TreesNightly

Judging by the comments on my �lack of belief� post, I was right to think this is a controversial statement within the atheist community. I want to make clear that my intention isn�t to correct people who use the phrase. The wording �I lack belief in God� is valid...but it�s not any more valid than saying �I don�t believe in God� or even �I believe there is no God.� I find the distaste some atheists have for �I believe there is no God� is due to mistaking the statement for �I know there is no God.� To claim certain knowledge about the existence of God is to accept the burden of proof. To claim belief isn�t much more than a statement of opinion. Hopefully we all hold informed opinions that can be backed up with argument and evidence, but proof is hardly needed. Many beliefs I hold are built upon much more flimsy foundations than my atheism. I strongly believe there is no God. I also believe that I could be wrong. If I thought the likelihood that I am wrong was greater than 50%, then I ...

I always thought writing a blog about atheism would be controversial. It�s really not, at least from my day-to-day perspective. While I write a public rant about how the majority of the world�s population bases their life on lies and assumptions, my core audience is not that majority. I am largely simpatico with my readers. This post may be a slight departure from that. When I see atheists represent their position online they most often say that they �lack belief in God.� The clunky nature of this statement bothers me. It also bothers me that the line has been distributed via the internet to such a degree that Christians see it as an atheist mantra. There�s no such thing. The origin of �lack of belief� lies in atheist efforts to make it explicitly clear to theists that the burden of proof for God lies squarely on the believer�s shoulders. It�s as if they are afraid to admit to active disbelief because that would be a stance that requires a defense. Newsflash, we all should be able to d...

Continuing my strange compulsion  to toot my own horn today, the following are responses to my recent article on The Apologetic Professor . "Very clear & to the point. You came across as trying to educate those that may not understand and not berating them for what they believe in." "Something I have always been thinking, but you have found a really succinct way of putting it. Really was an excellent read. It doesn't come across as adversarial or arrogant. slow clap.?" "Thoughtful and not overstated." "After reading this, I felt compelled  to subscribe to your blog. It is people like you, and many others here on + that have made me proud to believe the way I believe. For too long, we were made to feel like outcasts and "weirdos". Now we are empowered and continue to be enlightened because of people like you. This article came in handy when my sister-in-law's niece (Oliva) called and said that she was extremely frustrated by a con...

The following is an excerpt from  On Daphne's Couch . Feeling utterly alone (and being okay with it), I continued my rampage of the Internet and found something surprising. The Atheist Blogroll has compiled a list of well over 1,000 blogs in the realm of atheism/skepticism. I found a few I particularly like, one in particular that I�d like to discuss: Deity Shmeity .  I enjoyed this blog in particular because of how quickly the design caught my eye. Clearly the author (Grundy, as he is known on the web) is much more graphically capable than I am.?And also much more humorous. I admit I can be a bit dry and analytical in my delivery at times. As a life long introvert, I�m afraid my formal style is here to stay. But Grundy is to Atheism as Grumio is to Shakespeares�s Taming of the Shrew . Witty, intelligent, sarcastic at times, and never fails to make the reader laugh even in the midst of a serious situation. I am relieved that Grundy possesses such brilliance even after his str...

The following will exist as a landing page for those interested in my exchange with Dr. Luke Conway, The Apologetic Professor. How it began: My post  addressing atheism to his predominantly Christian audience. Dr. Conway's post about apologetics to my predominantly atheist audience. My four part rebuttal of his post: Part I  in which I address the call to seek God. Part II  in which I address the notion of religious instincts. Part III  in which I address the claim that atheists must have no foundation for morality. Part IV  in which I address the notion that religion is an intellectual pursuit. Dr. Conway's responses to my post: Are Theists Opposed to Science? in which he addresses my claim that theists often deny conflicting science. Miracles and Talking Donkeys in which he addresses my skepticism for miracles. When Atheists and Christians Agree in which he kinda sorta agrees with me. When Atheists and Christians Scandalously Agree  in which he contin...

Here's my last minute Draw Mohammad Day entry. I'm not sure who should be more offended by this sketch of the Islamic prophet on a post-"transubstantiated" Catholic wafer.

The following post contains spoilers for Iron Man 3 and, possibly, the existence of God. If I believed in a benevolent creator, I could see myself being a huge fan of the guy. Not only would I owe my own existence to him/her/it, but also would I credit him/her/it for the existence of my friends, my family, my planet--basically everything that matters to me. Religion understandably has it�s share of fanatics, but for those who see no reason to believe, we direct our fandom elsewhere...like movies. I saw Iron Man 3 this weekend. Robert Downey Jr. really owns the role and the inclusion of Guy Pierce as the villain was a great choice. As with most summer blockbusters, it is an explosive spectacle with a passable story as long as you don�t think about it too hard. I, unfortunately, thought about it too hard. I can�t help myself. (If you haven�t seen the movie and like the film of Marvel Studios, go see it. Spoilers begin now.) Tony Stark spends the lion�s share of the movie out of the armo...

A Catholic apologist I follow recently said that �religion isn�t required to show that an unborn child is a human being.� The particular phrasing of this statement makes it obvious. A child of a human is a human. No need for debate there. The less clear question is this: is an unborn zygote or fetus a child? For the sake of argument, let�s say yes, but that still isn�t entirely the point. After all, the corpse of a human is still a human. The morality of abortion must take into account more than black and white definitions. Killing cells isn�t a morally wrong act by anyone�s standard. If it was, everything from sun tans to common medical procedures would be stigmatized or illegal. A fertilized egg is a very active collection of cells. In my opinion, the main distinction between human cells and human people is consciousness. While the moral argument of aborting a mind cannot be made until the brain develops, the moral argument for aborting a soul can be made at conception...providing o...

For this to make sense, please check out my post exchange with Dr. Luke Conway here and here . You might as well check my Rebuttal, Part One ,  Rebuttal, Part Two  and Rebuttal, Part Three also. Dr. Conway�s wraps-up his post venting his frustrations on a misconception about Christians--that they are stupid. I feel his pain. I spend much of my time correcting generalizations and perverse stereotypes about atheists. Christians, as a whole, are no more stupid then atheists are amoral. That said, it is also a generalization to say that atheists think Christians are stupid. No atheists I know think Christians are stupid (well, maybe Cephus .) More common is the belief that Christians are intelligent people who accept a relatively small set of stupid beliefs. This doesn�t sound like a charitable assessment, but when I hear someone say that a forgiving God is still blaming us for something a distant ancestor did at the dawn of time; or that one guy built a planetary-flood-worthy v...

For this to make sense, please check out my post exchange with Dr. Luke Conway here and here . You might as well check my Rebuttal, Part One  and Rebuttal, Part Two also. I�ve covered the moral argument for God multiple times on this blog and consider it the worst argument in the long, sad history of apologetic arguments. The only way I can address this again and remain sane is if I break up Dr. Conway�s post and address it in segments. The bold bits are the words of The Apologetic Professor. Here it goes. Theism provides a more coherent view of morality than atheism. No, it doesn�t. It doesn�t. It. Does. Not. If you are an atheist, you believe in a universe that has absolutely no moral will. This part is true. I believe the universe has no will, moral or otherwise. The materialist must assume that I have a moral will for the same set of reasons that I have blue eyes or a love of the Indigo Girls, or that the sky appears blue or rocks are solid substances � they are the...

For this to make sense, please check out my post exchange with Dr. Luke Conway here and here . You might as well check my Rebuttal, Part One too. "Religious Instincts." Dr. Conway says that one of the few things atheists and theists agree on is that we have religious instincts. Judging from the original post �s comments, this certainly doesn�t seem the case, but I�d be willing to let the professor�s cited studies do the talking...if he only cited any. He merely mentioned that studies have been done. Dr. Conway should know that an audience of skeptics won�t take his word for it. As it is, there is nothing for me to address here. I have no studies, no interpretations of studies, nor specifics on what said studies were studying. Eventually, even the professor states he doesn�t care about this alleged research, nor will I. It seems that an unjust jump must be made to say that the instincts and tendencies we may have are religious in nature--although it�s impossible to say not k...

For this to make sense, please check out my post exchange with Dr. Luke Conway here and here . First and foremost, thanks go out to The Apologetic Professor. It takes a high level of confidence in one�s beliefs to offer it to an entirely new, and let�s face it, less-than-receptive audience. Luke has this confidence. He also was willing to lend his audience�s eyes to a point of view contrary to what he believes. This is not common, not at all. Here�s were it gets mildly insulting, Luke, but bare with me. The Apologetic Professor wasn�t my first choice for this meeting of the minds. I contacted the authors of other apologetic blogs first, most notably Apologetics315 and Truthbomb Apologetics . My motives were selfish to a degree. I knew these sites had a page rank higher than my own which would translate into my words reaching further into the interwebs. I got a lot of �thanks, but no thanks.� I pressed on researching other Christian blogs, finding few I liked, but many that were repu...

I wish I could say I enjoy the ideological insulation of the yes men echo chamber that I�ve painstakingly assembled, but I don�t. You jerks still disagree with me--but that�s a good thing. The marketplace of ideas shouldn�t be one-stop shopping. For this reason, I�m shocking your system this week with a shot of Christianity courtesy of the last apologetic blogger I enjoy. Let me tell ya, I disagree with nearly everything this guy says, but I like how he says it. The Apologetic Professor is well spoken, seemingly sane, and has made me laugh on more than one occasion. I hope you don�t thoughtlessly dismiss what he has to say. Thoughtful dismissals only. If you want more of me, the Apologetic Professor is posting the longest piece I�ve ever written on his site . Please comment here, there, everywhere and check back for our follow-up posts in which we will show that we�re in complete agreement on everything...I said sarcastically. Do Not Wait on God An atheist once gave the following advic...