Is There a Unity in Atheism?

Why is there a lack of unity among atheists?  I think that it is because atheism is not ultimately a philosophy though it can be. It is not a belief though it can be. It is not responsive to religion but it can be. It is not responsive to philosophy but it can be. How so? Because anyone who says they do not believe in a god is an atheist. They may not know a hill of beans about science, religious claims, philosophy or even atheism.


They may be literate. Or they may not. They may be brilliant or down right embarrassing.  We atheists who are a thinking lot come from different backgrounds and cultures. We seldom agree with each other about issues that would be beneficial to our own welfare. 

There are those of us who love the new Atheism and are interested in science.  We think all we have to do is show the scientific facts and religion will say sorry we were mistaken. We see NOW!  When we do so we forget that Christianity and Islam are based upon the supremacy of a book and often their gods come in a close second.

Those of us from religious backgrounds on the other hand are divided over a historical critical approach or a mythicist view.  We seldom consider which is the most plausible criticism of Christian belief.  We argue with each other rather than Christian apologists.  ( I personally think that since historical criticism is the Christian method of biblical interpretation it should be the arena for debate whether mythicism is ultimately correct or not!!!!)

There is the area of ethics. What secular approach to religious morality is viable? A secular humanism?   A cultural relativism?  Sam Harris? A deontological view based upon a legal logic?  Anarchy ( my favorite)?

Can there be a united front?  Perhaps in focusing  on what is false with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, New Age or what have you we can offer a plethora of counters to their claims while we can agree to disagree about our own differences.  Perhaps those views can be resolved after the more pressing issues of the dangers in continued religious fundamentalism and orthodoxy.

A Neglected Atheism And Sam Harris

If atheism is the rejection of belief in gods then Buddhism is an atheistic system!  Buddha himself was an agnostic who said in Deer Park, "I can not say whether there is a god, no god or not a not-god. But I can tell you how to obtain enlightenment" 

Buddha thought that belief in gods was a source of suffering. He taught a particular path of consciousness that is a form of detached compassion. Can we of a skeptical Western Atheism dialogue with a more ancient psychological Eastern atheism?  Or does the roots of Western atheism come from an Enlightenment period younger but with a more valid materialistic ontological grounding that must reject the phenomenological ontology of Buddhism? 

The author Sam Harris points out that the true teachings of Buddhism has become caught in a trap of religion:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/

What the world most needs at this moment is a means of convincing human beings to embrace the whole of the species as their moral community. For this we need to develop an utterly nonsectarian way of talking about the full spectrum of human experience and human aspiration. We need a discourse on ethics and spirituality that is every bit as unconstrained by dogma and cultural prejudice as the discourse of science is. What we need, in fact, is a contemplative science, a modern approach to exploring the furthest reaches of psychological well-being. It should go without saying that we will not develop such a science by attempting to spread “American Buddhism,” or “Western Buddhism,” or “Engaged Buddhism.”

If the methodology of Buddhism (ethical precepts and meditation) uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist.” No doubt, most serious practitioners of meditation realize this, but most Buddhists do not. Consequently, even if a person is aware of the timeless and noncontingent nature of the meditative insights described in the Buddhist literature, his identity as a Buddhist will tend to confuse the matter for others.

There is a reason that we don’t talk about “Christian physics” or “Muslim algebra,” though the Christians invented physics as we know it, and the Muslims invented algebra. Today, anyone who emphasizes the Christian roots of physics or the Muslim roots of algebra would stand convicted of not understanding these disciplines at all. In the same way, once we develop a scientific account of the contemplative path, it will utterly transcend its religious associations. Once such a conceptual revolution has taken place, speaking of “Buddhist” meditation will be synonymous with a failure to assimilate the changes that have occurred in our understanding of the human mind...

There is much more to be discovered about the nature of the human mind. In particular, there is much more for us to understand about how the mind can transform itself from a mere reservoir of greed, hatred, and delusion into an instrument of wisdom and compassion. Students of the Buddha are very well placed to further our understanding on this front, but the religion of Buddhism currently stands in their way.

Baha'i parallels in Christian development

For two years I worshipped with and studied the Baha'is. They are a group who believe that they originated from direct revelation by god. However their guardian, Shogghi Effendi, acknowledges, "A handful of students, belonging to the Shaykhi school, sprung from the Ithna-'Ashariyyih sect of Shi`ah Islam."

In my relationship with the Baha'i Faith I observed many factors that were enlightening and seemed an explanation of how an early leader like Jesus could be elevated to the position of God. Like Christianity which derived from Judaism, Baha'i faith derives from Islam. As Jesus was a teacher who taught how to pray to god so the Baha'i teacher, Baha'u'llah, taught how to pray to god.

Baha'u'llah is originally seen as the mirror of God who, through his teachings, manifested and revealed perfectly His Word and Will. In a short period of a hundred years the teacher of prayer has become the one to whom the Baha'i prays. It seems that as with Jesus a vessel that delivers the will, image and Word of God in a representative form soon is viewed literally as that God manifest.

When we reveal a story by skilful imagery and metaphor it is not to pass that story off as the actual thing but as an actual description. In religious worship it seems that a teacher who embodies the wisdom and teaching of God is soon mistaken as God. It is the problem of idol worship. The idol represents the God of the cult. But over time as the symbolism is lost and focus becomes on the concrete the image becomes becomes the actual god.

The Baha'is used "mirror of God" imagery instead of Christian terms like "the image of God", "Word of God", or "Form of God." Baha'u'llah has become polished as a mirror by god so that he reflects god perfectly in his soul and words. The Baha'is originally meant that their teacher was not God but a human and physical source where God and his will could be understood. This seems to be the same intent of the adoration language in the hymnal sources that Paul quotes in his Epistles. These things helped to make a human teacher a divine myth.

How Theodicy defeats the Ontological Argument

This is a weak argument concerning theodicy that is meant to address the premises of an ontological argument for god. It requires one to look at the attributes of god before they are assumed for the ontological argument itself. It focuses on "capability" rather than omnipotence



1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow q

4)p-->; not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q -->; not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p-->;not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. Also a world of limitless well being would necessarily exist in all possible worlds. Since it does not do so in ours then it is not necessary and therefore is a choice of many worlds. A limitless good entity, god or such would choose the best to create. Since we do not live in that world no limitless good being/god actualized our world.

The argument at least places the question as to whether our attributes of god which are in conflict with themselves show that they are really in conflict with his actual properties and therefore invalid or simply relative compliments of worship that are not literal but poetic.


I personally see the ontological argument, my argument and other modal logic arguments to secondarily demonstrate the limits of logic in that such statement as the ontological argument can only demonstrate the validity of its rationality and not the actuality of its claim. I have attempted to ground my argument into the actual world and therefore allow it to meet empirical knowledge which I prefer to logical knowledge in many areas.

Why the Idea of Spirit is Full of Hot Air

An Atheist's Study of Q

Mark 1: 21-39 presents Jesus going to Simon Peter's house and curing Peter's mother-in-law. She has a fever which Jesus "cures'. She then gets up and serves them. That evening people brought the demon possessed and sick to the house. The whole city gathers about the door.

Jesus heals many of the cases and told them to keep quite. And the following morning before daylight he went out to a private place and prayed. he is interrupted by Peter and the rest telling him that the crowds were looking for him. He gets the new followers to go the the next towns in Galilee preaching and exorcizing demons.

When we look at Matthew and Luke the story changes. Matthew 8:14 -27 has been rewritten by its author:

1) Matthew as throughout the Gospel intensifies the situation to make it ore outstanding. Here instead of Jesus curing many of those brought. Matthew now says he cures all of who was brought to him.

2) Matthew adds an Old Testament quote to claim that the event was a fulfilment of prophecy, " He took away our infirmities and bore our diseases (Isaiah 53:4)." The Jewish interpretation is that this applies to the whole of Israel. Here we see it taken to create the Suffering Servant as a prophecy of the messiah (Origen, Contra Celsus).

3) Here the events will change dramatically. Instead of Jesus going to bed and getting up early in the morning to pray he commands his new followers to get a boat to cross the lake. This is a fabrication by Matthew. It acts as a "seam" to stitch a passage from Q into his reworking of the text of Mark.

Matthew 8:

9 Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.”
20 Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”
21 Another disciple said to him, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
22 But Jesus told him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.

This is followed by the next seam in which Jesus gets into the boat and Jesus calms the storm. With this addition we see that Jesus no longer sleeps or prays early the next day. This addition of the "Would-be Follower" changes the original story of Mark. This is at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus according to Matthew.

When we compare the section in Luke 4:38-41 we see Luke also intensifies the event:

1) all of the people are cured by laying on of hands. The demons coming out testify that Jesus "is the Son of God." He rebukes the demons to be silent rather than the people as in Mark.

2) As in Mark Jesus come the next morning goes out to a private place to pray.

3) But Luke 9:57-62 still has the Would-be Followers passage. He uses it from Q at the end of the ministry of Jesus. The event is made to occur while going through Samaria on the way to Jerusalem where he will die.

As an atheistic Bible study we can show to Christians that their scripture is not inerrant since the events are changed by the editing of Mark by Matthew and Luke. We can show that a sayings source that had no contextual setting was given context by inserting its collection of Jesus sayings into Mark. Mark thus becomes a convenient context.

This also demonstrates that there is nothing historical in these presentations. This approach throughout the Synoptic Gospels show an early Mark that has an all too human Jesus who does not know who touches his robe, who gets angry with people and insults several who seek his help. He has a human temper.

Matthew removes all of this. Jesus becomes a heavenly emissary with perfect knowledge and super human powers. Luke shows him to be a divine agent similar to Matthew's restructuring. We can see the progress in a temporal manner from Q an early sayings source of a human Jewish teacher to Mark as a man adopted by God. in a Gentile view. Jesus is seen as an Enochican heavenly messenger in Matthew. And finally he becomes a Gentile demi-god in Luke. John will make him a pre-existent property of God, Logos, His Wisdom and Reason.

Q becomes the only source of primary attention for a historical Jesus. It shows a human being who is not a sacrifice for salvation as in the later Gospels. It is his teachings that are the source of salvation for the original hearers who were Jewish Palestinians.

Written by Tommy G. Baker

The End of Christianity: Book Review

by Matt DeStefano on July 10, 2011

I recently received John Loftus’ The End of Christianity, an anthology of some of the most profound atheist writers that delivers a variety of convincing arguments for the abandonment of the Christian faith. In lieu of new content, I decided to go ahead and write up a detailed review for his book. There are 14 chapters, and while I want to avoid summarizing each and every one of them I’d like to call attention to what I feel are some of the more noteworthy arguments.

The first chapter is written by Dr. David Eller and titled Christianity Evolving: On the Origin of the Christian Species. It is an informative and compelling piece that focuses on the evolution of Christian theology. It shows that the view that Christianity has “stood the test of time” is completely debunked in virtue of Christianity’s ever-evolving body of beliefs. It includes an especially intriguing section titled The Invention of Traditions in which Eller explores the idea of building up theological tradition to deal with the acquisition of new evidence, even when the evidence conflicts with the tradition they are trying to assimilate with. Eller continues to argue that Christianity is not a singular term that refers to a stagnate and unified tradition, but instead is a multitude of targets that are constantly being realigned and reinterpreted by Christians who do not wish to see their faith inundated by newer evidence. It seems that Eller’s argument resounds with a theme that many atheist authors (myself included) have been continuing to insist upon, and that is the destruction of the religious landscape. That merely accumulating new evidence will not be the final blow to Christianity, that we will have to continue to vigilantly stamp out the religious apologists’ special pleading and ever-moving target for the debunking of their personal brand of religious faith.

In chapter 3, Loftus adds his own material in a chapter entitled Christianity is Wildly Improbable. He sets out a litany of claims derived from Christian creeds and argues that the more of these that Christians accept, the less tenable their faith becomes. Although it is only a minor and passing argument in the chapter, I found Loftus’ analysis of a spiritual being creating a material being intriguing. Essentially, Loftus is using the arguments leveled at Cartesian dualism and re-tooling them as an argument against the creation of a material universe by a spirtual God. Loftus questions “How does something that is spirit create something material, or interact with it, unless there is some point of contact between them that they both share?” This same reasoning was the beginning of the end for Cartesian dualism, and if this argument was to be expounded upon I think it’s consequences for theism could be equally devastating. Loftus also argues that scholars who are otherwise intelligent often look ridiculous when defending the faith, and analyzes arguments presented by major Christian scholars (Platinga, Craig, etc.) and points out their religious special pleading that often goes unnoticed.

In Chapter 6, Dr. Valerie Tarico examines the concept of emotions in relation to the Christian God. I haven’t read any of Dr. Tarico’s work before, but this was one of my favorite chapters in the book. In a likeable and humorous voice, Dr. Tarico examines God’s various emotional reactions through out the Old Testament, using modern psychological analysis in order to demonstrate how unbelievably human God is at regulating His own emotions. She examines the idea of anthropomorphism and asks engaging questions about how we can tell the difference between which concepts of God are “something outside of us” versus “projections of our psyches”. Drawing off of psychological and physiological research, Tarico argues that emotions are intricate and complex systems existing in our physical body, and then wonders how the authors of the Bible could possibly ascribe these attributes to an immaterial God.
In Chapter 8, Dr. Matt McCormick (a professor of mine, actually) argues against the historical case for the resurrection by using an analogous case of the Salem Witch Trials. After charitably summarizing the historical case for the resurrection (using Habermas, Wright, etc.), Dr. McCormick argues that we have more evidence (more quantity and better quality) of the Salem Witch Trials than we do for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This again reiterates the fallacy of special pleading. Unless Christians want to accept that there was indeed witchcraft in Salem (as one of his debate opponents has in the past), it seems that Christians ought to reject the resurrection for the same reasons they reject the Salem Witch Trials.

In chapter 13, Dr. Victor J. Stenger analyzes the evidence for life after death and especially examines the use of NDE (Near Death Experiences) in attempts to prove the existence of an immaterial soul, or consciousness existing after death. He uncovers the lack of objective historical data and makes a compelling case to dismiss anecdotal evidence in favor of controlled, recordable experiments. He also questions the consequences for believing in ‘cosmic justices’ and makes the case that those who do believe it in have less vested  interest in seeking justice here on Earth, and turns the table on many apologists who sing the praises of everyone “getting what they deserve” (in chapter 10, Dr. Keith Parsons provides an examination of Hell, which he calls “Christianity’s Most Damnable Doctrine”).

This book is an absolutely fascinating read and well worth your money to pick up a copy.  I didn’t include many of the brilliant articles in the book written by other thinkers like Dr. Hector Avalas, Dr. Richard Carrier, and Dr. Jaco Gericke. If you are a believer, this book contains many questions that ought to give you considerable pause, and if you are an atheist or skeptic, this book is likely to put the nail in Christianity’s coffin.