Greetings! Thanks for thinking of dropping me a line.

If you're planning on emailing me to say that you liked something you read, then read the following just for fun.

If, however, you're emailing me to take issue with something you read, then reading the following is required. It is a list of the more frequent complaints/comments/questions I receive, and my responses to each. Many of these, in fact, are taken nearly verbatim from emails I've received and responded to over the years. Please read carefully, as this file may address whatever it is you want to say.

Note: If you send an email to me and it's clear that you did not read this page, don't be surprised if you receive a nastygram in reply.

Last updated April 6, 2004.

I don't. I do hate what many powerful Christian organizations are trying to do. And I do think many of the beliefs held by many Christians are hateful beliefs. But I do not hate Christians in general. The vast majority of my relatives are Christian, as are many of my closest friends. I do not like them any less because of their religious beliefs.

I don't hate your god. I don't believe your god exists, so how can I hate something I don't believe in? I don't hate the tooth fairy, either.

Just because I don't believe in a soul, or in a creator god, does not mean I believe in nothing at all. I believe in myself. I believe in certain ideals. I believe in plenty, really. I just don't believe in some things that others believe in. I don't believe a god created the universe and everything in it... but I do believe in the universe and everything in it. I'm just deleting one step... the creator.

Nowhere in my writings will you find me saying that all Christians act a certain way. Nevertheless, it's true that I frequently neglect to insert the word "many" or "some" in front. But it should always be understood in anyone's writings that when a particular group is mentioned, it never means every single member of that group. When conservatives trash liberals for espousing a particular view, for example, it's guaranteed that not all liberals agree with the view being trashed. There are always exceptions. Sometimes lots of them.

Well, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... Please read this article.

I often hear that expression... "something greater than yourselves" (or some variant of it). And I have to wonder about it. But we atheists do not believe ourselves to be supreme, or anything like that. It's not about arrogance.

Like every other atheist I've ever known, I fully believe in the possibility of things greater than myself "out there." I believe it is quite likely that there are alien races on the other side of the galaxy that are much older, wiser, and more "powerful" than we humans, for example. And while I readily admit that there's about the same amount of evidence to support extra-terrestrials as there is to support the idea of a god's existence, it's all a matter of probability.

Life exists on earth, therefore life is a possibility. In fact, the more we learn about the origins of life, the more we realize that it's not at all the "miraculous" thing we've been led to believe it is. Therefore, considering how freaking huge the universe is, the chances of life not existing elsewhere are so mind-bogglingly small as to be ridiculous. There's a better chance of me winning the lottery jackpot tomorrow than there is the chance that we're the only life in the universe.

But the idea of a Supreme Being... no. That's outside the realm of probability, because a Supreme Being is by definition self-contradictory. For more on this, see this article.

My concept of "wrong" is anything that hurts another. Whether it's myself or a stranger, hurting someone is generally wrong. (Naturally, there are exceptions... such as hurting another who is about to hurt you... but you get the idea.) Speaking for myself, my sense of compassion for others is what makes me adhere to this code of not doing wrong. I don't like to hurt others. It pains me to know that I've inflicted any kind of discomfort on another human being. Or animal, for that matter. I don't need an alleged edict from a deity or the threat of damnation to make me do good.

That's actually not what I'm trying to do. It's impossible to prove there is no God, just as it's impossible to prove there is one. On the other hand, it's quite possible (and fairly simple) to show inconsistencies and contradictions that make a literal belief in the Bible impossible. And since fundamentalism is a horrible ill in this country, you'll see this on my site.

There are few things in this world that are more real to me than the threat to civil liberties posed by organized religion. And that is really what my site is about. I personally don't care who believes in God... it makes no difference to me... until people try to impose their beliefs (or more specifically, their concepts of how everyone else should behave) on those who have different belief systems.

Religion can provide a sense of community, yes. On a small scale. But on a large scale, religion is in fact the most divisive force the world has ever seen.

The divisiveness is impossible to avoid, since people feel so strongly about their religions, and there are so many variations... many of which are in opposition to one another. So it seems to me that the only way religion can be a unifying force more often than not would be to have just one religion, with no variations to it. And that's never going to happen. (Nor would very many people really want it to.)

My personal opinion, though, is that there are other things that can and should be the unifying forces in our communities... things that don't have the destructive potential of religion. We talk of "community," but it's so rare in this country (the USA) to truly experience it. We have neighborhoods, but true community is a rarity. Community is borne of knowing one's neighbor, and few of us really do.

If you look at Intentional Communities (things that once upon a time were called communes), you'll see real community there. These are groups of people who work together toward the good of the community, participate in community activities such as communal meals, etc. That's real community. And they don't need religion to unify them. They have something better: mutual understanding and respect.

The positive message of atheism is more inferred than plainly stated. Keep in mind that atheism, in and of itself, doesn't have a positive message, since all atheism says is, "I don't have a religion." Atheism is not about what a person believes, but about what a person does not believe.

When you get into the realm of positive messages, most atheists find themselves in agreement with the ideologies of Secular Humanism... which isn't a religion, but more of a philosophy. In a nutshell (a very small nutshell), Secular Humanism states that we humans are responsible for pretty much all the good and bad things that happen. We must rely on ourselves to make this world a better place, and take responsibility for our own actions, etc... It stresses a reliance on reason and our abilities to learn from our world, rather than on blind faith in something without any evidence to support it.

Most atheists I know are very caring, giving individuals. And I think a big reason for that is because we believe that this life, this world, is all we get. It's up to us to make it as enjoyable as possible for ourselves and for others. No deity will do it; it's our responsibility. And since we don't believe in an afterlife, this life is all the more precious to us.

Many of my articles are, in fact, rants... rants in which I point out flaws in religious arguments or legislation bathed in religion. Revealing such flaws is constructive, in my opinion. Keep in mind that pointing out flaws is one of the methods of revealing the truth of things. It's a method particularly suited to the topic of religion, in my opinion, and that's why I rely on it.

I'm not trying to win a Pulitzer with my articles. I'm not writing scholarly examinations of anything. I'm writing opinion pieces. The goal is to make people think. Judging by many of the emails I've received, it works.

Of course, not everyone responds well to this approach. No matter what approach you use, there will be those who don't respond well. But that's how it goes. Some seem to think my goal is to vilify Christians and take away their God. Such a view can only be held by being very superficial in reading my articles, but hey... I can't force people to look beyond the surface.

I answer this question in-depth in this article.

The exact verbiage "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, no. The idea of this separation, however, is quite well supported by the Constitution, much the same way as the idea of "religious liberty" is supported. Religious liberty is, as anyone can tell you, a constitutional principle. But the term "religious liberty" is similarly nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Should we then not consider religious liberty to be our constitutional right? Of course not. Because though those exact words don't appear, the meanings certainly are to be found there. And so it is with the phrase "separation of church and state."

And if you'd actually take the time to learn the origin of the First Amendment, you'd see that it is abundantly clear that this phrase is very much what was meant. (More accurately, it would be "separation of religion and government," but let's not quibble.) Please take some time to read some of the immense amount of literature (most of which is written by the framers of the document in question) that supports this principle. Here's a pretty darn good place to start.

Pretend for just a moment that some other religion than yours was the dominant one in this country. Just imagine, for example, that Wicca was the majority, and Christianity was a decided minority. How would you feel about having pentagrams and other Wiccan symbols in your schoolroom (paid for from your tax dollars)? How would you feel about having the Wiccan Rede posted on plaques in courthouses (paid for with your tax dollars), or reciting it before class? You, after all, are not Wiccan. Not only that, but you feel the Wiccan faith is dangerous to society, having a negative effect on people.

How do you think you'd feel about all this? How would you feel if your government gave all kinds of breaks to Wiccan covens (but not to Christian churches). How would you like the money you carry in your pocket to state, "In Hecate We Trust"?

My guess is that you'd hate it. And well you should. Because the government is forbidden by the Constitution from even appearing to favor any religion over another, or religion over non-religion. This is what non-Christians have to deal with, and why we get so upset about it. We don't like it, either.

Fine. But before we start, you must make sure you:

a) know the difference between "theory" in scientific parlance and in common usage
b) know the difference between objective evidence and subjective opinion (applies to any debate, not just this subject)
c) know the difference between Evolution and Common Descent
d) know the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis
e) know the difference between Evolution and Big Bang Theory
f) are familiar with the arguments against Creationism and take them seriously
g) are familiar with the rebuttals to arguments against Evolution and take them seriously
h) are willing to actually study real science in order to understand what I'm talking about
i) understand that I will become very testy if you do not comply with the above

Beyond that, bring it on!

This is a common argument known as "Pascal's Wager," named after the French philosopher & mathematician who made it famous. But come on. It takes only a moment of serious thought to see that it's deeply flawed.

It assumes these two options are the only possibilities (there is a god and a hell, or there isn't). But there are other possibilities, too. Aside from the Judeo-Christian god and afterlife, no god or afterlife, there could be some other god and afterlife, some other god but no afterlife, or even no god but some sort of afterlife.

There are a lot of religions out there, and there's no reason for anyone to consider one religion any more "right" than any other. So, if there's a chance that one of the other religions might be right, you could be just as much at risk as an atheist in obeying the wrong religion's edicts! And if there were any chance of one single religion being the "right" one, maybe we should choose the one that has the best version of heaven, since if you end up being right, you get all the more reward. Or, you could choose the one that has the worst version of hell, since if you're wrong, you end up in a hell that's not as bad.

Pascal's Wager basically says we should believe in a god out of fear. What kind of sense does that make? This is no different than someone saying to you, "If you don't believe in [insert whatever idiotic thing you like], I'll kill your children." You can't believe something just because you're afraid of the alternative. You can change behavior out of fear... but not belief. Beliefs aren't changed on fear, nor on a bet. If there is an omniscient god, he/she/it would most certainly know that any professed belief for these reasons was bogus. Some would argue, therefore, that a truly just god (as most Christians claim their deity is) would never send an atheist to hell, because an atheist is being true to his/her beliefs, which are based on reason. God would not reward hypocrites.

You claim the atheist will lose nothing by having belief. But I disagree. A believer uses up a lot of time and energy participating in religious things... going to church, praying, reading the bible, proselytizing... and whatever other rituals he/she engages in. So I'd lose a lot of precious time to the trappings of belief. But far more important than that, I'd lose something else by obeying out of fear: self-respect. I would be a hypocrite, essentially. And that's not something I'm willing to do.

I've never figured out what it is about Christians that makes them send emails like this, or to drop into chatrooms for atheists and try to convert them. Don't you think it's a trifle rude? Never in my life have I barged into a religious chatroom to tell everyone that they're believing fairytales, and I never will. I personally don't care what other people believe. You're free to believe what you want, no matter how delusional I think it might be. Nor have I ever sent an email to a Christian, stating that I really hope they've shrugged off the brainwashing of their religion and are finally thinking with a clear head. And again, I'd never think to do such a thing.

So don't waste your time sending this sort of message to me, or you won't get a very polite response.




Now then... If the above hasn't dealt with whatever you had to say, please feel free to email me at danagc @ gmail.com. But please tell me which of the hundreds of articles on this site you're writing about. I'm not a mind-reader.






Back to Cardigan's Corner...