed that we will be well rewarded for
securing the services of many others from among the applicants and we certainly intend to do just that. But now
let me explain why I have such extraordinarily high expectations for our new General Editor, Bill Hampl, and
our new Design & Layout Editor, David Smalley.
4

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

FEBRUARY

2009

Bill Hampl is a classy exemplar of Atheism and of

excellence. He values community contributions and voluntarism, and his willingness to take on such important
responsibilities to lead our chief enduring path of communication with the world (starting with our members)

demonstrates the seriousness of his commitment. He is a

master of clear English, of writing, and of editing, and
will show readers that willing Atheist writers have much
to offer and can be persuaded to offer it. A protege of the
late 'Rev.' Jerry Falwell (you may want to read Bill's own
comments about Falwell before you call me up and dress
me down), Hampl's perspective and experience will give
fresh understanding to Atheism and this organization. The
words you will see in the months to come will be, as they
have in the past, the words of many different Atheists with
many ideas, some of them in conflict with some of the
rest. But behind those words, encouraging those words
and organizing them with greater clarity, will be the mind
and work of Bill Hampl. You will like what you read.
Dave Smalley is no less excellent an Atheist than Bill
Hampl, but he is nevertheless a very different guy. You
will like what you read, but you will also like what you
see-and the mind and creativjty that makes the way the
publication look interesting and engaging will be primarily Smalley's work. He has mastered so many different
graphics and layout software packages that a layman like
me had literally never even heard of many of the tools
with which he is proficient. His expertise and interests extend as well to video, and the crucial work to be done on
the magazine will assuredly not be the only arena where
either of these leaders will be contributing. More important than the technical sophistication, though, is Smalley's
creative eye, his highly developed talent at artistic composition and juxtaposition, as well as his ability to/break
out of traditional structures. Both Smalley and Hampl will
be using both words and images to maintain the traditions
that make all of us so proud our magazine, but Smalley
will be the lead image composer while Hampl is the lead
wordsmith. The work of each will complement the work
of the other, to our lasting benefit.
Welcome, William Hampl and David C. Smalley. You
cannot imagine-even though I know both of you are gloriously imaginative-just how glad all of us in American
Atheists are to have you with us.

From the
Out-Going Editor
Frank R. Zindler
ust in the nick oftime, salvation is at hand! Just as I
was about to 'go down for the third time,' someone
has thrown me a life-preserver. Actually, it wasn't
just one someone, it was two someones - and I am not
the only person whose life has been saved. My wife
and life-partner Ann has been in the Atheist publication business with me - days and nights - for over
thirteen years, and she is just as exhausted from chasing
publication deadlines as I am. The two stalwarts who
have effected our salvation are Bill Hampl and David
Smalley.
Early last summer, after I became acting president
of American Atheists, I found myself doing the equivalent of three full-time jobs: the job of president, the job
of magazine editor (in addition to my on-going job as
managing editor of American Atheist Press), and the
job I do for pay - working past retirement age as a
linguist and editor for a scientific publishing society.
Although Ann and I had produced the American Atheist
magazine for nearly eleven years after the death of the
Murray-O'Hair family in 1995, because Ellen Johnson
assumed the editorship ofthe magazine, we had not had
to worry about the journal for two years and we were
able to concentrate our efforts on book production.
Then, literally over night, we had to resume publication
of the magazine. Needless to admit, it was too much;
we couldn't publish the magazine in a timely fashion
and deadlines routinely were missed.
Early last summer I placed two ads in the magazine and on the Atheist blog: one for a new president of
American Atheists, and one for a new editor of American Atheist. The presidential position was filled last October with the accession of Dr. Ed Buckner, and that left
me more time to concentrate on finding a replacement
for myself as magazine editor. It was about as easy as
trying to change from a snow-suit into a tuxedo while
running a relay race-and avoiding arrest for indecent
exposure. Fortunately, Ed helped me in this task as
well. Out of a large pool of applicants (Damn! There
are lots of talented Atheists out there!) we were able
to settle on two men whose talents nicely complement

each other: William ('Bill')

Hampl and David Smalley.
Bill will be serving as
general editor of the magazine, concerning himself
with interacting with authors and printers, selection of materials for publication, editing them and preparing them for publication,
and copy-editing proofs before each magazine is 'put to
bed.' David Smalley will concern himself with overall
design of the magazine, layout of text in Adobe InDesign (the industry standard for creating publications),
creation of artwork, processing photographs, and even
such mind-numbing tasks as creating order-blanks and
application forms. Oh, yes: each of them will be receiving the exact same salary as I have always received:
zero dollars and zero cents per year. Their unhesitating
willingness to assume these onerous positions is a measure of their dedication to the cause of Atheism.
Once again, Ann and I will focus on publishing
new Atheist books and reprinting Atheist classics. We
hope to enlist the aid of several of the other editorial applicants whose talents seem more appropriate in book
publishing than in magazine production.
Ann and I thank both Bill and David for coming to
our rescue. We are confident that with their energy and
enthusiasm American Atheist will once again become a
journal of substance, a magazine of which we canjustly
be proud. With their help-and with the help of some
of the other applicants-we
think that American Atheist Press as a whole will be buoyed up and will once
again be the printed voice of Atheism for the Englishspeaking world.
Thank you, Bill and David!

FEBRUARY

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

Introducing ...

Bill Hampl
the new General Editor
of American Atheist

am very excited. to assume the

role of General Editor for this
great organization's chief publication. I like to think of myself
as "just another gay Atheist in the
civil service," but let me provide
a little background on myself. I
was brought up Baptist in a small
town in Massachusetts. My parents
elected to send me to a Baptist high
.school forty-five minutes from
my house rather than have me
attend the local public school.
At my high school, the teachers strongly admonished my
fellow students and me both
from socializing or dating
people from other religionsCatholics were a big no-noand also from attending any
secular colleges.
Some of
the more popular institutions
of higher learning were Baptist Bible College East, Bob
Jones University, and Jerry
Falwell's Liberty University
in Lynchburg, Virginia.
As
a reward for graduating third
in my class (out of a class of
nine students), Liberty actually
awarded me a partial two-year
scholarship. I spent my freshmen year there, experimenting with
my sexuality, and narrowly avoided
being kicked out.
After taking some time off, I
went against the grain and attended
secular schools of higher learning. I
have earned a Bachelor's of Music,
a Master of Arts in English, and a
Master of Science in Management,
with a concentration in Account6

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

- FEBRUARY

2009

ing. I went even further against the

grain and embraced my sexuality.
Eventually, I met my spouse, Jeff,
through a mutual friend at a volleyball party, and I do not even like
to play volleyball. When same sex
marriage was legalized in 2003, Jeff
and I registered for our marriage
license on May 17. May l S'" was
my birthday, and we were married

on May 20th Also that week, we

bought our house, and our cat had
kittens!
Since July of 2000, I have been
employed as an English Instructor for sailors and Marines at the
BOOST/STA-21 Programs for the
Department of Defense at the Newport Naval Base in Newport, Rhode
Island. My students are greatly

amused by my "WWJD-Who
Wants Jelly Donuts?" bumper sticker, ordered from the Atheist website, and still available there.
I am truly thankful for the confidence in my ability shown by Frank
Zindler and Ed Buckner to act as
editor of this great magazine. I will
endeavor to provide interesting articles and informative insights. For
example, when Jeff and I
attended training to foster
and/or adopt children, the
instructor told the class
not to identify as atheists,
as doing so would negatively affect our chances
of obtaining children.
s'
I will seek to put forward in print much of
what we Atheists hold
dear such as free thinking
and also how the media
present coverage of us.
Thank you and I look
forward to working for
you and with you!

Introducing ...

David Smalley
the new Design & Layout Editor
of American Atheist

its with great pleasure and appreciation that I accept the position of Design and Layout
Editor for the American Atheist. I
have long enjoyed providing creative solutions for intellectual activism, and this is my greatest quest
yet. The humble beginning of the
American Atheists organization is
an inspiration to many, and my ultimate goal is to help continue that
legacy by adding value wherever I
can. By bringing creative concepts
to the table, I hope to attract and inspire even more freethinkers for our
cause. I will take this introductory
opportunity to present a brief summary of how this relationship came
to be.
lt was January 10, 1980, just
nine days after the New Year - I was
lying there new to the world, and my
father was already furious with me
because I missed the tax deadline
for him to claim me in 1979! My
mother was also upset, because apparently, I had attempted to enter the
world sideways, obviously against
her will. Needless to say, people being upset by my unique approach to
life started at an early age!
I was raised in a primarily secular household with a Christian foundation from a Catholic mother and
an Episcopalian father, who never
agreed on much; accept that their
attendance in church wasn't all that
important. Neither really cared too
much about living by particular religious doctrine, but the 'fear of God'
was ever-present in our home. After
their divorce, when I was just five
years old, my mother instilled in me
what she felt were Christian values;
which I later came to know as hu-

manisuc ethics, but nevertheless,

she did a bang-up job!
My religious knowledge as a
child was minimal to say the least. I
was simply taught to fear the wrath
of 'God' but I never understood
why. This caused a unique interest
in religion, and I wanted to know
what everyone was so afraid of.
Even as a small child, I didn't grasp
the concept of having so much love
for something, yet being terrified of
it at the same time. In any event, as
a teenager, I became active in local
Baptist churches and gospel choirs
as a musician, typically playing the
drums each Sunday morning, and
being listed as the premier drummer for main events and recordings,
including a live performance at the
famed 'Potters House' in Texas.
I'm even plastered on the cover a
religious album as the drummer for
a popular gospel choir! Over the
years, I began to ask questions, and
those answers lead me to realize the
many fallacies of religion. Still, the
powers of ingrained fear lead me to
continue performing with religious
groups, until I finally began my
quest to find real answers. Needless
to say, the answers I received and
knowledge I discovered eventually
lead to the marvelous freedom of
Atheism!
Moreover breaking the mold, I
was the first person on my mother's
side of the family in 20 years to
graduate high school, and the first
ever to further an education with a
university. My adult volunteer work
as a secular humanist, helping the
homeless and less fortunate, and a
deep interest in exactly why intelligent people fall victim to the ab-

surdities of religion, both led me to

pursue an education in psychology
with an emphasis in applied behavioral analysis at Kaplan University.
While continuing my education, I
also host an online atheistic discussion forum titled The Smalley Debate, where theists of all types come
to argue their case, as I present evidence of how each of them are mislead! Our very own Frank Zindler
was my first inspiration, as I read
the transcript of his radio debate of
Noah's Ark on the American Atheists Web-site.
For two years, I worked with a
national television network, UATV,
as a graphics designer, video editor, and television producer. I often
performed voiceovers for cartoons
and television commercials, as well
designing scripts, magazine layouts, and billboards. Combining a
creative background in graphics,
media, and music, with an activist's
mindset toward Atheism, the position of Design Editor of American
Atheist magazine feels like the perfect fit! For a long time now, the way
Atheists have been portrayed in the
general view has been a strong motivator for me to spread the word of
reason and free thought. I am eager
to show the world how secular humanism is a productive way of life.
I currently reside in Plano, Texas with my beautiful wife Brandy,
and two amazing children, Brayden
and Talissa.
I look forward to serving in our
cause for reason.
The Smalley Debate
Blog & Discussion
www.davidsmalley.blogspot.com
FEBRUARY

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

BILLHAMPL

Atheism in Popular Culture

The Colbert Report

erhaps when readers of American Atheists have some free time, they tune
in to the antics of Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report. (Fans ofthe television series know that the title is pronounced Kol-bayr Re-por, with the
t's being silent. As Monsieur Colbert says of the pronunciation, "It's French.")
Those viewers on December 11, 2008, were treated to a special section on Atheists. For those who missed the show when it originally aired, the episode is available in its entirety at ColbertNation.com.
One of the many highlights of the Emmy-winning The Colbert Report is
the segment entitled 'The Word.' While Colbert speaks on the left side of the
television screen, a satirical commentary of his words appears on the right side
of the screen. After humorously referring to Atheists as "godless grinches," Colbert began that night's segment of 'The Word,' which was entitled 'The Unbearable Lightness of Supreme Being.' This of course is a phrase and technically
not a single word, and was a reference both to Milan Kundera's 1985 novel as
well as Philip Kaufman's 1988 film version, starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Juliette
Binoche, Lena Olin, and Derek de Lint. 'The Unbearable Lightness of Supreme
Being,' though, focused on Atheists' (supposed) activities during the holiday season.
Colbert began 'The Word' by jocularly asserting that Atheists work all year
long to "push their radical secular agenda." He then noted that when December
rolls around, Americans re-embrace their one true god (at which point the right
hand of the screen featured the word 'shopping').
Shortly afterward, the screen cut from Colbert and instead showed a December 2nd clip from Fox News featuring Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom
from Religion Foundation (ffrf.org). Barker was heard reading from a sign put
up across from a xmas display at the Washington State Capital Building in Olympia, Washington. The text of the sign read: "At this season of THE WINTER
SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no
heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
This section of the show, although brief, was quite powerful, giving valuable
coverage to people committed to the separation of church and state.
Photos of the sign and more information are available at
http://www.ffrforglnewsl 20081reasonsgreetings _madison.php

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

- FEBRUARY

2009

n December 2,2008, American Atheists, Inc., together with eleven named plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit in the
Franklin County Kentucky Circuit Court against the
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, the KENTUCKY
OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and the persons responsible for enforcing the laws that govern that Kentucky
department. The named plaintiffs are MICHAEL G. CHRISTERSON, JAMES F. COFFMAN, LUCINDA HEDDEN
COFFMAN, JAN EWING, EMMETT F. FIELDS, ALEX
GRIGG, EDWIN HENSLEY, HELEN KAGIN, GARY
MARYMAN, DAVID RYAN, and JAMES K. WILLMOT.
These plaintiffs are all Kentucky residents, and they live in
a wide variety of Kentucky counties. Some are members of
American Atheists; others are not. All of them are strong as
new rope. Rarely has such a list of constitutionally aware
plaintiffs been assembled. American Atheists, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation' incorporated in Texas, with its principal
place of business in New Jersey. The corporation is also registered to' do business in Kentucky. This is a legal nicety
that it is respectfully suggested be implemented in all states.
Becoming registered to do business in a given state is generally fairly simple and inexpensive for a not-for-profit corporation, and doing so can prevent certain unpleasant potential
problems should litigation in a given state prove necessary.

tial Proclamation urging Americans to pray and fast during

one of the most dangerous hours in American history, and
the text of President John F. Kennedy's November 22, 1963,
national security speech which concluded: "For as was writ-

"the Commonwealth
of Kentucky is in
fact attempting to
establish a religion"
ten long ago: 'Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman
waketh but in vain. '" Effective: March 28, 2002 History:
Created 2002 Ky. Acts ch. 82, sec. 2, effective March 28,
2002." That's why.
This action is believed to be in conformity with the legal
philosophy of American Atheists as set forth at http://atheists.org/press Jeleases/Legal_Philosophy
_Announced
and
at http://atheists.org/ American_Atheists _Legal_Philosophy.

Kagin
It seems to me, and to the plaintiffs, that the ComInformation on the lawsuit can be found
monwealth of Kentucky is in fact attempting to estabat http://atheists.org/Kentucky_Homelish a religion, in violation of Section 5 of the
land _ Security_Lawsuit and the text
Constitution, of Kentucky and of the First
of the Complaint at http:// www .:
Amendment to the Constitution of the Unitatheists.org/uploadlaavky.pdf.
ed States. In a recent national radio interWhy all the fuss? Because
view with a fundangelical talk show host,
Kentucky has passed into
I presented a hypothetical of whether, in
law the following incredible
language, mandating that the
Edwin Kagin - National Legal Director
choosing between two Kentucky cities
executive director of the KenAmerican Atheists
of equal size in which to attempt to survive
the kind of threat the Kentucky Office of
tucky Office of Homeland SecuHomeland Security was set up to meet, each city having an
rity shall: "Publicize the findings of the General Assembly
stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to army of defenders of equal size, one would rather be in the
the security of the Commonwealth by including the provicity where the defenders were well armed Atheists trained
sions of KRS 39A.285(3) in its agency training and edu- in anti-terrorism tactics, or in the other city where the decational materials. The executive director shall also be re- fenders were unarmed fundangelicals who only prayed and
relied upon supernatural powers-for deliverance. The host
sponsible for prominently displaying a permanent plaque
at the entrance to the state's Emergency Operations Center was outraged. Sorry. I didn't make the facts. You can hear
this interview at <http://www.theamericanview.com/index.
stating the text ofKRS 39A.285(3)." http://www.lrc.ky.gov/
krs/039g00/010.pdf>.
KRA 39A.285(3) states, in black php?id=1226>. The comments on it continue and you are
invited to join it. The host does not believe that our Constiletter law: "39A.285 Legislative findings - The General
Assembly hereby finds that: (1) No government by itself tution gives the right to believe in 'false gods.' No kidding.
can guarantee perfect security from acts of war or terror- Rarely have I encountered such irrational and scary venom.
And people like that are permitted to vote and to sit on juries.
ism. (2) The security and well-being of the public depend
An 'Answer' has been filed by the State of Kentucky
not just on government, but rest in large measure upon individual citizens of the Commonwealth and their level of to the 'Complaint.' It should be on our website soon. In its
understanding, preparation, and vigilance. (3) The safety Answer, Kentucky says the laws are not unconstitutional.
and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart Also, among other things, the Answer says that any damages
suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of these laws is of their
from reliance upon Almighty God as set forth in the public
speeches and proclamations of American Presidents, includ- own doing.
Stay tuned.
ing Abraham Lincoln's historic March 30, 1863, PresidenFEBRUARY

2009

. AMERICAN

ATHEIST

_.

35th
National Convention
The

of

Thursday, April 9th 6:00 - 9:00 PM

Great Hearth Room Registration and informal reception with cash bar.
Friday, April 10th 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM Lullwater Ballroom & 7:00 - 9:30 PM Silverbell Room
Open Banquet, Award Ceremony, Members Meeting
Saturday, April 11th 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM Lullwater Ballroom & 7:00 - 9:00 PM Silverbell Room
Open Banquet, Honor Lifetime/Gift and Legacy Members
Sunday, April 12thDining Room Hosted Breakfast
Arrive anytime between 8:00 and 11:00 AM and be greeted by your board members & directors.
Sunday, April 12th 12:00 PM - 5:00 PM
Afternoon Group Outing: Red State, Blue State; Old South, New South, From the Civil War to Civil Rights
Destinations being Stone Mountain and its many attractions, then on to the historical Ku Klux site and on to
Sweet Auburn, the birthplace and resting place of Dr. Martin Luther King. $50 per person. Includes box lunch,
transportation, and all admissions. Accessible for handicapped and limited mobility.
Additional information: President, Ed Buckner (770) 803-5353 or atheists.org/events/Nationatconvention.

10

AMERICAN

ATHEIST'

FEBRUARY

2009

AMERICAN ATHEISTS
NATIONAL CONVENTION
APRIL 9-12, in Atlanta, Georgia
Emory Conference Center Hotel
1615 Clifton Road,
Atlanta, GA 30329

merican Atheists will host its 35th National Convention at the spectacular Emory Conference Center
Hotel in Atlanta, Ga. Make plans now for an exciting weekend of social events, outstanding talks by renowned speakers, workshops and so much more. We'll have a special convention rate at this world-class
meeting venue, plus extended 'shoulder dates' so you can visit the many tourism attractions in beautiful Atlanta!
Don't forget our Thursday night (April 9) Convention Jump-Start for an evening of fun with fellow Atheists from
around the world. Said to be the "Best Kept Secret" in Georgia, the Emory is a hidden oasis as its Frank Lloyd
Wright-inspired architecture and serene wooded views combine diverse meeting space, beautiful gardens, walking
trails, and much more to create a one-of-a kind experience.
The Emory is just 20 minutes from Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. The downtown business
district and vibrant Buckhead are less than 12 minutes from the hotel. Complimentary on-site parking is an added
bonus.
The Emory offers a two-tiered guest room rate. Guest rooms in the hotel are $109 plus tax for single/double. Guest rooms in the inn (directly connected to the hotel) are $89 plus tax for single/double and include breakfast. You must make your reservations directly with the hotel on or before March 10, 2009 to enjoy our special
convention rate. Be sure to tell them you are with the American Atheist convention.'
Emory Hotel reservations: 404-712-6000
www.emoryconferencecenter.com

Confirmed Speakers
Ed Buckner: President, American Atheists, Inc.
Richard Dawkins: Evolutionist/science celebrity
Mike Malloy: Nationally-syndicated talk radio personality
Jim Morrow: Award-winning writer and novelist
Dr. J. Anderson Thomson: Psychiatrist, researcher, author
Nate Phelps: Estranged son of Pastor Fred Phelps
John Lombard: Beijing business owner, activist

Special Events
(D) evangelical Stand Up Comedy Troupe
"Mass De-baptism Ceremony"

FEBRUARY

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

11

ecently I had a strange experience: I was having dinner in Manhattan, near New York University, surrounded by a group of pleasant and
smart people, who happened to be Marxists! It was a
nice evening, following a panel discussion at New York
University on morality without gods. Still, I couldn't
help feeling I had been thrown back to my high school
days (circa 1977), when people were using terms like
'means of production' and 'oppression of the workers'
with genuine conviction and equal obliviousness to the
subtleties of actual socio-economic and political situations.
What I thought I
was going to hear from
my Marxist companions
was something along
the lines that Marx's
analysis of class struggle and of the foundations of capitalism was still largely
correct, and in fact even relevant to
the recent collapse of the worldwide
by
financial system unleashed by the
most unbridled (as in unregulated) form of capitalism
the world has seen since the era ofthe aptly named robber barons. That, I think, is actually a defensible position, as much as I don't believe for a second that Marx's
. solution will ever work in any real human society. (My
take is that both extreme socialism and extreme capitalism make the same mistake, albeit for symmetrical
reasons: they ignore fundamental aspects of human nature. Capitalism puts too much emphasis on self-interest, dismissing the fact that we are social animals with
strong cooperative instincts; Socialism errs on the other
side, proposing an ant-like society where individualism is progressively squeezed out of the human experience.)
If one actually reads Marx's The Communist Manifesto, one can hardly disagree with most of his theses.
That a key to human history is the economic struggle
among classes is true, though my view of history does
not admit of a one-cause-fits-all sort of explanation.
That a more just society would be created by a fairer
redistribution of wealth and especially of the control of
'the means of production' is also true unless your definition of 'justice' is that (economic) might makes right.
And that people's understanding of their own condition
is largely shaped by a system that wishes to perpetuate
itself despite its flagrant injustice is also something I
don't dispute.

But my Marxist dinner companions really stunned

me when they claimed that Stalin "wasn't all that bad,"
and that "Mao was even better." Come again? Let's
start with Stalin. His radical policies and pursuit of
power killed millions through famine, and that was just
the beginning. His regime was one of the most violently repressive in human history, with again millions of
people exiled to labor camps or simply eliminated, and
entire ethnic groups 'resettled' because they were not
to his liking. Oh, and while Stalin gets a lot of credit
for resisting the Nazi invasion, thereby helping to turn
the tide against Hitler during World War II, let us not
forget that he
also pushed
the MolotovRibbentrop

Surrounded
by
Marxists

12

AMERICAN

ATHEIST-

FEBRUARY

2009

Dr. Massimo Pigliucci

pact, which paved the way for Hitler's invasion of Poland, and thus the onset of the war. My Marxist friends
quibbled on exactly how many millions were killed (to
me, one million is one too many), and claimed that Stalin's was the first experiment in applied communism,
and he had to make up stuff as he went. Well, let me
declare the first experiment such a total and abject failure that I really don't think we should attempt a second
one.
But of course many other such 'experiments' were
carried out during the 20th century, one of the most
cruel being Mao's. Far from me to be able to offer an
in-depth analysis of Maoism (or Stalinism, for that matter) here. But let us consider some examples of what
the great leader of communist China did. Mao admitted to the execution of about 700,000 people just in the
1949- 53 period-justified,
in his mind, because of the
necessity of consolidating power. The real number is
more likely to be somewhere between 2.5 and 5 million. Moreover, another 1.5 million Chinese were sent
to labor camps to be 'reformed.' During the so-called
'great leap forward,' Mao's second five-year plan that
began in 1958, his policies resulted in widespread famine that killed tens of millions of people. The exact
numbers are in dispute, depending on the method used
to calculate the deaths. A widely accepted figure is of
20 million, though other estimates take that to be a

conservative number,
with a range going all
the way to the mindboggling figure of
72 million. Again, if
this is the hallmark
of success, I'd hate to
see a failure.
Why is it that otherwise
intelligent,
nice people, clearly
concerned with justice in the world, can
still whole-heartedly
claim that communism is a good idea? I suspect it is for reasons very
similar to those allowing Christians (just to pick another random group of reality-challenged people) to
read the Old Testament and seriously claim that
all those instances of Yahweh commanding his
people to slaughter, rape and pillage 'in his
name' are really quotes taken out of context. In what context, pray, does that sort
of injunction become morally acceptable? The problem, in other words, is
the uniquely human penchant for

"they
claimed
that Stalin
'wasn't all
that bad'"

adopting an ideological position and then sticking to

it - reality be damned.
As my favorite Marx, Groucho, aptly said (ironically, while talking about matters of economics in the
masterpiece movie Duck Soup): "A child of five would
understand this. Send someone to fetch a child offive."
That is not that different
from what I wanted
to scream at several points during
that recent dinner.
Luckily, the NeoMarxist Club is one
club I simply cannot
join, on the grounds
that they really
wouldn't
allow someone like me
to be one of
their members.

Dr. Massimo Pigliucci is a professor

of biology at the State University of
New York at Stony Brook. As one of
the world s foremost evolutionary
theorists and debaters of creationists,
he is truly a celebrity of science.
American Atheists is proud to number
him among its life members .

FEBRUARY

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

13

SPIRIT, SOUL, AND MIND

By Frank R. Zindler

Formerly a professor of biology

and geology in the SUNY system,
Frank R. Zindler for more than a
quarter of a century has served
as a linguist and editor for a
scientific publishing society in
Ohio. Author of The Jesus the
Jews Never Knew and more
than 100 magazine articles and
essays, he has participated in
over 400 radio and TV debates
and talk shows as an advocate
for Atheism and science. He is
managing editor of American
Atheist Press and receives
e-mail atfzindler@atheists.org.

henever I peruse a dictionary, I am struck by

the amazing number of
words which refer to nothing at all
in the real world. Many of the words
are obviously fabulous: leprechaun,
unicorn, gremlin, Philosopher's
Stone, Zeus, elf, Fountain of Youth,
ghost, etc. Others, though referring
equally to non-existent things, are
less obviously fabulous: The Mean
Sun, The. Average Citizen, vital
force, spirit, soul, and - in at least
some of its accepted meanings mind.
14

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

FEBRUARY

2009

Why the human species has

invented so many words which refer to nothing in reality is a most
interesting question for scientific
investigation, and probably would
require a complete book to elucidate properly. In this article I shall
only attempt to deal with a few such
words, specifically, the words spirit,
soul, and mind.
It is a striking fact that nearly
all languages of the world, extinct
as well as extant, have - or have
had - words which could be rendered as 'spirit' or 'soul' in English.
At first glance, it would seem that
this is a good argument in favor of
the real existence of souls and spirits. For, would it not be improbable
that so many different peoples and
languages could be mistaken? If
many different unrelated languages
have independently invented words
for soul, is that not a good reason to
believe they did so because there really is such a thing?
Well, no, I think not. The first
clue to the solution of this puzzle
comes from etymology, the study of
word origins.
While the origin of the English
word soul is obscure, the word almost certainly had its origin in a
word which meant 'breath' or 'wind'
or 'air,' or something like that. The
word spirit - generally a synonym
for soul - comes from the Latin
spiritus, and clearly meant 'breath'
originally. Spiritual and respiratory
both derive from the same root!
Moreover, if we check in the
Greek and Hebrew bibles to see
which words are translated as 'soul,'
etc., in the King James Version, we
will find many whose literal meaning is 'breath' or 'wind.' For ex-

ample, the Hebrew word neshamah

(literally meaning 'breath') is twice
rendered as 'spirit,' once as 'soul.'
The Hebrew-Aramaic word ruach
(lit., 'wind') is rendered 240 times
as 'spirit,' six times as 'mind.' The
word nephesh (lit., 'breath') is rendered 'soul' 428 times, 'mind' 15
times, 'ghost' twice, and 'life' 119
times. Turning to the Greek Bible,
we find pneuma (lit., 'breath') rendered as 'ghost' 91 times (including the rendering 'Holy Ghost'),
292 times as 'spirit.' The reader will
recognize the same root in the word
pneumonia, a word referring to a
disease of the organs of breath. And
finally, in this somewhat pedantic
parade of words, we may note the
important word psyche. As expected, its literal meaning is 'breath.'
As we might have guessed, it is
rendered as 'soul' 58 times, 'mind'
three times, and 'life' 40 times.
The .fact that nearly all words
now meaning 'soul,' 'spirit,' 'life,'
etc., trace their origins to words
meaning 'breath' or 'wind' leads me
to conclude that the derived meanings were an outgrowth of the inability of primitive people to solve
a basic biological puzzle, namely,
what constitutes the difference between a live body and a dead one?
To the ancient authors of the
Bible - men who still thought they
were living on a fiat earth beneath
a solid sky (firmament) - the solution seemed deceptively simple:
living things breathe, dead things
do not. At first, only animals (from
Latin anima, meaning 'breath' or
'breeze' originally) were considered fully alive. The case of plants
was viewed with confusion for a
long time. Some authorities consi-

dered them live, others did not. The

ancients did not realize that 'souls'
were really only a gaseous mixture
of nitrogen and oxygen, contaminated with varying amounts of water
vapor, carbon dioxide, noble gases,
and - depending upon what one ate
and whether or not one brushed after every meal - varying amounts
of aromatic substances!
In the Genesis creation myth,
the animating power of breath is
clearly depicted. God, after having
molded Adam from the dust, has to
breathe into him the breath of life
in order for him to become a living
soul. Breath is life.
The manner in which breath became equated with life is not difficult to discern. A person newly dead,
say, of a heart attack, anatomically
is not much different from what he
was like before he died. He still has
five fingers per hand, a tongue in
his mouth, a brain in his head, and a
heart in his breast. The ancients, unconscious of the microcosmic fever
of chemical marriages and divorces
that we call metabolism, could see
only one obvious difference: the
lack of breath of the dead.
When a man expired (lit.,
'breathed out"), his spirit (lit.,
'breath ') left his body, and he died.
When a man sneezed, his spirit was
forcefully ejected from his body,
and one had to say "God bless you"
or make a magical gesture, such as
the sign of the cross, very quickly,
before evil spirits could come to
take over the momentarily spiritually vacant carcass. Demonic 'possession' was the result, quite simply,
of inhaling one or more of the evil
breaths thought to hover in the air
around us. For early Christians, the
Devil's breath was everywhere.
Of course, not all possession
was necessarily evil. People could
become 'inspired' - that is, the

breath of a god could take over their

bodies to deliver words of wisdom
or apocalyptic admonitions. Indeed,
the origin of the Christian church itself was thought to have originated
in an act of mass possession by the
Holy Ghost ('Holy Breath' in the
Greek textl), In Acts 4:31 we read
that when the Apostles and others
"had ended their prayer, the building where they were assembled
rocked, and all were filled with the
Holy Spirit [breath] and spoke the

"When a
man sneezed,
his spirit was
forcefully
ejected from
his body,
and one had
to say 'God
bless you'"
word of God with boldness.' (Given
the close association of words with
breath - thought to be life itself is it any wonder that religions of all
kinds have always focused on the
magical significance of words?)
Lest anyone still think the link
between breath and the foundations
of Christianity be doubtful, attention
is drawn to the tale running through
John 20:22. Jesus has come back to
visit the Disciples to tell them that
lie is sending them out to forgive
or not forgive the sins of the world.
"Then he [Jesus] breathed on them,
saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit!' "
Right from the beginning, Christianity was based upon warm breath
- which in time became hot air.

Modem biologists, unlike the

ancient makers of myths, know that
all the phenomena of living systems can be reduced to physical and
chemical terms. They have no evidence of any 'vital force' or mystical spirit - and no need to seek for
such. They recognize the fully alive
body and the newly dead body to be
but two arbitrary points along a continuum of decreasing organization.
So much for spirit, soul, and
ghost. Originally denoting breath
or wind, they are words which have
acquired a host of mystical connotations as pre scientific people attempted to account for the difference between life and death. But
what of the word mind? Does it refer to anything real? Or is it, too, a
fabulous entity?
Unlike the analysis of spirit and
soul, the analysis of mind is not at
all simple. This is so largely through
the grammatical accident that in all
the European languages, ancient as
well as modem, the word mind is a
noun.
We tend to think of nouns as substantive: table, chair, and plumb-bob
are all nouns, and all are substantial.
There are many words, however,
which though grammatically nouns,
are not at all substantial. Words like
beauty, truth, and velocity would be
examples. Unfortunately, our thinking tends to be hedged around by
the grammar and hidden assumptions of the language with which we
think. And so it happens again and
again that abstract nouns come to
be thought of as representing things
just as substantial as those represented by common nouns. And thus
we have the basic confusion necessary to found philosophical systems
such as Plato's - whose perfect triangularity exists in triangle-heaven,
and so on.
Because mind was a noun, it
FEBRUARY

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

15

was conceived to be a thing. Be- nies that aren't 'there' at all. We can tion of this new knowledge than we
cause it was thought to be a thing, it be made to 'see' figures and lights were in the application of fire, dywas thought to have existence apart without using our eyes at all, by namite, and atomic energy remains
from the brain. Because it has inde- stimulating the visual cortex at the to be seen. Even the un-average perpendent existence, it was thought back of the brain. We can cause to son plays ill the part of Prometheus.
capable of survival after the death of appear the emotions of rage, sexu- Unless we, collectively the new
the body. And millions thought that ality, sorrow, religious awe, etc., by Prometheus, judge wisely what to
to be good reason to invest millions altering the dynamic functions of do with our new psychobiological
in that greatest of all businesses, re- the brain in appropriate ways. We powers, like Prometheus we may
ligion.
are beginning to understand how find ourselves chained to rocks, our
Neurobiological studies show neural circuits compete with each vitals tom by eagles. Or worse.
all these ideas to be quite worthless. other to give us the illusion of 'free
Mind is a process, a dynamic rela- will.' Indeed, we are on the verge of
tion, and not a thing. If we change being able to write equations relatthe processes of the brain, we ing the physicochemical states of
change the mind. The psychedelic
the nervous system with the subdrugs have taught us that fact, if jective, mental states described by
This article originally appeared
nothing else. The history of western psychologists and other mystics. In
in American Atheist in February
philosophy and religion, as well as short, we are learning to study subof 1985.
science, would have been quite dif- jective states objectively.
ferent if the word mind had develWhether or not we shall be
any more responsible in the applicaoped as a verb instead of as a noun.
To wonder where the mind goes
after the brain decays is as silly as
asking where the 70-miles-per-hour
have gone after a speeding auto has
crashed into a tree. Just as the relative motion of an auto can be altered
only within certain limits and still
represent the process called 'speedFinal Exit Network is the nation's leader
ing,' so too we can alter the funcin securing the "Last Human Right"
tioning of the brain only so much
the right to a peaceful, dignified death.
before the process called 'mind' or
"Advances" in medicine make it possible to sustain the body
'thinking' becomes altered out of
far beyond the point where life is worth living. Many condiexistence.
tions rob individuals of the will to live long before they are
Now that scientists recognize
terminal. Others would rather hasten death than lose themselves to dementia.
mind as a process rather than a
Final Exit Network serves people who are suffering now,
thing, they are making rapid adand a person's condition does not need to be terminal to
vances in understanding the specific
qualify for Exit Guide services.
brain dynamics that correspond to
the various subjective states collectively known as mind. Certain drugs
are known, for example, that affect
certain neural paths and centers in
NETWORK
the brain to produce the psychic
Membership is your key to peace of mind.
state known as euphoria. Others afP.O. Box 965005, Dept. AT, Marietta, GA 30066
fect other circuits and produce de888545-1131
pression or sleep. We can implant
www.finalexitnetwork.org
info@finalexitnetwork.org
electrodes in the brain and cause the
subject to 'hear' bells and sympho-

Quick Fact

Peace of Mind
at the End of Life

FINALExIT~

16

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

- FEBRUARY

2009

by Kathleen Johnson

ergeant Brooks
W. Dingus
joined the
Navy in 1981
and spent four
years on active
duty and nine in
the Naval Reserves
as a meteorological technician, responsible
for collecting data from weather balloons
and making forecasts. In 2007, he joined the
Army Reserves as an Aviation Operations

Specialist and in 2008, he changed

career fields and switched to
Psychological Operations. SGT
Dingus anticipates a future
deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. He has been either an Agnostic or Atheist for more than
35 years and is an active member
of the Central Texas Chapter of the Military
Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, an
organization affiliated with American Atheists.

ROOF RESCUE FUND

CONTRIBUTOR
THANKS TO THE GENEROSITY of the
person listed below, American Atheists is
well on the way to paying for the rescue of
the Charles E. Stevens American Atheist
Library & Archives. You are truly an Atheist
hero!

Richard A. Angron

$500
Monthly Roof-Rescue Donations
will be listed in this
section every month.

FEBRUARY

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

17

Prayer

&Babies
Guy P. Harrison

I know 9 million dead children

who do not believe in prayer.
Horrific child death rates in the world's most
religious nations provide a powerful blow against
all claims that prayer works.

A!

0ung mother in India prays to Vishnu, a

Hindu god revered for his mercy. She begs
or the life of the dying infant in her arms.
The 10-month-old girl suffers from dysentery and
can no longer cry in her weakened state. Like the
god who does not answer the mother's prayers, the
baby is silent. Eventually she dies.
A Muslim mother in Bangladesh faces a similar crisis. Her four-year-old son is severely malnourished and near death. In a panic, the mother
prays to Allah for help. She screams for the god
to take away the boy's pain and let him live, if
only for another day, another hour. Nevertheless,
he dies.
A mother in Chad stares into the dull eyes of a
young daughter who is losing her fight against malaria. The mother is afraid to blink. She fears the
child will die if she breaks eye contact for even a
fraction of a second. The mother is a Christian and
prays to Jesus. She pleads for a miracle as death
creeps closer. Finally, the crying mother offers Jesus anything in return for the life of her child. Still,
the baby dies.
This is business as usual in the developing
world. Every day of the year, thousands of mothers who sincerely believe in a god or gods watch
helplessly as their babies die. Virtually every one
of these deaths occurs despite a torrent of passionate prayers asking gods for life. The prayers are
sent out to a variety of divine beings, in many languages and from many nations. They are diverse
in both structure and delivery, faithful to the idiosyncrasies of numerous belief systems. Every
day and night, countless prayers from Muslims,
18

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

- FEBRUARY

2009

Hindus, Christians and other believers fill the skies

on behalf of impoverished babies on the verge of
death. But the babies keep dying by the tens of
thousands. They perish precisely as one would expect if good nutrition, clean water, medication and
access to doctors are all that matter. They die as if
no gods exist or, at the very least, as if prayer does
not work.
More than 26,000 children under the age of
five die every 24 hours in developing nations, according to UNICEF. Most of them are killed by
malnutrition and diseases that are easily prevented
or treated in wealthier societies. This carnage totals more than 9 million children per year, a statistic that more people in the West should be aware
of. Future generations may look back on us and
forgive our rampant tribalism, lust for war, and
destruction of nature, but how will they ever understand our indifference to 9 million dead babies
year after year?
Being unlucky in birth and sentenced to death
by poverty is bad enough but the manner in which
these millions of children die each year is merciless as well. They suffer terribly in their final days
and hours, enduring high fevers, severe headaches,
cramps and nausea. Is anything in our world more
unjust than their fate? No matter what the politicians and headlines tell us, this continual massacre
is far worse that wars, terrorism and natural disasters. The only reason these Children die out of view
is because they are powerless and therefore invisible to the rest of the world. Are there any other
victims who make more appropriate candidates
for a god to rescue than these babies? One would
think prayers for them would be a high priority for
a god to respond to rapidly and favorably. Even
if a god's answer is "no" to the mothers' prayers
and for some mysterious reason 9 million babies
must die each year, how can we explain why that
god refuses to ease the children's suffering before
they die?
The nearly 10 million children under the age
offive who die in extreme poverty each year have
more in common than lack of money. They also
live out their brief lives inside the most religious
societies on Earth. Based on the levels of belief in
their nations, it is likely that virtually all of them
had mothers who believe in a god or gods. Developing nations such as Haiti (Christianity), Yemen
(Islam) and Bangladesh (IslamlHindu), for

example, are not only very poor but also have

an exceptionally strong presence of religious belief. Atheists tend to be the rarest of creatures in
these societies. (See: Phil Zuckerman's essay,
"Atheism: Contemporary Numbers and Patterns",
in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Michael
Martin, ed.) Therefore, it is reasonable to assume
that nearly every mother with a severely ill child in
these countries prays and prays hard.
A mother's prayer, transmitted within the lifeand-death context of her seriously ill baby, must be
among the most heartfelt words ever uttered by a
human being. There simply is no doubting the sincerity and force of such a plea when death stalks a
mother's child. Certainly these prayers, above all
others, should get a god's attention and inspire
action. But the children keep dying. If just
one version of one religion that is popular
in the developing world had a true communication link to a god who responded
to prayers we should see impoverished
babies linked to that religion fare better
than others in similar conditions. But we
do not. Based on the numbers, the world's
poorest babies appear to die strictly in relation to their access to adequate food, clean
water and healthcare. Nothing else seems to
matter, least of all prayers.
Meanwhile, as babies die by the millions in highly religious societies, children under the age of five do much better in nations with relatively high rates
of atheism such as England, France,
Sweden, Canada and Denmark. In the
world's least-religious societies, mothers are less likely to be believers and, therefore,
less likely to pray for their baby's health. It is reasonable, then, to assume that much less praying for
newborn or sick babies is occurring in societies
that have the lowest levels of belief. But it seems
to be of no consequence because children in these
countries survive at a much higher rate. Again, it's
as if prayer is meaningless. Of course, defenders
of prayer may point to the severe imbalance of resources and healthcare between wealthy and poor
societies as the reason. But wouldn't that suggest
that the gods are limited in their powers? Do prayer
defenders really imagine that their god's hands are
bound by mere human economics? Is their god
stumped by the challenges of inadequate healthcare

infrastructure and low doctor/patient ratios in the

developing world? Surely a god could overcome
such trivial details and answer a mother's prayer.
Those who claim that praying causes positive
results are in a tough spot given the long dark shadow of 9 million more dead babies each year. Can
they explain why so many babies die in accordance
to their society's global economic rank rather than
how much praying is done on their behalf? Standard
defenses for prayer do not work so well here. "God
works in mysterious ways" and "Sometimes God
says, 'no'" seem trite, ifnot offensive, in the face of
so much pain and death. Keep in mind, these dead
babies had not been blasphemous or sacrilegious.
Most of them barely lived long enough to learn to
speak. These babies were not gay. They didn't
belong to atheist clubs, watch pornography, or listen to immoral music. They
were babies.
High child death rates in societies where prayer is popular is an important issue because prayer is one
of the most common reasons cited
by religious people worldwide for
why they believe in their god or gods.
Praying, they say, is a real phenomenon. I have heard it from many
followers of many different
religions.
"Prayer works,
therefore, my god must be
real," they declare. Of course,
skeptics argue that claims of
answered prayers usually can
be explained as nothing more
than misinterpretations, coincidences, or statistically expected results that don't
necessarily have anything to do with a supernatural
cause. There also is no getting around the fact that
the same claims for the value of prayer are made by
people who pray to very different gods within contradictory belief systems. Based on their resumes,
all gods cannot be real. Therefore, many prayer advocates must be wrong and it is possible that they
are all wrong. Unfortunately, the common skeptical arguments fail to carry much weight among believers. Prayer defenders find them cold, unappealing and easy to fend off with an anecdote or two.
Millions of little babies, however, left to suffer and
die by the gods, might get their attention.
Given the attraction believers have to prayer,
FEBRUARY

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

19

and its role in helping to convince people that gods

exist, prayer deserves more attention and more
scrutiny. Some nonbelievers ignore prayer as an
unimportant side issue but it's more than that. Convince believers that prayers are not answered and
many of them may begin to consider the possibility
that no gods exist in the first place. Unfortunately,
no scientific study can conclusively disprove prayer
because believers can always challenge the results.
Prayer is too flexible, too elusive, too personal,
too silent, too invisible and too mysterious to ever
achieve total scientific closure. A study that fails to
validate prayer does not disprove prayer as a real
phenomenon .. It can only show that prayer didn't
work in that specific case and believers know this
very well. The loopholes alone make prayer studies
unlikely to change the minds of believers. Maybe
just participating in a prayer study is an insult to the
gods and will ensure that the prayers will fail. Who
determines the "proper" way to pray? The world's
believers have never been able to agree on who the
real gods are, which sacred writings are valid, or
even how one should dress and eat. It is unlikely
that they will ever agree on how to pray. Someone can always say a given study failed to validate
prayer because of one technicality or another. This
does not mean that skeptics should give up, however.
Praying mothers and their dying babies-approximately 100 million per decade-provide
a
devastating blow against belief in prayer. Atheists
should cite this tragedy forcefully and frequently
because the agony and death of young innocents on
a massive scale makes a compelling case against
the power of prayer. And it is something that many
good-hearted believers are likely to take note of.
Personal stories of answered prayers and canned
comebacks are unlikely to gain much traction before a mountain of dead infants. The millions of
children who died last year, and the mothers who
prayed for them, deserve a mention every time
someone claims that prayer brought on a miraculous healing of some disease. When believers say
praying brought them more money, a better job
or success in love, atheists need only bring up the
26,000 babies who were not saved by prayer yesterday and the 26,000 who won't be saved today.
It is not rude or unfair to ask believers why their
gods do not respond to the most urgent and important prayers of all. Given the prominence of prayer
20

AMERICAN

ATHEIST'

FEBRUARY

2009

"'

in so many religions, this is a meaningful challenge.

It may promote rational thinking by spurring believers to question even more than prayer. For undoubtedly some of them will have the honesty and
courage to consider the possibility that the prayers
of so many broken-hearted mothers go unanswered
every day because no gods are there to hear them.
Guy P. Harrison is an award-winning journalist and
the author of 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in
a God, published by Prometheus Books. Contact him
at guyfeedback@gmail.com

Why Atheists Make the

Best Type of Citizen
nour religious culture, Atheists are not so much on the
outside looking in as caught
in the crossfire. We'd just as
soon be left alone, but the demand from all sides is that we
have a god belief. Because we
don't, the Bible calls us "fools,"
it is assumed we have no moral compass, and we cannot get
elected to public office.
As for patriotism, "An Atheistic American is a contradiction
in terms," according to Congressman Louis Rabaut, who introduced the bill putting "under
God" in the pledge in 1954.
The elder George Bush reiterated this on August 27, 1987,
at a Chicago press conference:
" ...1 don't know that Atheists
should be considered as citizens," he said, "nor should they
be considered patriots. This is
one nation under God." All this
simply because we accept that
the natural world is all there is,
having no reason to think other-

WIse.

These accusations have been

piled on us for so long that Atheists rank at the bottom in social
acceptability. But, as the girl
said as she picked up the shovel,
"With such a big pile of crap,
there has to be a pony in here
somewhere." There is.
The truth is that Atheists actually make the best type of citizen and cause the least trouble of
any demographic group.
We go only by what makes
sense and improves life in the
here and now. Our commitment
to secular government has made
us strong supporters of freedom of conscience and of every
movement to repeal oppressive
laws. This includes abolition,
women's
suffrage,
workers'
rights, civil rights, reproductive rights, gay rights, children's
rights, medical research, and
physician aid in dying. We ap

By Marie Alena Castle

preciate liberal religionists who

also support these issues. We oppose religious authoritarians as
politically and socially harmful.
In the workplace, we are there to
get the job done. We need no accommodations for prayers, holy
days, religious attire or services
we refuse to pro-vide because of
religious beliefs.
In politics, we have no contentious religious beliefs to impose and we don't do religious
wars. In public education, our
interest is in educating students
about the arts and sciences, and
teaching them to think critically,
behave responsibly, and make
the most of their abilities.
Like all humans, Atheists
create myths to express ideas.

"J don't
know that
Atheists
should be
considered
as citizens"
- George
Bush Sr.
While religious myths offer inspiration from the past with stories of miraculous and heroic
events, Atheist myths look to the
future, often expressed through
science fiction.
Perhaps the most powerful is
the world of "Star Trek," created
by Atheist Gene Roddenberry,
where humans have given up
wars, social preju-dices and divisive beliefs, and used science
to end
hunger and poverty.
That is a myth to inspire us that
has some faint hope of realization.

This is the reality humans

face and must deal with: We are
a vulnerable species in a universe that is basically a huge
debris field 15 billion light years
across, full of violence and destruction. We are hunkered down
on a small, unstable rock wobbling through that debris field.
The life forms that evolved in
the thin biosphere surrounding
this rock survive by eating each
other. The evolutionary process
that brought us to consciousness
works off of high birth and death
rates with many defective products. There is no greater prescription for misery.
But here we are, with one
life to live and no one to turn
to for help but each other. We
humans have worked mightily to overcome nature's shortcomings, with the only "god"
in sight being us, warts and all.
Despite the difficulties, life remains an exciting challenge, and

we accept it.
Marie Alena Castle is communications director for Atheists For Human Rights (www.
Atheistsforhumanrights.org),
based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. For most of her life she has
been involved in one cause or
another, including labor unions,
women s rights, abortion rights,
civil rights, gay rights, etc. She
discovered that all the causes
could be addressed by Atheism,
since the source of all their troubles was religion .
FEBRUARY

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

21

Secret Authors From Dangerous Countries

Asked That Their Idenities Be Withheld ...
[This article is courtesy of Humanist International]

Does Science Make Belief in Allah/God Obsolete?

ecessarily,it does - says a physicist. . .If not,. we

must invent a science- friendly, science-compatible fiction of allah/god. First, try the pantheon
of available fictional creators. Inspect thoroughly. If
none fits the bill, then invent a new one. The allah/god
of your choice must be a stickler for the so-called divine
principles laid down by the priests-the classical inventors of allah/god over the centuries. Science does not
take kindly to the so-called deity who, ignorant people
suppose, if piqued or euphoric, sets aside seismological
or cosmological principles and in wild dreams of many,
can causes the moon to shiver, the earth to split asunder, or, as to some stupid people, such a deity may even
cause the universe to suddenly reverse its expansion.
This fictional allah/god must, among other things, be
stoically indifferent to supplications for changing local
meteorological conditions, the task already being naturally performed by the discipline offluid dynamics.
Therefore, religious people, even if they pray earnestly with their buttocks elevated in the air, dance with
great energy around totem poles, shall not cause even
a drop of rain to fall on parched soil. This newly invented, rule-abiding and science respecting allah/god/
bhagwan equally well dispenses with tearful Christians
singing the Book of Job, pious Hindus feverishly reciting the havan yajna, or earnest Muslims performing the
special rain prayers in hot dry deserts as they face
the former abide of idols, the so-called holy Ka'aba.
The fact is that the equations of fluid flow, not
the number of earnest supplicants or quality of their
prayers, determine weather outcomes. This is grossly
irreligious; otherwise, one could imagine joining the
faithful of all religions in a huge simultaneous but vain
global prayer that stupids feel would wipe away the pernicious effects of anthropogenic global climate change.
Your chosen allah/god cannot entertain private petitions

22

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

- FEBRUARY

2009

for good health and longevity, prevent an air crash, or

send woe upon demand to the enemy. Mindful of microbiology and physiology, she/he cannot cure leprosy
by dipping the afflicted in rivers or have humans remain
in unscathed condition after being devoured by a huge
fish. Faster-than-light travel is also out of the question,
even for the so-called prophets and special messengers.
Instead, she/he must stay as the fictional and nominal runner of the world according to the laws and unto
the letter, closely following the flow of Nature. A scientific fictional creator should certainly know an awful lot
of science which the formerly invented medieval allah/
god didn't need. To differentiate between the countless universes discovered by superstring theory is a
headache. Fine-tuning chemistry to generate complex
proteins, and then initiating a cascade of mutations that
turn microbe to man, is also no trivial matter.
But bear in mind that there are definite limits to
knowledge, whether by man or by any fictional creator:
the fictional allah/god can supposedly know only the
limited, the knowable. Omniscience and science do
not go well with each other. The difficulty with omniscience-even
with regard to a particle as humble as
the electron-has been recognized as an issue since the
1920s. Subatomic particles show a vexing, subtle elusiveness that defeats even the most sophisticated effort
to measure certain of their properties even when tried
by a fictional allah/god. Unpredictability is intrinsic
to quantum mechanics, the branch of physics which all
particles are empirically seen to show. This discovery
so disturbed Albert Einstein that he rejected quantum
mechanics, pronouncing that the fictional allah/god
could not "play dice with the universe." But it turned
out that Einstein's objections were flawed-uncertainty
is deeply fundamental. Thus, any science-abiding fictional deity we invent will be incompletely informed on

many aspects of nature. Is one being excessively audacious, perhaps impertinent, in setting down terms of
reference for a fictional divine and non-existent entity?
Really! Humans have always invented their objects of
worship. Smarter humans go for smarter fictional versions of allah/god. Anthropomorphic representationssuch as an allah/god with octopus arms-are a bit out
of fashion today but were enormously popular just a
few centuries ago. As well, some people might object
to binding fictional allah/god and the real human to the
same rules of logic, or perhaps even sharing the same
space-time manifold.
But if we drop this essential demand then little shall
remain. Reason and evidence would lose meaning and
be replaced by fiction, tradition, and the delusion of revelation. It would then be wrong for us to have 2 + 2 = 5,
but okay for inventing the fiction of an allah/god. Centuries of human progress would come to naught.
Let's face it: the day of the mythical Sky God is
long gone. In the Age of Science, religion has been
re-invented, and the medieval allah/god of classical
religions has lost repute and territory. Today, people
pay lip service to trusting that rusty allah/god, but they
still swallow medicines when sick. As a case in point,
Muslim-run airlines start a plane journey with prayers
but ask passengers to buckle-up anyway, and most suspect that people who are falsely rumored to rise miraculously from the dead were probably not quite dead to
begin with. These days if you hear a voice telling you
to sacrifice your only son, you would probably report
it to the authorities instead of taking the poor lad up a
mountain, and if you really took your son to an alter for
sacrifice, the state would be sure to put you in a mental asylum, regardless of whether you call yourself the
prophet Abraham or somebody else. As you can well
imagine, the old trust is disappearing.
Nevertheless, there remains the tantalizing fiction of
a divine power somewhere 'out there' who is blamed to
run a mysterious, but scrupulously and rather stupidly, a
miracle-free universe. In this universe, the fictional Allah/God may be dishonestly ascribed to act in ingenious
ways that seem miraculous. Yet these fictional and 'never-actually-verified-miracles' do violate physical laws
and seem ridiculous. Ordinary and naturally, no supernatural interventions in the physical world could permit
quantum tunneling through cosmic holes. It would be
perfectly unfair for a scientific mind to invent a fictional
allah/god to explain the nonlinear dynamics to explain
how tiny fluctuations quickly build up to earthshaking
results-the
famous 'butterfly effect' to give a rather

dull explanation of the deterministic chaos theory.

Nietzsche and the other philosophers were plain
right-God was never alive, but always dead. Even as
the fiction of divine habitat, the sky, shrinks before the
aggressive encroachment of science, the quantum foam
of space-time may be ascribed to create a little confused
space for the crazy delusion based on the spare universes, offering space both for self-described 'deeply and
spiritually confused believers.' Many eminent practitioners of science have successfully persuaded themselves that there is no logical contradiction between
faith and belief, by inventing a science-fiction of Allah/
God, or by clothing a traditional fiction in new terminology of science fiction. Unsure of whether they happen to exist at all, humans are likely to scour the miserable delusion of heavens forever in search of some sort
of meaning.

The Founder's Friends

So many of you help American Atheists with donations
and other financial support-and we wanted to find a way
to say "Thank You!" We are pleased to announce the re-establishment of an American Atheist tradition-The Founders'
Friends, begun by the Murray O'Hair family.
Those contributing $50 or more to American Atheists will
have their names and amounts entered in subsequent issues of the American Atheist. Just fill out the blue card with
the information requested, include your gift, and mail it back
to us in the enclosed envelope. Be sure to check the appropriate box authorizing us to thank you by printing your name
and contribution amount in the magazine. Mailing addresses will not be mentioned. This is our way of saying THANK
YOU to an extraordinary group of people-those of you who
want to "do more" and financially support the critical work of
American Atheists!
American Atheists thanks the following persons for their
generous contributions to our cause.
Dick Hogan, TX - $200
Shane W. Roper, AZ - $75
Jewel Snow, NY $300
Cat Coltrell, AZ - $100
Burton Bogardus, CA $500
Caroline Gilman, NY - $50
B. Lobitz, SC $100

E. A. and J. S. Vargas, MA $125

Lester W. Barnett, PhD., LA $100
Zbigniew Ziobrowski, TX - $50
Howard M. Palmer, CT $100
Gary Gahagan, PA $100
Neal Cary, VA $500
Athena Berger, CA $250

FEBRUARY

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

23

the

FAITH FU i3THEIST

ne of the stronger arguments against Atheism

is not made by religious folks at all, but often
times by our friends, the Agnostics; who claim
Atheism requires just as much faith as religion. The basis of their argument is that the separation of Atheism
and Agnosticism basically comes down to Atheists havingfaith that there is no god, while Agnostics stand firm on the notion that Atheists
and theists alike are attempting to resolve
the unattainable. To further this argument, during a religious debate, a Christian once said to me, "Idon't have enough
faith to be an Atheist!" This claim comes
from the many religious folks that assert being an Atheist requires
persons to have all knowledge
of the universe in order to
firmly state that there, are
no gods. Of course, being that we all lack
that
knowledge,
the claim is made
that Atheists must
have a tremendous
amount of faith - even
more so than theists. With these

dedicated to belief in a god, so we can quickly rule that

one out for Atheists. The final definition simply states
'complete trust, especially with strong conviction.'
Well, they have us there! We do trust evidence and science. It is impossible to say Atheists have no faith at all,
in the literal sense.
A preacher once told me, "You would be a great
Christian if you ever started to believe; we could
use your level of conviction in our church!" He
followed by saying "I have to say, I respect you
for having so much determination to stand up
for what you believe in. " I responded with "Correction - I stand up for what I don't believe in. "
That statement set the tone that we
Atheists do not project a system of
beliefs that require the burden
of proof. It is the duty of the
accuser to prove the existence of their god, and we
only stand up to them when
they assert their beliefs as
fact or common knowledge
without absolute proof. This
is where the problem comes
in. What may be proof to one
may not be proof to another; so what
is the meaning of proof?
postulations coming from both
ends of our debate spectrum, let's
Imagine for a moment that faith is
dive into exactly what they mean, davidsmalley. blogspot. com measured in a single tube (such as a
and how you can handle this when
thermometer) in which the actual fluid
presented with the accusation in your own debate.
represents evidence percentage, and as it rises, people
First of all, as with any good discussion, we must become closer to a full confirmation (proof). Any respeak the same language as our opponent and not allow maining space in the tube is a lack of evidence, also
them to set the definitions ofthe conversation. Do not let known as faith. Of course, upon discovering all posthem coax you 'into accepting 'faith' as only a religious sible evidence, the tube is full because faith is no longer
term. The word actually derives from the Latin fidere, needed. I call this the-Faithometer Theory; and it conmeaning 'to trust' which is akin to fides, also meaning cludes that a belief in the most far-fetched assumption,
'promise, loyal, and assurance.' This is-how we adopted with the least amount of evidence, must have the largest
the phrase 'bona fide' meaning 'real' or 'factual,' and amount of faith.
'fidelity' meaning' loyalty' and 'sincerity.' Webster has
In the simplest form of examining this theory, let's
three English definitions for faith; the first being 'an set the scenario that Beth is standing in front of a closed
allegiance to a duty or person, and sincerity of inten- door. By stating that she believes a dog is behind the
tions.' This is used when stating a person is 'faithful' to door, she is making that statement on 100% faith, betheir spouse. The second version of the word is wholly cause she has no evidence to support that claim (her

David Smalley

24

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

- FEBRUARY

2009

Faithometer is empty). Once she hears a dog barking,

her evidence rises to approximately 50%, because she
must concede that while she's fairly certain the barking
is coming from behind the door, the audio she hears
could be a recording, or the dog could be in an adjacent
room. Her statement is then made up of 50% evidence,
and 50% faith. If she were to open the door and find
a dog, her evidence would rise to 100% because she
would have effectively proven her faith, and confirmed
the existence of the dog. This would be the ultimate
proof. However, with only partial evidence, and the
possibilities of fallacies lingering, she must rely on a
great deal of faith to make the claim that a dog is behind
the door.
In a slightly more ambiguous form, you may have
faith that your mother gave birth to you - so you go to
the hospital where you were allegedly born, and check
the records. Sure enough, your mother's name is next
to yours, and the documents provide you with a substantial amount of evidence for your Faithometer. But
is that really absolute proof? Should your Faithometer
be at IOO%?The documents could have been mistyped
or you could have been unintentionally switched at
birth, and given the name of the child that was set to
go home with your mother. Even with this document
as evidence, there is a slight chance of error. Therefore,
while you may wholeheartedly believe _your mother
gave birth to you, 100% of the evidence has not been
obtained; therefore, even though your Faithometer has
a substantial amount of evidence, say 98%, you are still
relying on a small percentage of faith - but still, it is
faith.
With a full understanding of both aforementioned
scenarios, do you think it is fair to make the claim that
you and Beth have just as much faith? When she hears
the dog barking, is that just as much evidence as your
birth certificate? Of course not - simply because you
personally deem proof to be only that which satisfies
your particular doubts. Therefore, if you do not have
enough information, or even a problem complicated
enough to form more detailed inquisitions, your doubts
will be limited, and therefore require less evidence before you consider it proof (this determines the size of
your Faithometer).
We must remember that all seas are at the same level, regardless of depth. On the surface, they appear to be
the same - but once you're in the water, the bottom can
mean all the difference in the world! Simply because
two people have faith, it does not make them equally
blind to facts. Faith can be both justifiable and unjustifi-

"The
strongest
faith often
lies in the
fialsehoods
of others"

able. We find a great

example
with the
deep-sea
fisherman
and scientists whom
prior to 2004, had recovered the bodies of
giant squid, but had
neither filmed nor
captured one living.
These people had
justifiable faith that
giant squid existed

du~ to the probable

evidence they had
found. It would completely discount their
records and evidence
to say they had just as
much faith as the believers of Demeter, the Greek Goddess of Agriculture!
Since we Atheists do not have all the answers, some
level of justifiable faith is required, in the literal sensejust as the scientists looking for the giant squid trusted
there was one living before it was proven. But pointing
back to the Faithometer Theory, when a greater amount
of knowledge is discovered, a smaller amount of faith
is required. In addition, it is much more far-fetched to
say a magical god exists and is intervening in human
lives on earth, than it is to state no such magic is possible. In fact, one statement is 'sensible and rational, and
the other is an unjustifiable claim. Perhaps it is fair to
say the theist must have all knowledge of the universe
in order to claim their god is the only god! (Most Christians would probably argue that as fact, but biblically,
Yahweh even mentions 'showing off' for other gods in
the Old Testament). It's reasons like this, that a theist
has the burden of proof with such an outstanding accusation fueled with unjustifiable faith.
If I were to try to be an Agnostic, and say, "1just
don't know if there is a god, " I would feel just as silly as
saying "1just don't know if there is a Tooth Fairy. " In
the literal sense of trusting in evidence, I'm okay with
being a faithful Atheist, but my faith is justified, and
nothing like the unjustifiable faith required by believing in magic! The strongest faith often lies in the falsehoods of others - otherwise known as the lack of evidence held by our opponent. The Atheist has not made a
single claim to require faith, accept that all supernatural
claims are without proof. If an Atheist has faith in anything, it's that theists accept fallacies as evidence.
FEBRUARY

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

25

Faithometer is empty). Once she hears a dog barking,

her evidence rises to approximately 50%, because she
must concede that while she's fairly certain the barking
is coming from behind the door, the audio she hears
could be a recording, or the dog could be in an adjacent
room. Her statement is then made up of 50% evidence,
and 50% faith. If she were to open the door and find
a dog, her evidence would rise to 100% because she
would have effectively proven her faith, and confirmed
the existence of the dog. This would be the ultimate
proof. However, with only partial evidence, and the
possibilities of fallacies lingering, she must rely on a
great deal of faith to make the claim that a dog is behind
the door.
In a slightly more ambiguous form, you may have
faith that your mother gave birth to you - so you go to
the hospital where you were allegedly born, and check
the records. Sure enough, your mother's name is next
to yours, and the documents provide you with a substantial amount of evidence for your Faithometer. But
is that really absolute proof? Should your Faithometer
be at 100%? The documents could have been mistyped
or you could have been unintentionally switched at
birth, and given the name of the child that was set to
go home with your mother. Even with this document
as evidence, there is a slight chance of error. Therefore,
while you may wholeheartedly believe _your mother
gave birth to you, 100% of the evidence has not been
obtained; therefore, even though your Faithometer has
a substantial amount of evidence, say 98%, you are still
relying on a small percentage of faith - but still, it is
faith.
With a full understanding of both aforementioned
scenarios, do you think it is fair to make the claim that
you and Beth have just as much faith? When she hears
the dog barking, is that just as much evidence as your
birth certificate? Of course not - simply because you
personally deem proof to be only that which satisfies
your particular doubts. Therefore, if you do not have
enough information, or even a problem complicated
enough to form more detailed inquisitions, your doubts
will be limited, and therefore require less evidence before you consider it proof (this determines the size of
your Faithometer).
We must remember that all seas are at the same level, regardless of depth. On the surface, they appear to be
the same - but once you're in the water, the bottom can
mean all the difference in the world! Simply because
two people have faith, it does not make them equally
blind to facts. Faith can be both justifiable and unjustifi-

able. We find a great

example with the
deep-sea
fisherman
and scientists whom
prior to 2004, had recovered the bodies of
giant squid, but had
neither filmed nor
captured one living.
These people had
justifiable faith that
giant squid existed
due to the probable
evidence they had
found. It would completely discount their
records and evidence
to say they had just as
much faith as the believers of Demeter, the Greek Goddess of Agriculture!
Since we Atheists do not have all the answers, some
level of justifiable faith is required, in the literal sensejust as the scientists looking for the giant squid trusted
there was one living before it was proven. But pointing
back to the Faithometer Theory, when a greater amount
of knowledge is discovered, a smaller amount of faith
is required. In addition, it is much more far-fetched to
say a magical god exists and is intervening in human
lives on earth, than it is to state no such magic is possible. In fact, one statement is sensible and rational, and
the other is an unjustifiable claim. Perhaps it is fair to
say the theist must have all knowledge of the universe
in order to claim their god is the only god! (Most Christians would probably argue that as fact, but biblically,
Yahweh even mentions 'showing off' for other gods in
the Old Testament). It's reasons like this, that a theist
has the burden of proof with such an outstanding accusation fueled with unjustifiable faith.
If I were to try to be an Agnostic, and say, "I just
don '[know if there is a god, "I would feel just as silly as
saying "I just don t know if there is a Tooth Fairy. " In
the literal sense of trusting in evidence, I'm okay with
being a faithful Atheist, but my faith is justified, and
nothing like the unjustifiable faith required by believing in magic! The strongest faith often lies in the falsehoods of others - otherwise known as the lack of evidence held by our opponent. The Atheist has not made a
single claim to require faith, accept that all supernatural
claims are without proof. If an Atheist has faith in anything, it's that theists accept fallacies as evidence.

"The
strongest
faith often
lies in the
falsehoods
ofothers"

FEBRUARY

2009

- AMERICAN

ATHEIST

25

...,....
....
~ons Presently At6Iiated
with American Atheists
Agnostic & Atheist
Student Association
(UC Davis)
Jeremy Ross, President
jerross@ucdavis.edu

Atheists & Agnostics

Group of Rossmoor
3612 Rossmoor
Parkway #4
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
(925) 933-3133
rgolden272@comcast.net

Atheist Coalition of
San Diego
Jeff Archer, President
4245 Francis Way
La Mesa. CA 91941
(619) 465-9528
lekkerspikkels@msn.com

Atheists & Other Freethinkers

PO Box 15182
Sacramento, CA 95851-0182
(916) 447-3589
aa-liaison@aofonline.org

Atheist Community
of Austin
PO Box 3798
Austin, TX 78764
(512) 371-2911
info@
atheist-communiry.org

Atheists and
Freethinkers of Denver
David Eller, Coordinator
PO Box 22174
Denver, CO 80222
(303) 285- 3482 x7118
athofden@onebox.com

Atheists for
Human Rights
5146 Newton Ave
Minneapolis. MN 55430-3459
(612) 529-1200
conmmnications@
atheistsforhumanrights.org

Atheists of Greater Lowell

Steve Berthiaume, Director
50 Danforth Rd.
Tyngsboro, MA 01879
(978) 394-8729
stevieb@verizomnail.com

Atheists of Silicon Valley

Go to Web Page to contact.

Atheist Humanist Society

of Connecticut and
Rhode Island
Bill Russell, President
399 Laurel Hill Avenue
Norwich, CT 06360-6935
(860) 334-6769
NorwichAtheists@yahoo.com

Atheists United for a

Rational America
PO Box 2073
Iowa City, IA 52244-2073
(319) 400-5328
rationality.rules@
gmail.com

Atheist Station
Ron Stauffer, President
PO Box 1623
Altoona, PA 16603
(814) 949-7149
info@atheiststation.org

26

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

- FEBRUARY

Boston Atheists
95 Melville Avenue
Boston MA 02124
(617) 935-4951
BostonAlheists@
gmail.com

2009

Boulder Atheists
POBox 19468
Boulder, CO 80308-3974
(303) 258-3974
info@BoulderAtheists.org

Bradley Atheists
(Bradley Univ, Peoria)
Paul Tm'ack, Founder
912 N Elmwood Ave.
Heitz Hall, Room 112
Peoria, IL 61606
(309) 677-1421
PTurack@Bradley.edu

Campus Atheists, Skeptics

and Humanists (CASH)
(Univ ofMN)
126 Coffman Memorial Union
300 Washington Avenue SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455
CASH@cashumn.org

Charlotte Atheists & Agnostics

Dan Russell-Pinson.
Coordinator
info@CharlotteAtheists.com

Florida Atheists & Secular

Humanists (FLASH)
Ken Loukinen, President
P. O. Box 246743
Pembroke Pines. FL 33024
Browardatheists@mac.com

Free Inquiry Group, Inc.

Margaret O'Kain, President
PO Box 19034
Cincinnati, OH 45219
figinfo@gofigger.org

Freethinkers of
Upstate New York
Doug Schiffer, President
(315) 245-3596
director@funygroup.org

Freethinkers
United Network (F. U. N)
3854 139th Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
(425) 269-9lO8
wendita99@hotmail.com

Gator Freethought (UF)

gatorfreethought@gmail.com
Community of Reason
Dr. Theo Schubert,
Coordinator
5019 State Line Road
Kansas City, MO 64112-1156
(816) 561-1866
info@communityofreason.net

Connecticut Valley Atheists

650 Bolton Road
Vernon, Connecticut 06066
(860) 454-8301
info@cvatheists.org

East Bay Atheists

(510) 222-7580
info@eastbayauleists.org

Heartland Humanists
PO Box 24022
Shawnee Mission, KS 66283
(913) 738-4442
info@heartlandhumanists.org

Hudson Valley Humanists

Ed Poll, Director
PO Box 961
Saugerties, NY 12477
(845) 247-0098
HVHumans@yahoo.com

Humanist Community
of Central Ohio
PO Box 141373
Columbus, OH 43214
(614) 470-0811
infO@hcco.org

Humanist Society of
Santa Barbara
Richard Cousineau, Chairman
PO Box 30232
Santa Barbara, CA 93130
(805) 687-2371
chairman@
santabarbarahumanists.org

Idaho Atheists
Lori Howard
PO Box 204
Boise, ID 83701-0204
(208) 455-9222
IApresident@
IdahoAtheists.org

Individuals For Freethought

Paul Youk, President & Keiv
Spare, Publicity Director
c/o Office of Student Activities,
Kansas State University
809 K-State Union
Ground Floor
Manhattan, KS 66506
freethought@k-state.edu

Iowa Secularists
PO Box 883
Iowa City, IA 52244
contact@iowasecularist.org
Info: Local meetings in Des
Moines. Cedar Rapids, and
Iowa City (will expand as
interest develops).

Long Island
Secular Humanists
POBox 119
Greenlawn, NY 11740
LISecHum@aol.com

Military Assoc. of
Atheists & Freethinkers
Jason Torpy. President
519 Somerville Ave.
PMB 200
Somerville. MA 02143
Community@maaf.info

Minnesota Atheists
PO Box 6261
Minneapolis, MN 55406-0261
(612) 588-7031
info@mnatheists.org
Info: Group produces live
"Atheists Talk" radio show,
Sundays. 9-10 a.m. CST
(AM 950 KTNF or http://
am950ktnf.comllisten).

Nashville Secular Life

707 Cynthia Ct
Mt. Juliet, TN 37122
(865) 567-6892
atheists-699@meetup.com

New Jersey
Humanist Network
Lisa Ridge, President
PO Box 8212
Somerville, NJ 08876-8212
(609) 403-8238
NJHN@comcast.net

New Orleans Secular

Humanist Association
Harry Greenberger, President
529 Saint Louis Stree, Apt 3
New Orleans, LA 70130-3681
(504) 282-5459
nosha.secularhumarrism.net

Metroplex Atheists
Terry McDonald, Chairman
1332 Martin Court
Grapevine, Texas 76051
Terry@MetroplexAtheists.org

New York City Atheists

Cooper Station
PO Box 93, New York, NY
10276-0093
(212) 330-6794
info@NYC-Atheists.org

Michigan Atheists
Arlene-Marie, President
PO Box 25
Allen Park, MI 48101-0025
(313) 938 5960
amarie@atheists.org

North Alabama
Freethought Association
Aaron Sakovich, Organizer
PO Box 41
Ryland, AL 35767-0041
nafa@thenafa.org

Mid-Michigan Atheists
and Humanists
Jim Hong, Director
(5l7) 750-3887
Jim@MMAH.org

Northeast Pennsylvania
Freethought Society
Rodney Collins, Organizer
PO Box 250l
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18703
(570) 793-1837
alrgc@yahoo.com

Oklahoma Atheists
aok@oklahomaatheists.info

Orange County Atheists

Michael Doss, President
PO Box 10541
Santa Ana. CA 92711
(714) 478-8457
contact@OCAtheists.com

PA Nonbelievers
Steven Neubauer
45 Gravel Hill Road
Mount Wolf, PA 17347-9710
(717) 266-1357
PANonbelievers@aol.com

Rationalists of East Tennessee

Daryl Houston
PO Box 51634
Knoxville, TN 37950
(865) 539-3006
info@rationalists.org

Rationalist Society of
St. Louis (RSSL)
Dr. William Martin. President
PO Box 300031
St. Louis. MO 63130
info@rssl.org

Rebirth of Reason in Florida

Luther Setzer, Leader
(321) 544-7435
Lu therSetzer@yahoo.com

Saint Petersburg Atheists

Gary Thompson
PO Box 22304
Saint Petersburg, FL
(727) 577-9150
easy8@TampaBay.rr.com

San Francisco Atheists

900 Bush Street, #210
San Francisco. CA 94109
(415) 771-9872
info@sfatheists.com

Secular Humanists of
the Lowcountry
PO Box 32256
Charleston, SC 29417
(843) 670-0290
president@
lowcountryhumanists.org

Shasta Atheists &

Freethinkers
Ed Coleman, President
PO Box 1544
Shasta Lake City, CA 96019
(530) 275-4626
shasta@atheistalliance.org

South Lake Atheists and

Freethinkers
(Groveland)
Go to Web Page to Contact

Southeast Wisconsin
FreeThinkers
(SWiFT)
PO Box 3
Mequon, WI 53092

St. Olaf Agnostic and

Atheist Society
Koya Kato, President
1500 St. Olaf Avenue
Northfield. MN 55057
(507) 646-2879
aas@stolaf.edu

Tucson Atheists
9114 E Wolfberry St
Jucson. AZ 85747
(520) 664-0722
AZAtheist@cox.net

Western Colorado Atheists

Anne Landman
PO Box 1434
Grand Junction. CO 81502
(970) 263-9199
WesternColoradoAtheists@
yahoo. com

Santa Cruz Atheists

(831) 335-8231
howard@burman.net

Seattle Atheists
Kyle Hepworth, President
(425) 402-9036
hepworth@gmail.com

FEBRUARY

2009

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

27

Thoughts on
Some Material
Atheist Freedoms
By Greg Lammers
ost days as I leave my house I
take quick note of things such as
the weather and the time. I might
hum a song which is playing on a loop in
my head or think about a loved one or some
plans for the future. I never consider the
possibility that I may have done something
unlucky such as walking out the wrong door
or under a ladder. I am in the habit of not
worrying if a curse has been said against
me or whether planets are lined up for or
against me. I don't listen for messages in
the wind or expect the touch of an angel.
What allows so many of us to walk
around not fearing a witch's spell or a voodoo curse is our Atheist and Materialist
outlook. We try to view our surroundings
as they are, not adding phenomena where
there are none. And we needn't worry about
all that is logically possible; we don't need
to know everything that is or could be happening everywhere. We need only expect
natural forces and beings to be at work
around us. We can safely do this because
nobody has ever found reliable evidence of
anything else.
In our universe there are no ghosts or
gods, no miracles or curses. We do not look
for or expect magic, we expect there to be
a natural cause for every occurrence. The
English language even hints at this for us;
the word immaterial refers to that which
does not have a body or physical form and
can also tell us that something is unimportant, of no consequence, irrelevant.
Now and again believers in the supernatural will claim that the Atheist view is
impoverished (if memory serves, Dennis
Prager offered this canard in his debate
with Frank Zindler at the 2008 American
Atheists convention). The insinuation is
that the Atheist is not open to a spectrum of
experience and is poorer for it. If this were
true than the Atheist would be poorer than
one who was open to any of the myriad of
myths and claims of the supernatural that
are available. We would be poorer than the
believer in miracles and also poorer than
one who might hold that the Star Wars
movies are documentaries about a powerful force.
This argument implies that the more
beliefs one can swallow the "richer" one
is. So the polytheist would be richer than
the monotheist and the 10 deitied polytheist would be richer than the 5 deitied polytheist. I don't know where a monotheistic
psychic astrologer would fit in. Also, if a
person with three gods were richer than a
person with one god could a believer in the
Christian trinity be simultaneously richer
and poorer than himself? I guess I will just
leave that one for the theologians.

28

AMERICAN

ATHEIST

FEBRUARY

2009

Okay, maybe that last question was a

bit flippant but we can seriously leave the
theologians on this dead end back road because no supernatural beings have a place
in the material universe. They can argue
about how many gods one can believe in
before one is just obnoxiously flaunting
one's belief wealth until their kingdoms
come and we needn't take them seriously;
they are speaking of nothing(s).
The believer in eternal life and a god
(or gods) that punishes infidels and rewards
true believers must not only fear the wrath
of their own god but the wrath of all other
vengeful deities, after all what if the neighbors that belong to the "weird" church are
right? Foreign belief systems often seem
bizarre and unnatural and the faithful sectarian can privately shrug off the claims of
thousands of other faraway sects and hold
that their own narrow way is the one true
path. But when alien sectarians confront
previously secure believers with conflicting
supernatural claims (and with increasing
travel and communications technology conflicting beliefs are encountered more often)
the tension is there. Maybe our hypothetical believer can ignore the opposing faith's
claims that he is seriously mistaken. Maybe
he can employ some cognitive dissonance
and shove the conflict aside. Or, maybe his
ideas about the claims of his own tradition
will be modified or jettisoned.
In the modern world where people of
many different religions interact with each
other on a daily basis the belief that one true
path leads to some eternal bliss while all
other paths lead to an eternity of unimaginable pain becomes harder and harder to
maintain. How many people who believe
they are holding to the one true road have
family and friends who hold conflicting beliefs or no beliefs? What kind of stress does
it put on a person to think that those they
care about are destined for and deserving of
infinite and unrelenting torment?
As an Atheist there is no reason to fear
such horrible fairy tale fates created and
spread by sadists to scare the defenseless.
Believers and followers have to continuously guard their faiths against the always
encroaching outside world. Leaders of all
sects fear the sales forces of other organizations and use carrots and sticks of various
kinds to keep their flocks in the fold. But
despite all of the heavens, hells, threatening, cajoling, and ostracism the possibility
always remains that lone followers will be
siphoned off by smooth talk and slick presentations. How does the average supernaturalist weigh the claims of one belief
system against another?
The Atheist with the materialist view
need not fear being confronted with novel
supernatural claims. When happening upon
or being sold a series of assertions, if we
can see that the phenomena in question are
distinct impossibilities,
complete fantasies with no ground on which to rest, we
can leave the whole mess alone. When cult
salespeople come with pamphlets, books,
videos, or other media telling us of beings

that break the laws of nature or exist outside

of space and time we can see their presentations for what they are (the same old supernatural con repackaged) and treat these
presentations with the appropriate respect.
New discoveries in science are being
made and new questions asked on a daily
basis and new information coming out of
such fields as neuroscience and biology can
be a challenge to believers in the supernatural. The problems that anti-progressive religions have made and continue to make for
the advancement of human knowledge have
been well documented.
On the other hand the likelihood that
researchers will find definitive proof of the
veracity of some one or another mythology
any time soon and we Atheists will have
to convert to that cult is extremely (I mean
extremely) small and we needn't lose any
sleep over it.
While groups holding dogmatic beliefs
wedded to regressive moral codes seek to
censor works of art and hamper human
thought and expression we Atheists can
taste the new and embrace what we find enjoyable. The Atheist can be fearless in what
he thinks; sadly this is not the case for many
who have been told that even their most intimate and secret thoughts and wishes are
on display for a judge which may deal very
harshly with them.
We Atheists can be open to new experiences, we can smash taboos, enjoy any art,
read any book, we can even eat any food
any day we like without fear. We needn't
ignore or actively oppose science and progress. We needn't fear threats of otherworldly torture. We Atheists can face the world
as it is and as we are. Sure, there are things
to worry about but there are a lot of things
not to worry about. When we don't have to
fret over the supernatural because it is immaterial we are in a nice place. I thank the
non-lucky completely natural stars that really didn't have much to do with it anyway
that I'm an Atheist.

Greg Lammers is a life member of

American Atheists. He lives with his wife
Katie and their young son Henry in
Columbia, MO, USA.

Membership Application
American Atheists
www.atheists.org
Name

------------------(Email required

Address
City

(908) 276-7300
Email

--::-_

if you choose online access to magazines. - See below for price.

-------------------------------------_
State

Phone

------------------Zip

-----

This signature is tocertify that I am in general agreement with the "Aims and Purposes" and
the "Definitions" of American Atheists, as listed on the other side of this application.
Date

Signature

NEW: All membership types (except Associate) now include a subscription to American Atheist
magazine (10 issues/year)! So, it is no longer necessary to pay a separate fee for the magazine.

Please choose a membership type:

(Please see the back ofthis form for information about tax deductions.)

Simply mark the type you want and enclose your check, money order, or credit-card information.
(For online magazines, multiple years, or foreign addresses, please see the additional calculations below.)

D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Individual: $40 per year

Couple/Family: $65 per year ..... Name(s) of part nerlfamily members:
Associate: $20 p r year (magazine subscription not included)
Distinguished Citizen (65 or over): $30 per year (copy of ID required)
Student: $30 per year (copy of ID required)
Wall Builder: 150 per year (includes an American Atheists tote bag)
Life Member: $1500 (includes a life member pin and your name in the magazine)

Price for multiple years:

PricelYear
$

Number of Years

Price Before Discount

'$
---

Optional online access to magazines (not available with Associate membership):

D I'd like to access magazines online only, INSTEAD OF receiving printed ones. (same price)
D I'd like to access magazines online AND receive printed ones. Add $15 per year: $
_
Subtotal:

Subtotal: $

Discount for multiple years: 2 years - 10% discount; 3 or more years - 20% discount

-~

For foreign addresses, please add an additional postage fee, unless you chose "online only."
For Canada and Mexico, add: $15 per year X _ years = $
For all other countries, add: $30 per year X _ years =

D I (we) also wish to make an additional

Additional donation:
Total:

(All payments must be in US dollars.)

I am paying by check or money order

Credit card number:

donation of $

Please mail this form to:

Total: $

D I am paying by credit card (see below).

---------------------

Signature:

Expiration date: _1__

(month/year)

Date:

American Atheists, P.O. Box 158, Cranford, NJ 07016

FEBRUARY

2009 - AMERICAN

ATHEIST

29