Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism

[mathew]

Archive-name: atheism/introduction
Alt-atheism-archive-name: introduction
Last-modified: Tue Sep 10 10:07:20 1996
Version: 3.2

For the latest version of this information, see
<http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/>

An Introduction to Atheism

by mathew <me...@pobox.com>

This article attempts to provide a general introduction to atheism.
Whilst I have tried to be as neutral as possible regarding contentious
issues, you should always remember that this document represents only
one viewpoint. I would encourage you to read widely and draw your own
conclusions; some relevant books are listed in a companion document.

To provide a sense of cohesion and progression, I have presented this
article as an imaginary conversation between an atheist and a theist.
All the questions asked by the imaginary theist are questions which
have been cropped up repeatedly on alt.atheism since that newsgroup
was created. Some other frequently asked questions are answered in a
companion document.

Please note that this article is arguably slanted towards answering
questions posed from a Christian viewpoint. This is because the FAQ
files reflect questions which have actually been asked, and it is
predominantly Christians who proselytize on alt.atheism.

So when I talk of religion, I am talking primarily about religions
such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which involve some sort of
superhuman divine being. Much of the discussion will apply to other
religions, but some of it may not.

"What is atheism?"

Atheism is characterized by a deliberate absence of belief in the
existence of gods. Some atheists go further, and believe that
particular gods do not exist. The former is often referred to as the
"weak atheist" position, and the latter as "strong atheism".

It is important to note the difference between these two positions.
"Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of
God. "Strong atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist.
Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are
"strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong"
and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit
their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than
making flat-out denials.

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't
exist?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not
believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not
equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea
whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism.

"What is agnosticism then?"

The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a
meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as
someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who
believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was
unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic
is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for sure
whether God exists.

Since that time, however, the term agnostic has also been used to
describe those that do not believe that the question is intrinsically
unknowable, but instead believe that the evidence for or against God
is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.

To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it
is recommended that usage based on the original definition be
qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the second
definition be qualified as "empirical agnosticism".

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming
that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply
from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For
example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here
as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to
"strong atheism".

Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of
meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all
you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For
example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that
science is the best way to find out about the universe.

"So what is the philosophical justification or basis for atheism?"

There are many philosophical justifications for atheism. To find out
why a particular person chooses to be an atheist, it's best to ask
her.

Many atheists feel that the idea of God as presented by the major
religions is essentially self-contradictory, and that it is logically
impossible that such a God could exist. Others are atheists through
scepticism, because they see no evidence that God exists.

There are a number of books which lay out a philosophical
justification for atheism, such as Martin's "Atheism: A Philosophical
Justification" and Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God". A few such
books are in the document listing "Atheist Media".

Of course, some people are atheists without having any particular
logical argument to back up their atheism. For some, it is simply the
most comfortable, common sense position to take.

"But isn't it impossible to prove the non-existence of something?"

There are many counter-examples to such a statement. For example, it
is quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number
larger than all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with
well-defined objects obeying well-defined rules. Whether Gods or
universes are similarly well-defined is a matter for debate.

However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not
provably impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the
non-existence of God. If we assume that something does not exist, it
is always possible to show that this assumption is invalid by finding
a single counter-example.

If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the
thing in question is not provably impossible, showing that the
assumption is invalid may require an exhaustive search of all possible
places where such a thing might be found, to show that it isn't there.
Such an exhaustive search is often impractical or impossible. There is
no such problem with largest primes, because we can prove that they
don't exist.

Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not
exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this
rule most of the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though
they can't conclusively prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.

To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably
cannot be tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere
God might be to prove that he doesn't exist anywhere. So the sceptical
atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an
assumption we can test.

Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of
God exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to
cover varieties of God described by followers of various religions. So
whilst it may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists,
it may be possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a
particular religious book does not exist. It may even be possible to
prove that no God described by any present-day religion exists.

In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is
very close to believing that no God exists. However, it is
sufficiently different that counter-arguments based on the
impossibility of disproving every kind of God are not really
applicable.

"But what if God is essentially non-detectable?"

If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his
interaction must be measurable. Hence his interaction with our
universe must be detectable.

If God is essentially non-detectable, it must therefore be the case
that he does not interact with our universe in any way. Many atheists
would argue that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it
is of no importance whether he exists or not.

If the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the
Israelites. Surely he should still be detectable today? Why has the
situation changed?

Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically
verifiable, physical way. I might potentially receive some revelation,
some direct experience of God. An experience like that would be
incommunicable, and not subject to scientific verification -- but it
would nevertheless be as compelling as any evidence can be.

But whether by direct revelation or by observation, it must surely be
possible to perceive some effect caused by God's presence; otherwise,
how can I distinguish him from all the other things that don't exist?

"God is unique. He is the supreme being, the creator of the universe.
He must by definition exist."

Things do not exist merely because they have been defined to do so. We
know a lot about the definition of Santa Claus -- what he looks like,
what he does, where he lives, what his reindeer are called, and so on.
But that still doesn't mean that Santa exists.

"Then what if I managed to logically prove that God exists?"

Firstly, before you begin your proof, you must come up with a clear
and precise definition of exactly what you mean by "God". A logical
proof requires a clear definition of that which you are trying to
prove.

"But everyone knows what is meant by 'God'!"

Different religions have very different ideas of what 'God' is like;
they even disagree about basic issues such as how many gods there are,
whether they're male or female, and so on. An atheist's idea of what
people mean by the word 'God' may be very different from your own
views.

"OK, so if I define what I mean by 'God', and then logically prove he
exists, will that be enough for you?"

Even after centuries of effort, nobody has come up with a watertight
logical proof of the existence of God. In spite of this, however,
people often feel that they can logically prove that God exists.

Unfortunately, reality is not decided by logic. Even if you could
rigorously prove that God exists, it wouldn't actually get you very
far. It could be that your logical rules do not always preserve truth
-- that your system of logic is flawed. It could be that your premises
are wrong. It could even be that reality is not logically consistent.
In the end, the only way to find out what is really going on is to
observe it. Logic can merely give you an idea where or how to look;
and most logical arguments about God don't even perform that task.

Logic is a useful tool for analyzing data and inferring what is going
on; but if logic and reality disagree, reality wins.

"Then it seems to me that nothing will ever convince you that God
exists."

A clear definition of 'God', plus some objective and compelling
supporting evidence, would be enough to convince many atheists.

The evidence must be objective, though; anecdotal evidence of other
people's religious experiences isn't good enough. And strong,
compelling evidence is required, because the existence of God is an
extraordinary claim -- and extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence.

"OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism,
but isn't it still a religious belief?"

One of the most common pastimes in philosophical discussion is "the
redefinition game". The cynical view of this game is as follows:

Person A begins by making a contentious statement. When person B
points out that it can't be true, person A gradually re-defines the
words he used in the statement until he arrives at something person B
is prepared to accept. He then records the statement, along with the
fact that person B has agreed to it, and continues. Eventually A uses
the statement as an "agreed fact", but uses his original definitions
of all the words in it rather than the obscure redefinitions
originally needed to get B to agree to it. Rather than be seen to be
apparently inconsistent, B will tend to play along.

The point of this digression is that the answer to the question "Isn't
atheism a religious belief?" depends crucially upon what is meant by
"religious". "Religion" is generally characterized by belief in a
superhuman controlling power -- especially in some sort of God -- and
by faith and worship.

(It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism
are not "religion" according to such a definition.)

Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor
is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the
definition of "religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many
other aspects of human behaviour suddenly becoming classed as
"religious" as well -- such as science, politics, and watching TV.

"OK, maybe it's not a religion in the strict sense of the word. But
surely belief in atheism (or science) is still just an act of faith,
like religion is?"

Firstly, it's not entirely clear that sceptical atheism is something
one actually believes in.

Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or
assumptions to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we
experience. Most atheists try to adopt as few core beliefs as
possible; and even those are subject to questioning if experience
throws them into doubt.

Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally
assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers (or at
least, all observers in inertial frames). These are the sort of core
assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas are called "acts of
faith", then almost everything we know must be said to be based on
acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.

Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in
something. According to such a definition, atheism and science are
certainly not acts of faith. Of course, individual atheists or
scientists can be as dogmatic as religious followers when claiming
that something is "certain". This is not a general tendency, however;
there are many atheists who would be reluctant to state with certainty
that the universe exists.

Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or
proof. Sceptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as
sceptical atheism has no beliefs. Strong atheism is closer, but still
doesn't really match, as even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to
refer to experimental data (or the lack of it) when asserting that God
does not exist.

"If atheism is not religious, surely it's anti-religious?"

It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for"
or "against", "friend" or "enemy". The truth is not so clear-cut.

Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism; in that
sense, it can be said to be "anti-religion". However, when religious
believers speak of atheists being "anti-religious" they usually mean
that the atheists have some sort of antipathy or hatred towards
theists.

This categorization of atheists as hostile towards religion is quite
unfair. Atheist attitudes towards theists in fact cover a broad
spectrum.

Most atheists take a "live and let live" attitude. Unless questioned,
they will not usually mention their atheism, except perhaps to close
friends. Of course, this may be in part because atheism is not
"socially acceptable" in many countries.

A few atheists are quite anti-religious, and may even try to "convert"
others when possible. Historically, such anti-religious atheists have
made little impact on society outside the Eastern Bloc countries.

(To digress slightly: the Soviet Union was originally dedicated to
separation of church and state, just like the USA. Soviet citizens
were legally free to worship as they wished. The institution of "state
atheism" came about when Stalin took control of the Soviet Union and
tried to destroy the churches in order to gain complete power over the
population.)

Some atheists are quite vocal about their beliefs, but only where they
see religion encroaching on matters which are not its business -- for
example, the government of the USA. Such individuals are usually
concerned that church and state should remain separate.

"But if you don't allow religion to have a say in the running of the
state, surely that's the same as state atheism?"

The principle of the separation of church and state is that the state
shall not legislate concerning matters of religious belief. In
particular, it means not only that the state cannot promote one
religion at the expense of another, but also that it cannot promote
any belief which is religious in nature.

Religions can still have a say in discussion of purely secular
matters. For example, religious believers have historically been
responsible for encouraging many political reforms. Even today, many
organizations campaigning for an increase in spending on foreign aid
are founded as religious campaigns. So long as they campaign
concerning secular matters, and so long as they do not discriminate on
religious grounds, most atheists are quite happy to see them have
their say.

"What about prayer in schools? If there's no God, why do you care if
people pray?"

Because people who do pray are voters and lawmakers, and tend to do
things that those who don't pray can't just ignore. Also, Christian
prayer in schools is intimidating to non-Christians, even if they are
told that they need not join in. It is particularly bad if the prayer
is led by a teacher, or otherwise officially endorsed.

The diversity of religious and non-religious belief means that it is
impossible to formulate a meaningful prayer that will be acceptable to
all those present at any public event.

This is one reason why the public school system in the USA is not
permitted to endorse particular religious beliefs through official
prayer time in schools. Children are, of course, quite free to pray as
they wish in their free time; there is no question of trying to
prevent prayer from happening in schools.

"You mentioned Christians who campaign for increased foreign aid. What
about atheists? Why aren't there any atheist charities or hospitals?
Don't atheists object to the religious charities?"

There are many charities without religious purpose that atheists can
contribute to. Some atheists contribute to religious charities as
well, for the sake of the practical good they do. Some atheists even
do voluntary work for charities founded on a theistic basis.

Most atheists seem to feel that atheism isn't worth shouting about in
connection with charity. To them, atheism is just a simple, obvious
everyday matter, and so is charity. Many feel that it's somewhat
cheap, not to say self-righteous, to use simple charity as an excuse
to plug a particular set of religious beliefs.

To "weak" atheists, building a hospital to say "I do not believe in
God" is a rather strange idea; it's rather like holding a party to say
"Today is not my birthday". Why the fuss? Atheism is rarely
evangelistic.

"You said atheism isn't anti-religious. But is it perhaps a backlash
against one's upbringing, a way of rebelling?"

Perhaps it is, for some. But many people have parents who do not
attempt to force any religious (or atheist) ideas upon them, and many
of those people choose to call themselves atheists.

It's also doubtless the case that some religious people chose religion
as a backlash against an atheist upbringing, as a way of being
different. On the other hand, many people choose religion as a way of
conforming to the expectations of others.

On the whole, we can't conclude much about whether atheism or religion
are backlash or conformism; although in general, people have a
tendency to go along with a group rather than act or think
independently.

"How do atheists differ from religious people?"

They don't believe in God. That's all there is to it.

Atheists may listen to heavy metal -- backwards, even -- or they may
prefer a Verdi Requiem, even if they know the words. They may wear
Hawaiian shirts, they may dress all in black, they may even wear
orange robes. (Many Buddhists lack a belief in any sort of God.) Some
atheists even carry a copy of the Bible around -- for arguing against,
of course!

Whoever you are, the chances are you have met several atheists without
realizing it. Atheists are usually unexceptional in behaviour and
appearance.

"Unexceptional? But aren't atheists less moral than religious people?"

That depends. If you define morality as obedience to God, then of
course atheists are less moral as they don't obey any God. But usually
when one talks of morality, one talks of what is acceptable ("right")
and unacceptable ("wrong") behaviour within society.

Humans are social animals, and to be maximally successful they must
co-operate with each other. This is a good enough reason to discourage
most atheists from "anti-social" or "immoral" behaviour, purely for
the purposes of self-preservation.

Many atheists behave in a "moral" or "compassionate" way simply
because they feel a natural tendency to empathize with other humans.
So why do they care what happens to others? They don't know, they
simply are that way.

Naturally, there are some people who behave "immorally" and try to use
atheism to justify their actions. However, there are equally many
people who behave "immorally" and then try to use religious beliefs to
justify their actions. For example:

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Jesus
Christ came into the world to save sinners... But for that very
reason, I was shown mercy so that in me... Jesus Christ might
display His unlimited patience as an example for those who would
believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the king eternal,
immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and
ever."

The above quote is from a statement made to the court on February 17th
1992 by Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It seems that for every atheist mass-murderer,
there is a religious mass-murderer. But what of more trivial morality?

A survey conducted by the Roper Organization found that behavior
deteriorated after "born again" experiences. While only 4% of
respondents said they had driven intoxicated before being "born
again," 12% had done so after conversion. Similarly, 5% had used
illegal drugs before conversion, 9% after. Two percent admitted to
engaging in illicit sex before salvation; 5% after. ["Freethought
Today", September 1991, p. 12.]

So it seems that at best, religion does not have a monopoly on moral
behaviour.

Of course, a great many people are converted to (and from)
Christianity during adolescence and their early twenties. This is also
the time at which people begin to drink and become sexually active. It
could be that the above figures merely indicate that Christianity has
no effect on moral behaviour, or insufficient effect to result in an
overall fall in immoral behaviour.

"Is there such a thing as atheist morality?"

If you mean "Is there such a thing as morality for atheists?", then
the answer is yes, as explained above. Many atheists have ideas about
morality which are at least as strong as those held by religious
people.

If you mean "Does atheism have a characteristic moral code?", then the
answer is no. Atheism by itself does not imply anything much about how
a person will behave. Most atheists follow many of the same "moral
rules" as theists, but for different reasons. Atheists view morality
as something created by humans, according to the way humans feel the
world 'ought' to work, rather than seeing it as a set of rules decreed
by a supernatural being.

"Then aren't atheists just theists who are denying God?"

A study by the Freedom From Religion Foundation found that over 90% of
the atheists who responded became atheists because religion did not
work for them. They had found that religious beliefs were
fundamentally incompatible with what they observed around them.

Atheists are not unbelievers through ignorance or denial; they are
unbelievers through choice. The vast majority of them have spent time
studying one or more religions, sometimes in very great depth. They
have made a careful and considered decision to reject religious
beliefs.

This decision may, of course, be an inevitable consequence of that
individual's personality. For a naturally sceptical person, the choice
of atheism is often the only one that makes sense, and hence the only
choice that person can honestly make.

The word "deny" can be used to mean "fail to accept the truth of". In
that sense only, atheists deny the existence of God. They are not "in
denial", wilfully ignoring evidence; nor do they necessarily
positively assert the non-existence of God.

"But surely discussing God in this way is a tacit admission that he
exists?"

Not at all. People talk about Santa Claus every Christmas; that
doesn't mean he climbs down the chimney and leaves us all presents.
Players of fantasy games discuss all kinds of strange creatures, from
orcs and goblins to titans and medusas. They don't exist either.

"But don't atheists want to believe in God?"

Atheists live their lives as though there is nobody watching over
them. Many of them have no desire to be watched over, no matter how
good-natured the "Big Brother" figure might be.

Some atheists would like to be able to believe in God -- but so what?
Should one believe things merely because one wants them to be true?
The risks of such an approach should be obvious. Atheists often decide
that wanting to believe something is not enough; there must be
evidence for the belief.

"But of course atheists see no evidence for the existence of God --
they are unwilling in their souls to see!"

Many, if not most atheists were previously religious. As has been
explained above, the vast majority have seriously considered the
possibility that God exists. Many atheists have spent time in prayer
trying to reach God.

Of course, it is true that some atheists lack an open mind; but
assuming that all atheists are biased and insincere is offensive and
closed-minded. Comments such as "Of course God is there, you just
aren't looking properly" are likely to be viewed as patronizing.

Certainly, if you wish to engage in philosophical debate with atheists
it is vital that you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume
that they are being sincere if they say that they have searched for
God. If you are not willing to believe that they are basically telling
the truth, debate is futile.

"Isn't the whole of life completely pointless to an atheist?"

Many atheists live a purposeful life. They decide what they think
gives meaning to life, and they pursue those goals. They try to make
their lives count, not by wishing for eternal life, but by having an
influence on other people who will live on. For example, an atheist
may dedicate his life to political reform, in the hope of leaving his
mark on history.

It is a natural human tendency to look for "meaning" or "purpose" in
random events. However, it is by no means obvious that "life" is the
sort of thing that has a "meaning".

To put it another way, not everything which looks like a question is
actually a sensible thing to ask. Some atheists believe that asking
"What is the meaning of life?" is as silly as asking "What is the
meaning of a cup of coffee?". They believe that life has no purpose or
meaning, it just is.

Also, if some sort of mystical external force is required to give
one's existence a "meaning", surely that makes any hypothetical god's
existence meaningless?

"So how do atheists find comfort in time of danger?"

There are many ways of obtaining comfort:

* Your family and friends
* Pets
* Food and drink
* Music, television, literature, arts and entertainment
* Sports or exercise
* Meditation
* Psychotherapy
* Drugs
* Work

That may sound like rather an empty and vulnerable way to face danger,
but so what? Should individuals believe in things because they are
comforting, or should they face reality no matter how harsh it might
be?

In the end, it's a decision for the individual concerned. Most
atheists are unable to believe something they would not otherwise
believe merely because it makes them feel comfortable. They put truth
before comfort, and consider that if searching for truth sometimes
makes them feel unhappy, that's just hard luck. Often truth hurts.

"Don't atheists worry that they might suddenly be shown to be wrong?"

The short answer is "No, do you?"

Many atheists have been atheists for years. They have encountered many
arguments and much supposed evidence for the existence of God, but
they have found all of it to be invalid or inconclusive.

Thousands of years of religious belief haven't resulted in any good
proof of the existence of God. Atheists therefore tend to feel that
they are unlikely to be proved wrong in the immediate future, and they
stop worrying about it.

"So why should theists question their beliefs? Don't the same
arguments apply?"

No, because the beliefs being questioned are not similar. Weak atheism
is the sceptical "default position" to take; it asserts nothing.
Strong atheism is a negative belief. Theism is a very strong positive
belief.

Atheists sometimes also argue that theists should question their
beliefs because of the very real harm they can cause -- not just to
the believers, but to everyone else.

"What sort of harm?"

Religion represents a huge financial and work burden on mankind. It's
not just a matter of religious believers wasting their money on church
buildings; think of all the time and effort spent building churches,
praying, and so on. Imagine how that effort could be better spent.

Many theists believe in miracle healing. There have been plenty of
instances of ill people being "healed" by a priest, ceasing to take
the medicines prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result.
Some theists have died because they have refused blood transfusions on
religious grounds.

It is arguable that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control
-- and condoms in particular -- is increasing the problem of
overpopulation in many third-world countries and contributing to the
spread of AIDS world-wide.

Religious believers have been known to murder their children rather
than allow their children to become atheists or marry someone of a
different religion. Religious leaders have been known to justify
murder on the grounds of blasphemy.

There have been many religious wars. Even if we accept the argument
that religion was not the true cause of those wars, it was still used
as an effective justification for them.

"Those weren't real believers. They just claimed to be believers as
some sort of excuse."

This is rather like the No True Scotsman fallacy.

What makes a real believer? There are so many One True Religions it's
hard to tell. Look at Christianity: there are many competing groups,
all convinced that they are the only true Christians. Sometimes they
even fight and kill each other. How is an atheist supposed to decide
who's a real Christian and who isn't, when even the major Christian
churches like the Catholic Church and the Church of England can't
decide amongst themselves?

In the end, most atheists take a pragmatic view, and decide that
anyone who calls himself a Christian, and uses Christian belief or
dogma to justify his actions, should be considered a Christian. Maybe
some of those Christians are just perverting Christian teaching for
their own ends -- but surely if the Bible can be so readily used to
support un-Christian acts it can't be much of a moral code? If the
Bible is the word of God, why couldn't he have made it less easy to
misinterpret? And how do you know that your beliefs aren't a
perversion of what your God intended?

If there is no single unambiguous interpretation of the Bible, then
why should an atheist take one interpretation over another just on
your say-so? Sorry, but if someone claims that he believes in Jesus
and that he murdered others because Jesus and the Bible told him to do
so, we must call him a Christian.

"Obviously those extreme sorts of beliefs should be questioned. But
since nobody has ever proved that God does not exist, it must be very
unlikely that more basic religious beliefs, shared by all faiths, are
nonsense."

The commonality of many basic religious beliefs is hardly surprising,
if you take the view that religion is a product of society. From that
viewpoint, religions have borrowed ideas which contribute to a stable
society -- such as respect for authority figures, a prohibition
against murder, and so on.

In addition, many common religious themes have been passed on to later
religions. For example, it has been suggested that the Ten
Commandments of the Old Testament actually have their roots in
Hamurabi's code.

The claim that because something hasn't been proved false, it's less
likely to be nonsense, does not hold. As was pointed out earlier in
this dialogue, positive assertions concerning the existence of
entities are inherently much harder to disprove than negative ones.
Nobody has ever proved that unicorns don't exist, and there are many
stories about them, but that doesn't make it unlikely that they are
myths.

It is therefore much more valid to hold a negative assertion by
default than it is to hold a positive assertion by default. Of course,
"weak" atheists may argue that asserting nothing is better still.

"Well, if atheism's so great, why are there so many theists?"

Unfortunately, the popularity of a belief has little to do with how
"correct" it is, or whether it "works"; consider how many people
believe in astrology, graphology, and other pseudo-sciences.

Many atheists feel that it is simply a human weakness to want to
believe in gods. Certainly in many primitive human societies, religion
allows the people to deal with phenomena that they do not adequately
understand.

Of course, there's more to religion than that. In the industrialized
world, we find people believing in religious explanations of phenomena
even when there are perfectly adequate natural explanations. Religion
may have started as a means of attempting to explain the world, but
nowadays it serves other purposes as well. For instance, for many
people religion fulfils a social function, providing a sense of
community and belonging.

"But so many cultures have developed religions. Surely that must say
something?"

Not really. Most religions are only superficially similar; for
example, it's worth remembering that religions such as Buddhism and
Taoism lack any sort of concept of God in the Christian sense. In
short, there is no concensus amongst religions as to what God actually
is. Hence one of the problems you must face if you wish to discuss God
with an atheist, is that of defining exactly what you mean by the
word.

Also, most religions are quick to denounce competing religions, so
it's rather odd to use one religion to try and justify another.

"What about all the famous scientists and philosophers who have
concluded that God exists?"

For every scientist or philosopher who believes in a god, there is one
who does not. Besides, as has already been pointed out, the truth of a
belief is not determined by how many people believe it. Also, it is
important to realize that atheists do not view famous scientists or
philosophers in the same way that theists view their religious
leaders.

A famous scientist is only human; she may be an expert in some fields,
but when she talks about other matters her words carry no special
weight. Many respected scientists have made themselves look foolish by
speaking on subjects which lie outside their fields of expertise.

Also, note that even famous scientists' views are treated with
scepticism by the scientific community. Acknowledged experts in a
particular field must still provide evidence for their theories;
science relies on reproducable, independently confirmed results. New
theories which are incompatible with a large body of existing
scientific knowledge will be subject to especially close scrutiny; but
if the work is sound and the experimental data reproducible, the new
theories will displace the old.

For instance, both special relativity and quantum mechanics were
highly controversial, and required that a lot of existing scientific
theory be thrown out. Yet both were relatively quickly accepted after
extensive experiments proved their correctness. Pseudo-scientific
theories such as creationism are rejected not because they are
controversial, but because they simply do not stand up to basic
scientific scrutiny. (See the FAQs for talk.origins for further
information.)

The Constructing a Logical Argument document has more to say about
scientific verification and proof by authority.

"So are you really saying that widespread belief in religion indicates
nothing?"

Not entirely. It certainly indicates that the religion in question has
properties which have helped it so spread so far.

The theory of memetics talks of "memes" -- sets of ideas which can
propagate themselves between human minds, by analogy with genes. Some
atheists view religions as sets of particularly successful parasitic
memes, which spread by encouraging their hosts to convert others. Some
memes avoid destruction by discouraging believers from questioning
doctrine, or by using peer pressure to keep one-time believers from
admitting that they were mistaken. Some religious memes even encourage
their hosts to destroy hosts controlled by other memes.

Of course, in the memetic view there is no particular virtue
associated with successful propagation of a meme. Religion is not a
good thing because of the number of people who believe it, any more
than a disease is a good thing because of the number of people who
have caught it.

The memetic approach has little to say about the truth of the
information in the memes, however.

"Even if religion is not entirely true, at least it puts across
important messages. What are the fundamental messages of atheism?"

There are many important ideas atheists promote. The following are
just a few of them; don't be surprised to see ideas which are also
present in some religions.

* There is more to moral behaviour than mindlessly following rules.
* Be especially sceptical of positive claims.
* If you want your life to have some sort of meaning, it's up to you
to find it.
* Search for what is true, even if it makes you uncomfortable.
* Make the most of your life, as it's probably the only one you'll
have.
* It's no good relying on some external power to change you; you
must change yourself.
* Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good.
* If you must assume something, assume something easy to test.
* Don't believe things just because you want them to be true.

and finally (and most importantly):
* All beliefs should be open to question.

Thanks for taking the time to read this document.

_________________________________________________________________

For the latest version of this information, see
<http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/>
--
me...@pobox.com content available at <URL:http://www.pobox.com/%7Emeta/>
RFC 1896, Eudora Pro 3 and CyberDog 1.1 text/enriched mail accepted

MILLENNIUM: Why not learn to spell it four years early?

[mathew]

Archive-name: atheism/logic
Alt-atheism-archive-name: logic

Last-modified: Tue Sep 10 10:07:20 1996
Version: 3.2

For the latest version of this information, see
<http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/>

Constructing a Logical Argument

Introduction

There is a lot of argument on Usenet; unfortunately, most of it is of
very low quality. This document attempts to provide you with a gentle
introduction to logic. Hopefully it will help you to spot bogus
arguments and improve the level of debate.

Logic is the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference
[Concise OED]. Logic will let you analyze an argument or a piece of
reasoning, and work out whether it is correct or not. To use the
technical terms, logic lets you work out whether the reasoning is
valid or invalid.

Of course, you don't need to study logic to reason correctly. However,
a little basic knowledge of logic is often helpful when constructing
or analyzing an argument.

_________________________________________________________________

Caveats

Note that I am not claiming that logic is the only way of conducting
discussion and debate. Whether logic is universally applicable is
itself an issue which is very much open to debate. This document only
explains how to use logic; you must decide whether logic is the right
tool for the job.

Note also that this document deals only with simple boolean logic.
Other sorts of mathematical logic, such as fuzzy logic, obey different
rules. When people talk about logical arguments, though, they usually
mean the type being described here.

One problem with boolean logic is that people don't have to be
consistent in their goals and desires. People use fuzzy logic and
non-logical reasoning to handle their conflicting goals; boolean logic
isn't good enough. For example:

"John wishes to speak to the person in charge. The person in charge
is Steve. Therefore John wishes to speak to Steve."

Logically, that's a totally valid argument. However, John may have a
conflicting goal of avoiding Steve, meaning that the answer obtained
by logical reasoning may be inapplicable to real life. Garlic tastes
good, strawberry ice cream tastes good, but strawberry garlic ice
cream is only logically a good idea.

Sometimes, principles of valid reasoning which were thought to be
universal have turned out to be false. For example, for a long time
the principles of Euclidean geometry were thought to be universal
laws.

However, keeping those caveats and limitations in mind, let's go on to
consider the basics of boolean logic.

_________________________________________________________________

Basic concepts

The building blocks of a logical argument are propositions, also
called statements. A proposition is a statement which is either true
or false. For example:

"The first programmable computer was built in Cambridge."

"Dogs cannot see colour."

"Berlin is the capital of Germany."

Propositions may be either asserted (said to be true) or denied (said
to be false).

Note: This is a technical meaning of the word "deny", not the everyday
meaning.

When a proposition has been asserted based on some argument, we
usually say that it has been affirmed.

The proposition is generally viewed as the meaning of the statement,
and not the particular arrangement of words used. So "An even prime
number greater than two exists" and "There exists an even prime number
greater than two" both express the same (false) proposition.

Sometimes, however, it is better to consider the wording of the
proposition as significant, and use linguistic rules to derive
equivalent statements if necessary.

_________________________________________________________________

What is an argument?

An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series
of statements to establish a definite proposition". There are three
stages to an argument: premises, inference, and conclusion.

Stage one: Premises

For the argument to get anywhere, you need one or more initial
propositions. These initial statements are called the premises of the
argument, and must be stated explicitly.

You can think of the premises as the reasons for accepting the
argument, or the evidence it's built on. Premises are often indicated
by phrases such as "because", "since", "obviously", "let's assume",
and so on.

(The phrase "obviously" is often viewed with suspicion, as it gets
used to intimidate people into accepting things which aren't true at
all. If something doesn't seem obvious to you, don't be afraid to
question it. You can always say "Oh, yes, you're right, it is obvious"
when you've heard the explanation.)

Stage two: Inference

Next the argument continues step by step, in a process called
inference.

In inference, you start with one or more propositions which have been
accepted. You then use those propositions to arrive at a new
proposition. The new proposition can, of course, be used in later
stages of inference.

There are various kinds of valid inference -- and also some invalid
kinds, but we'll get to those later. Inference is often denoted by
phrases such as "implies that" or "therefore".

Stage three: Conclusion

Finally, you arrive at the conclusion of the argument, another
proposition. The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of
inference.

The conclusion is affirmed on the basis the original premises, and the
inference from them. Conclusions are often indicated by phrases such
as "therefore", "it follows that", "we conclude" and so on.

_________________________________________________________________

Types of argument

There are two traditional types of logical argument: deductive and
inductive.

1. A deductive argument is one which provides conclusive proof of its
conclusions. It is either valid or invalid.
A valid deductive argument is defined as one where if the premises
are true, then the conclusion must also be true.
2. An inductive argument is one where the premises provide some
evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
Inductive arguments are not valid or invalid, but we can talk
about whether they are better or worse than other arguments. We
can also discuss how likely their premises are.

There are forms of argument in ordinary language which are neither
deductive nor inductive. However, we'll concentrate on deductive
arguments, as they are often viewed as the most rigorous and
convincing.

Here is an example of a deductive argument:

* Premise: Every event has a cause
* Premise: The universe has a beginning
* Premise: All beginnings involve an event
* Inference: This implies that the beginning of the universe
involved an event
* Inference: Therefore the beginning of the universe had a cause
* Conclusion: The universe had a cause

Note that the conclusion of one argument might be a premise in another
argument. A proposition can only be a premise or a conclusion of a
particular argument; the terms don't make sense in isolation.

_________________________________________________________________

Recognizing an argument

Sometimes arguments won't follow the order described above. For
instance, the conclusions might be stated first, and the premises
stated afterwards in support of the conclusion. This is perfectly
valid, if sometimes a little confusing.

Arguments are harder to recognize than premises or conclusions. Lots
of people shower their writing with assertions, without ever producing
anything you might reasonably call an argument.

To make the situation worse, some statements look like arguments but
aren't. For example:

"If the Bible is accurate, Jesus must either have been insane, an
evil liar, or the Son of God."

The statement above isn't an argument; it's a conditional statement.
It doesn't assert the premises which are needed to support what looks
like its conclusion. (Even if you add those assertions, it still
suffers from a number of other logical flaws -- see the section on
this argument in the "Atheist Arguments" document.)

Here's another example:

"God created you; therefore obey and worship God."

The phrase "obey and worship God" is neither true nor false. Therefore
it isn't a proposition, and the sentence isn't an argument.

Causality is important as well. Suppose we're trying to argue that
there's something wrong with the engine of a car. Let's look at two
statements of the form "A because B". Here's the first:

"The car won't start because there's something wrong with the
engine."

That's not an argument for there being something wrong with the
engine; it's an explanation of why the car won't start. We're
explaining A, using B as the explanation.

Now consider a second statement:

"There must be something wrong with the engine of the car, because
it won't start."

Here we're arguing for A, giving B as evidence. The statement "A
because B" is an argument.

The difference between the two cases might not be completely clear.
So, remember that "A because B" is equivalent to "B therefore A". The
two statements then become:

"There's something wrong with the engine, therefore the car won't
start."

And:

"The car won't start, therefore there's something wrong with the
engine."

We're supposed to be arguing that there's something wrong with the
engine, but now it's plain that the first statement doesn't do that at
all. Only the second statement is arguing that there's something wrong
with the engine.

_________________________________________________________________

Implication in detail

There's one very important thing to remember:

The fact that a deductive argument is valid doesn't necessarily
mean that its conclusion holds.

That may seem confusing, but it's because of the slightly
counter-intuitive nature of how implication works.

Obviously you can build a valid argument out of true propositions. But
you can also build a completely valid argument using only false
propositions. For example:

* All insects have wings (premise)
* Woodlice are insects (premise)
* Therefore woodlice have wings (conclusion)

The conclusion isn't true because the argument's premises are false.
If the argument's premises were true, however, the conclusion would be
true. So the argument is entirely valid.

More subtly, you can reach a true conclusion from false premises --
even ludicrously false ones:

* All fish live in the ocean (premise)
* Sea otters are fish (premise)
* Therefore sea otters live in the ocean (conclusion)

However, there's one thing you can't do: start with true premises, go
through a valid deductive argument, and arrive at a false conclusion.
(Remember the definition of a valid deductive argument.)

So, here's a "truth table" for implication. The symbol "=>" denotes
implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion. "T" and "F"
represent true and false respectively.

CAPTION: Truth Table for Implication

Premise Conclusion Inference
A B A => B
false false true
false true true
true false false
true true true
* If the premises are false and the inference valid, the conclusion
can be true or false. (Lines 1 and 2.)
* If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference
must be invalid. (Line 3.)
* If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion
must be true. (Line 4.)

A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true. A sound
argument therefore arrives at a true conclusion. Be careful not to
confuse sound arguments with valid arguments.

_________________________________________________________________

Real life, and other things not considered

This document has considered logical argument as a process in
isolation from the real world. Nothing has been said about how
premises are arrived at, or how they are themselves checked to see if
they accord with the way things actually are.

Ultimately, the conclusion of a valid logical argument is only as
compelling as the basic premises it is derived from. Logic in itself
does not solve the problem of verifying the basic assertions which
support arguments; for that, we need some other tool.

In real life, the dominant means of verifying basic assertions is
scientific enquiry. The philosophy of science and the means of
scientific enquiry are both huge topics, and quite beyond the scope of
The Atheism Web.

You can criticize more than just the soundness of an argument. In
everyday life, arguments are almost always presented with some
specific purpose in mind. As well as criticizing the argument itself,
you might criticize the apparent intent of the argument. That sort of
criticism is outside the scope of this document, however.

_________________________________________________________________

Further reading

For a readable introduction to logic, try Flew's "Thinking Straight",
listed in the Atheist Media document. The Electronic Resources
document also lists LOGIC-L, a LISTSERV mailing list devoted to
discussing the teaching of elementary logic.
_________________________________________________________________

Fallacies

To delve further into the structure of logical arguments would need
lengthy discussion of linguistics and philosophy. It's simpler -- and
probably more useful -- to summarize some major pitfalls you should
avoid when constructing an argument. These pitfalls are known as
fallacies.

In everyday English the word "fallacy" is used to refer to mistaken
beliefs, as well as to the faulty reasoning that leads to those
beliefs. In logic, the term is generally used for a form of
technically incorrect argument -- especially if the argument appears
valid or convincing.

So for the purposes of this discussion, a fallacy is a logical
argument which looks correct, but which can be seen to be incorrect
when examined more carefully. If you learn to recognize fallacies,
hopefully you'll be able to avoid being misled by them.

Below is a list of some common fallacies, and also some rhetorical
devices often used in debate. The list isn't intended to be
exhaustive. The Niktor Project at <http://www.almanac.bc.ca/> has
another excellent list of logical fallacies.

Sadly, many of the examples below have been taken directly from
Usenet, though some have been rephrased for the sake of clarity.

_________________________________________________________________

List of fallacies

* Anecdotal evidence
* Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force
* Argumentum ad hominem
* Argumentum ad ignorantiam
* Argumentum ad misericordiam
* Argumentum ad populum
* Argumentum ad numerum
* Argumentum ad verecundiam
* Argumentum ad antiquitatem
* Argumentum ad novitatem
* Argumentum ad crumenam
* Argumentum ad lazarum
* Argumentum ad nauseam
* The fallacy of accident / Sweeping generalization / Dicto
simpliciter
* Converse accident / Hasty generalization
* Non causa pro causa
* Post hoc ergo propter hoc
* Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
* Petitio principii / Begging the question
* Circulus in demonstrando
* Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of
presupposition
* Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion
* Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms
* Amphiboly
* Accent
* Fallacies of composition
* Fallacy of division
* The slippery slope argument
* "A is based on B" fallacies / "...is a type of..." fallacies /
Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
* Affirmation of the consequent
* Denial of the antecedent
* Converting a conditional
* Bifurcation
* Plurium interrogationum / Many questions
* Non sequitur
* Red herring
* Reification / Hypostatization
* Shifting the burden of proof
* Straw man
* The extended analogy
* Tu quoque
* Audiatur et altera pars
* Ad hoc
* Argumentum ad logicam
* The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy

_________________________________________________________________

Anecdotal evidence

One of the simplest fallacies is to rely on anecdotal evidence. For
example:

"Violent crime is on the increase because you hear a lot more about
it on the news these days."

It's quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but
such anecdotes don't really prove anything to anyone. Your friend may
say he met Elvis in the supermarket, but those who haven't had the
same experience will require more than your friend's anecdotal
evidence to convince them.

Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force

An Appeal to Force happens when someone resorts to force (or the
threat of force) to try and push others to accept a conclusion. This
fallacy is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might
makes right". The threat doesn't have to come directly from the person
arguing. For example:

"... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those
who refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell."

"... In any case, I know your phone number and I know where you
live. Have I mentioned I am licensed to carry concealed weapons?"

Argumentum ad hominem

Argumentum ad Hominem literally means "argument directed at the man".
There are two types, abusive and circumstantial.

If you argue against some assertion by attacking the person who made
the assertion, then you have committed the abusive form of argumentum
ad hominem. A personal attack isn't a valid argument, because the
truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person
asserting it. For example:

"Atheism is an evil philosophy. It is practised by Communists and
murderers."

Sometimes in a court of law doubt is cast on the testimony of a
witness. For example, the prosecution might show that the witness is a
known perjurer. This is a valid way of reducing the credibility of the
testimony given by the witness, and not Argumentum ad Hominem.
However, it doesn't demonstrate that the witness's testimony is false.

If you argue that someone should accept the truth of an assertion
because of that person's particular circumstances, then you have
committed the circumstantial form of argumentum ad hominem. For
example:

"It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. How can you
argue otherwise when you're quite happy to wear leather shoes?"

This is an abusive charge of inconsistency, used as an excuse for
dismissing the opponent's argument. The fallacy can also be used as a
means of rejecting a particular conclusion. For example:

"Of course you would argue that positive discrimination is a bad
thing. You're white."

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that
someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also
known as "poisoning the well".

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". The fallacy
occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it
hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

(Note that this isn't the same as assuming that something is false
until it has been proved true; that's a basic scientific principle.)

Here are a couple of examples:

"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."

"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist.
Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

Note that this fallacy doesn't apply in a court of law, where you're
generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Also, in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would
produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such
evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume
of water to be present on the earth. The earth does not have a
tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice
at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."

In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something
hasn't occurred. We cannot conclude with certainty that it hasn't
occurred, though.

Of course, the history of science is full of logically valid bad
predictions. In 1893, the Royal Academy of Science were convinced by
Sir Robert Ball that communication with the planet Mars was a physical
impossibility, because it would require a flag as large as Ireland,
which it would be impossible to wave. (Source: Fortean Times Number
82.)

See also Shifting the Burden of Proof.

Argumentum ad misericordiam

This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The
fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for the sake of
getting a conclusion accepted. For example:

"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't
find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."

Argumentum ad populum

This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People.
You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an
assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of
fallacy is often characterized by emotive language. For example:

"Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women."

"For thousands of years people have believed in Jesus and the
Bible. This belief has had a great impact on their lives. What more
evidence do you need that Jesus was the Son of God? Are you trying
to tell those people that they are all mistaken fools?"

Argumentum ad numerum

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It
consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a
proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.
For example:

"The vast majority of people in this country believe that capital
punishment has a noticable deterrent effect. To suggest that it
doesn't in the face of so much evidence is ridiculous.

"All I'm saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid
power, so there must be something to it."

Argumentum ad verecundiam

The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and
win support for an assertion. For example:

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

This line of argument isn't always completely bogus; for example, it
may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a
particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we
can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an
intelligent computer"

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions
on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so
it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the
subject of machine intelligence.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem

This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good
simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been."
The opposite of Argumentum ad Novitatem.

"For thousands of years Christians have believed in Jesus Christ.
It must therefore be a good thing, for it to have persisted all
that time even in the face of persecution."

Argumentum ad novitatem

This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it's the
fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it
is new, or newer than something else.

Argumentum ad crumenam

The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness;
that those with more money are more likely to be right. The opposite
of Argumentum ad Lazarum.

Argumentum ad lazarum

The fallacy of assuming that someone poor is sounder or more virtuous
than someone who's wealthier. This fallacy is the opposite of the
Argumentum ad Crumenam.

Argumentum ad nauseam

This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be
true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is
heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant
repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over
again until you're sick of hearing it.

(On Usenet, your argument is often less likely to be heard if you
repeat it over and over again, as people will tend to put you in their
kill files.)

The fallacy of accident / Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter

A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a
particular situation, but the features of that particular situation
mean the rule is inapplicable. It's the error made when you go from
the general to the specific. For example:

"Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you
must dislike atheists."

This fallacy is often committed by people who try to decide moral and
legal questions by mechanically applying general rules.

Converse accident / Hasty generalization

This fallacy is the reverse of the Fallacy of Accident. It occurs when
you form a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which
aren't representative of all possible cases. For example:

"Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians
are insincere."

Non causa pro causa

The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when something is identified
as the cause of an event, but it has not actually been shown to be the
cause. For example:

"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared.
So God cured me of the headache."

This is known as a false cause fallacy.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is
assumed to be the cause of an event merely because it happened before
that event. For example:

"The Soviet Union collapsed after instituting state atheism.
Therefore we must avoid atheism for the same reasons."

This is another type of false cause fallacy.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is
to assert that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that
may be the cause(s) of the events.

Petitio principii / Begging the question

This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as
the conclusion reached. For example:

"Aliens are abducting innocent victims every week. The government
must know what is going on. Therefore the government is in league
with the aliens."

Circulus in demonstrando

This fallacy occurs if you assume as a premise the conclusion which
you wish to reach. Often, the proposition is rephrased so that the
fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example:

"Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence
any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will
lose his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their
secret, and will be open to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot
be allowed to hold government office."

Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same
as the conclusion. An argument like the above has actually been cited
as the reason for the British Secret Services' official ban on
homosexual employees. Another example is the classic:

"We know that God exists because the Bible tells us so. And we know
that the Bible is true because it is the word of God."

Circular arguments are surprisingly common, unfortunately. If you've
already reached a particular conclusion once, it's easy to
accidentally make it an assertion when explaining your reasoning to
someone else.

Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition

This is the interrogative form of Begging the Question. One example is
the classic loaded question:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which
has not even been asked. This trick is often used by lawyers in
cross-examination, when they ask questions like:

"Where did you hide the money you stole?"

Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as:

"How long will this EU interference in our affairs be allowed to
continue?"

or

"Does the Chancellor plan two more years of ruinous privatization?"

Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something
which is untrue or not yet established.

Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion

The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an
argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually
logically nothing to do with that conclusion.

For example, a Christian may begin by saying that he will argue that
the teachings of Christianity are undoubtably true. If he then argues
at length that Christianity is of great help to many people, no matter
how well he argues he will not have shown that Christian teachings are
true.

Sadly, such fallacious arguments are often successful because they
arouse emotions which cause others to view the supposed conclusion in
a more favourable light.

Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms

Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different
meanings in the same argument. For example:

"What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure
that it remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we
must place a license on it to make sure that will always be freely
redistributable."

One way to avoid this fallacy is to choose your terminology carefully
before beginning the argument, and avoid words like "free" which have
many meanings.

Amphiboly

Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are ambiguous
because of careless or ungrammatical phrasing.

Accent

Accent is another form of fallacy through shifting meaning. In this
case, the meaning is changed by altering which parts of a statement
are emphasized. For example, consider:

"We should not speak *ill* of our friends"

and

"We should not speak ill of our *friends*"

Be particularly wary of this fallacy on the net, where it's easy to
mis-read the emphasis of what's written.

Fallacies of composition

One Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property shared by
the parts of something must apply to the whole. For example:

"The bicycle is made entirely of low mass components, and is
therefore very lightweight."

The other Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property of a
number of individual items is shared by a collection of those items.
For example:

"A car uses less petrol and causes less pollution than a bus.
Therefore cars are less environmentally damaging than buses."

Fallacy of division

The fallacy of division is the opposite of the Fallacy of Composition.
Like its opposite, it exists in two varieties. The first is to assume
that a property of some thing must apply to its parts. For example:

"You are studying at a rich college. Therefore you must be rich."

The other is to assume that a property of a collection of items is
shared by each item. For example:

"Ants can destroy a tree. Therefore this ant can destroy a tree."

The slippery slope argument

This argument states that should one event occur, so will other
harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are
caused by the first event. For example:

"If we legalize marijuana, then more people would start to take
crack and heroin, and we'd have to legalize those too. Before long
we'd have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we
cannot legalize marijuana."

"A is based on B" fallacies / "...is a type of..." fallacies / Fallacy of
the Undistributed Middle

These fallacies occur if you attempt to argue that things are in some
way similar, but you don't actually specify in what way they are
similar. Examples:

"Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the Bible also a
form of history?"

"Islam is based on faith, Christianity is based on faith, so isn't
Islam a form of Christianity?"

"Cats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a
form of animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren't dogs a form of
cat?"

Affirmation of the consequent

This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true,
therefore A is true". To understand why it is a fallacy, examine the
truth table for implication given earlier. Here's an example:

"If I fall into the swimming pool, I get wet. I am wet, so I must
have fallen into the swimming pool."

This is the converse of Denial of the Antecedent.

Denial of the antecedent

This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false,
therefore B is false". The truth table for implication makes it clear
why this is a fallacy.

Note that this fallacy is different from Non Causa Pro Causa. That has
the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false", where A does
not in fact imply B at all. Here, the problem isn't that the
implication is invalid; rather it's that the falseness of A doesn't
allow us to deduce anything about B.

"If I fall into the swimming pool, I get wet. I did not fall into
the swimming pool, therefore I am not wet."

This is the converse of the fallacy of Affirmation of the Consequent.

Converting a conditional

This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, therefore if B
then A".

"If educational standards are lowered, the quality of argument seen
on the Internet worsens. So if we see the level of debate on the
net get worse over the next few years, we'll know that our
educational standards are still falling."

"If it's raining outside and I don't have an umbrella I get wet. So
if I get wet, then it's raining outside and I don't have an
umbrella."

This fallacy is similar to the Affirmation of the Consequent, but
phrased as a conditional statement.

Bifurcation

Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs
if you present a situation as having only two alternatives, where in
fact other alternatives exist or can exist.

Plurium interrogationum / Many questions

This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or simplistic)
answer to a complex question.

Non sequitur

A non sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from
premises which aren't logically connected with it. For example:

"Since Egyptians did so much excavation to construct the pyramids,
they were well versed in paleontology."

(Personally, I rather enjoy reading examples of this fallacy. A really
good non sequitur can cause the 'boggle' response, or even make me
burst out laughing. Indeed, non sequiturs are an important ingredient
in a lot of humour. They're still fallacies, though.)

Red herring

This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material
to the issue being discussed, so that everyone else's attention is
diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.

Reification / Hypostatization

Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete
thing.

Shifting the burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the
fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven
otherwise.

For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism"
document.

"OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of
the US government, can you prove it?"

Straw man

The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position
so that it can be attacked more easily, then knock down that
misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has
been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the
actual arguments that have been made.

"To be an atheist, you have to believe with absolute certainty that
there is no God. In order to convince yourself with absolute
certainty, you must examine all the Universe and all the places
where God could possibly be. Since you obviously haven't, your
position is indefensible."

The above straw man argument appears at about once a week on the net.
If you can't see what's wrong with it, read the "Introduction to
Atheism" document.

The extended analogy

The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested
general rule is being argued over. The fallacy is to assume that
mentioning two different situations, in an argument about a general
rule, constitutes a claim that those situations are analogous to each
other.

This fallacy is best explained using a real example from a debate
about anti-cryptography legislation:

"I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it."

"Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have
supported Martin Luther King."

"Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as
the struggle for Black liberation? How dare you!"

Tu quoque

This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs if you argue that an
action is acceptable because your opponent has performed it. For
instance:

"You're just being randomly abusive."

"So? You've been abusive too."

This is a personal attack, and is therefore a special case of
Argumentum ad Hominem.

Audiatur et altera pars

Often, people will argue from assumptions which they don't bother to
state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the
premises of an argument should be stated explicitly. It's not strictly
a fallacy to fail to state all of your assumptions; however, it's
often viewed with suspicion.

Ad hoc

There is a difference between argument and explanation. If we're
interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the
statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish
the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an
explanation.

The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which
doesn't apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will
be dressed up to look like an argument. For example, if we assume that
God treats all people equally, then the following is an ad hoc
explanation:

"I was healed from cancer."

"Praise the Lord, then. He is your healer."

"So, will He heal others who have cancer?"

"Er... The ways of God are mysterious."

Argumentum ad logicam

This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false
because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious
argument. Remember always that fallacious arguments can arrive at true
conclusions.

"Take the fraction 16/64. Now, cancelling a 6 on top and a six on
the bottom, we get that 16/64 = 1/4."

"Wait a second! You can't just cancel the six!"

"Oh, so you're telling us 16/64 is not equal to 1/4, are you?"

The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy

Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You
counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with
his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on
his porridge.

This is an example of an ad hoc change being used to shore up an
assertion, combined with an attempt to shift the meaning of the words
used original assertion. You might call it a combination of fallacies.

[mathew]

Archive-name: atheism/resources
Alt-atheism-archive-name: resources
Last-modified: Tue Jan 21 16:07:20 1996
Version: 3.2

For the latest version of this information, see
<http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/>

Atheist Organizations

_________________________________________________________________

This document grew out of the "Atheist Resources" FAQ for alt.atheism
and the "Regional Atheist Organizations in the United States" FAQ by
Robert Knowles <p00...@psilink.com> and Clark Adams
<clark...@southwind.com>. This file lists atheist organizations in
the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Finland,
France, Luxembourg, Norway, New Zealand, Australia, and The
Netherlands.

Disclaimer: Inclusion in this list does not constitute endorsement;
omission does not imply disapproval. Since the author does not claim
to be an omniscient being, this file necessarily lists all known
atheist organizations. If you know of additional organization(s),
please contact <jlo...@atheist.tamu.edu>.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

USA

American Atheists, Inc. (AAINC)

Founded over 30 years ago, American Atheists works for the civil
rights of Atheists and for state/church separation. It publishes a
monthly newsletter and produces a weekly television series available
on on over 130 cable access channels. Membership and other information
free on request by postal mail or e-mail.


American Atheists
PO Box 140195
Austin, TX 78714-0195.
Tel: +1 512 458-1244.
Fax: +1 512 467-9525.
Dial-THE-Atheist +1 512 458-5731 (free recorded message service).
E-mail: <in...@atheists.org>
Web: http://www.atheists.org

_________________________________________________________________

American Humanist Association

Publish a journal "The Humanist". More information can be obtained via
WWW at the address http://www.infidels.org/org/aha/.


American Humanist Association
7 Harwood Drive,
PO Box 146,
Amherst. NY 14226-0146

_________________________________________________________________

Atheist Alliance

The Atheist Alliance is a confederacy of various local, autonomous
atheist organizations interested in exchanging information.

_________________________________________________________________

Atheists United


Atheists United
PO Box 8464
Universal City, CA 91618-8464
Tel: +1 818 785-1743
E-mail: <do...@delphi.com>

A national atheist organization, located in Los Angeles, California,
Atheists United formed in 1982 and has been growing steadly ever
since.

Atheists United holds monthly meetings with speakers in Marina Del
Rey, publishes a monthly Newsletter, produces cable television shows
(about 50 so far) that air on numerous cable outlets, and holds
various continuing and special events.

Their Winter Solstice Banquet raises donations of toys for abused
children at McClaren Hall, and a satellite group, Atheists of Redding,
have worked with Atheists United members in San Luis Obispo in
Adopt-A-Highway service.

The outreach of Atheists United is extensive and has led to an
alliance of Los Angeles based Humanist and Freethought groups.
Atheists United is a founding member of the Atheist Alliance, and
hosted the first organizing convention and the first annual convention
of the Atheist Alliance.

Atheists United also has strong ties to the Atheist Centre in
Vijayawada, India, and is supporting the 4th World Atheist Conference
to be held in India in January 1996.

Atheists United Goals & Activities:

* We hold monthly meetings, presenting informative and entertaining
programs and speakers, where you can exchange views with many
others.
* Our monthly newsletter (sent to all members) keeps you informed on
activities, projects, and controversies. We'll send you copies
upon request.
* Members may participate on any of our various action committees.
* Special activities include picketing where appropriate, debates
with religionists, appearances at civic meetings, organized letter
writing and much more.
* Our monthly community outreach lecture series has introduced many
people to the logic and importance of Atheism.
* We bring legal action when and where appropriate.
* Educational activities include: providing speakers for other
organizations and the media; position pamphlets; information
tables; public displays; book sales; a lending library and more.
* Social activities include theater parties, nature outings,
dinners, picnics, and our annual Solstice Party.

_________________________________________________________________

Bertrand Russell Society


Bertrand Russell Society
John Lenz, President
38-B Loantaka Way, Madison, NJ 07940 or
3802 North Kenneth Ave., Chicago, IL 60641-2814
E-mail: <jl...@drew.edu>
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ck714/

The Society sponsors the following activities:

* Publication of The Bertrand Russell Society Quarterly
* Operation of the Society Library that lends and sells
Russell-related items
* Support of Russell scholarship in various ways, such as
administrating a "Prizes for Papers" program for undergraduates
and professionals (graduate students, junior academics and
non-academics)
* Annual participation in American Philosophical Association
meetings
* Bestowal of awards for books and awards to meritorious individuals
and organizations

_________________________________________________________________

Campus Freethought Alliance

The Campus Freethought Alliance is dedicated to the promotion and
enhancement of freethought, skepticism, secularism, non-theism and
humanism, and to the national consolidation of campus resources for
that end. The Campus Freeethought Alliance hopes that by pressing to
create campus environments more friendly toward the rational
viewpoint, they might aid in ameliorating the negative condition of
society at large.


Campus Freethought Alliance
c/o Council for Secular Humanism
Buffalo, NY 14226-0664
Tel: +1 716 636-7571
Fax: +1 716 636-1733
E-mail: <ath...@wam.umd.edu>
http://www.codesh.org/cfa/

_________________________________________________________________

Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism

The Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (CODESH) is a
not-for-profit, tax-exempt educational organization dedicated to
fostering the growth of the traditions of democracy and secular
humanism and the principles of free inquiry in contmporary soceity.
CODESH is open to Associate Membership; members receive the Secular
Humanist Bulletin. In addition to publishing "Free Inquiry" magazine,
CODESH sponsors many activites and organizations.


Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism
PO Box 664
Buffalo, NY 14226-0664
Tel: +1 716 636-7571
Fax: +1 716 636-1733
E-mail: <timma...@aol.com>
http://www.codesh.org/

_________________________________________________________________

Freedom From Religion Foundation


Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.
PO Box 750
Madison, WI 53701.
Tel: +1 608 256-8900 / +1 608 256-5800
E-mail: <ff...@mailbag.com>
http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/

Since 1978, the nonprofit Freedom From Religion Foundation has been
working to

* keep state and church separate and
* to educate the public about the views of nontheists.

Members include freethinkers (atheists, agnostics, etc.) from all 50
states, Canada, and other countries. The Foundation monitors
state/church abuses, taking lawsuits and making official complaints on
behalf of individuals and our membership. Foundation staff provide
resources for media and public appearances.

Cash scholarships are awarded to winners of the Foundation's annual
student essay contest.

"Freethought Today" (the only freethought newspaper in the United
States) is published 10 times a year. It contains news related to
state/church separation, and articles of interest to freethinkers.

_________________________________________________________________

Prison Atheist League of America


Prison Atheist League of America (PALA)
Arnold Via, President
PO Box 140195
Austin, TX 78714
Tel: +1 512 458-1244

_________________________________________________________________

Society for Activist Freethought


Society for Activist Freethought
PO Box 40995
Redford MI 48239-9998
E-mail: <AntiR...@aol.com>
http://www.infidels.org/org/as/

Publishes a quarterly newsletter for members, "Aristotle's Garden",
and distributes anti-religion fliers.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

USA: Local/ Regional Organizations

Alabama

Birmingham/Talladega


Alabama Freethought Association
FFRF Chapter
Pat Cleveland, Director
Operate Lake Hypatia Freethought Hall and Campgrounds
PO Box 443
Talladega, AL 35160
Tel: +1 205 761-1105

Very active. A couple of its members were, in part, responsible for
the impeachment of the Governor of Alabama (a Primitive Baptist
minister who used state funds to travel around the country preaching
for love offerings) and the removal of chapels from all Alabama State
Parks. A visit to Lake Hypatia is a must for any atheists in the area.

Huntsville


Freethought Forum
(Autonomous Organization)
President: Darren Fuemmeler
PO Box 319
Meridianville, AL 35759
Tel: +1 205 828-9135

Very active. Has activities at least three times per month. Also holds
regular debates with local ministers. Always manages to get a very
good amount of media coverage when necessary.

_________________________________________________________________

Alaska

Anchorage


Atheists of Alaska
Clyde Baxley, President
3713 Deborah Lane
Anchorage, AK 99504
Tel: +1 907 333-6499

_________________________________________________________________

Arizona

Phoenix


Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix
AHA chapter
Sunny Sumner, president
1125 N. 3rd Street #212
Phoenix, AZ 85004-1893
Tel: +1 602 256-9188

Prescott


Humanists of Prescott
AHA chapter
Jim Powers, chair
PO Box 1991
Prescott, AZ 86302-1991
Tel: +1 520 776-1552
E-mail: <jpo...@bsll.bslnet.com>

Scottsdale


Arizona Secular Humanists
PO Box 3738
Scottsdale, AZ 85271
Tel: +1 602 230-5328

Tucson


Humanist Community of Tucson
AHA chapter
Heidi Simpson, contact
PO Box 86014
Tucson, AZ 85754-6014
Tel: +1 520 743-7804

_________________________________________________________________

Arkansas

Benton


Humanists of the Mid-South
AHA chapter
Chas and M J Dixon
Rt 2 Box 376a
Benton, AR 72015-9802

Fayetteville


Humanists of Northwest Arkansas
Brian Bolton, contact
University of Arkansas
West Avenue Annex
Fayetteville, AR 72701-4183
Tel: +1 501 575-3656


Arkansas Society of Freethinkers
1700 W. Dixon Rd. #12
Little Rock AR 72206
Tel: +1-501-888-9333
E-mail: t...@fermi.ualr.edu (Todd Billings)

_________________________________________________________________

California

Los Angeles Area


Alliance of Humanist, Atheist, and Ethical-Culture Organizations of
L.A. County
Reuben Heller
8491 Sunset Blvd. Suite 240
West Hollywood, CA 90069


Atheists United
member Atheist Alliance
Alexander Prairie, President
PO Box 5329
Sherman Oaks, CA 91413
Tel: +1 818 594-0678 Sherman Oaks
Tel: +1 714 220-1777 Orange County
Tel: +1 818 988-2806 San Fernando Valley
Tel: +1 805 544-1580 San Louis Obispo
Tel: +1 213 482-8876 Silverlake
Tel: +1 805 386-4348 Ventura County
Tel: +1 310 823-2821 Westside


Ethical Culture Society of LA
PO Box 425
Reseda, CA 91337
Tel: +1 818 470-2873


Freethinkers' Society
Marguerite Lopez, President
PO Box 25863
West Los Angeles, CA 90025
Tel: +1 800 321-9054


Gay and Lesbian Freethought Forum
1213 N. Highland Avenue
Hollywood, CA
Tel: +1 213 666-3875


Humanist Association of Los Angeles
AHA chapter
Lisa-Jo Corbin-Singletary
PO Box 800148
Santa Clarita, CA 92581-1001
Tel: +1 909 247-0953 E-mail: <EDS...@aol.com>


Humanist Club of Long Beach
AHA chapter
Peter Ballou, president
3316 Roxanne Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90808-4325
Tel: +1 310 425-5433 E-mail: <woeb...@aol.com>


Humanists of Riverside County
AHA chapter
Joe Bernard
42010 Mayberry Avenue
Hemet, CA 92344-6439
Tel: +1 714 658-1588
Tel: +1 714 845-4661


Humanists of the Pomona Valley
AHA chapter
Joe Gorman
P O. Box 376
Claremont, CA 91711-0376
Tel: +1 909 626-6675


Humanists of the San Joaquin Valley
AHA chapter
Bill Young, contact
PO Box 515
Auberry, CA 93602-0515
Tel: +1 209 855-2438


Secular Humanists of Los Angeles
CODESH chapter
Edythe McGovern
PO Box 661496
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Tel: +1 310 285-3354
E-mail: <sh...@concentric.net>
http://www.cris.com/~shola


Society for Humanistic Judaism of Los Angeles
1261 Loma Vista
Beverly Hills, CA 90210


Cedar Springs Library
formerly Society of Evangelical Agnostics
Bill Young
43378 Cedar Springs Road
Auberry, CA 93602
Tel: +1 209 855-2438

San Diego Area


American Association for the Advancement of Atheism (AAAA)
Leo Lamboy, President
1863 Falconer Ct.
Vista, CA 92083
Tel: +1 619 432-6339


Atheist Coalition
member Atheist Alliance
Howard Kreisner, President
PO Box 4786
San Diego, CA 92164-4786
Tel: +1 619 497-0926


Humanist Association of San Diego
AHA chapter
Philip K. Paulson, president
PO Box 82211
San Diego, CA 92138-2211
Tel: +1 619 280-8515
E-mail: <p...@ix.netcom.com>


Humanist Center -- Humanist Fellowship of San Diego
AHA chapter
Sam Warren, president
PO Box 87662
San Diego, CA 92138-7662
Tel: +1 619 236-0984
BBS +1 619 224-4573
Fax: +1 619 239-8700
E-mail: <samw...@aol.com>
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3015
http://www.webcom.com/warren/freethought/ff.html


Humanistic Science Institute
affiliated with AHA
Dr. James Prescott, president
1829 Commodore Road
Newport Beach, CA 92660-4302
Tel: +1 714 645-6802


San Diego Association of Secular Humanists
PO Box 927365,
San Diego, CA 92122
Tel: +1 619 272-7719
http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/users/dnoelle/sandash/


Secular Humanists of San Diego
CODESH chapter
Norm Hall
2885 Havasupai Avenue
San Diego, CA 92117
Tel: +1 619 273-2261

Sacramento


Atheists and Other Freethinkers (AOF)
Karen Abbe, President
PO Box 15182
Sacramento, CA 95851-0182
Tel: +1 916 920-7834 (24-hour Voice Information System)
E-mail: <pke...@earthlink.net>
http://home.earthlink.net/~pkelley/aof.html

"The purpose of the association Atheists and Other Freethinkers (also
known as AOF) is to promote the understanding and acceptance of
atheism in our community. Throughout its educational programs,
projects, and publications, AOF extends atheistic perspectives
concerning the separation of church and state and the right to think
and speak freely on these perspectives."


Humanist Association of the Greater Sacramento Area (HAGSA)
AHA chapter
Wayne Luney, president
PO Box 3003
Orangeville, CA 95662-3410
Tel: +1 916-383-9393
E-mail: <wayne...@aol.com>
http://home.earthlink.net/~pkelley/hagsa.html

San Francisco Bay Area


Atheists of San Francisco Region
member Atheist Alliance
Hal Verb, President
PO Box 421815
San Francisco, CA 84142-1815
Tel: +1 415 647-9309


Fellowship of Humanity
LeRue Grim, President
411 W. 28th St.
Oakland, CA 94609-3602


Humanist Community of San Francisco
AHA and CODESH chapter
Jay Martin, president
PO Box 31172
San Francisco, CA 94131-0172
Tel: +1 415 342-0910


Humanist Community of the Peninsula
AHA chapter
Kenneth Schneider, president
701 Santa Rosa Lane
Foster City, CA 94404-3750
Tel: +1 415 345-2765


Humanist Fellowship of the First Unitarian Society of San Fransisco
Valerie Heine, contact
444 15th Avenue #303
San Fransisco, CA 94118-2842
Tel: +1 415 387-6485


Humanist Society of Berkeley
AHA chapter
Howard Gonslaves, President
100 Arlene Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94595-1734
Tel: +1 415 933-7434


Secular Humanists of Marin
CODESH chapter
PO Box 6022
San Rafael, CA 94903
Tel: +1 415 892-5243


Humanist Community
AHA chapter
Carolyn Fairman
3421 El Camino Road
Ahterton, CA 94027-3845
Tel: +1 415 364-9759 E-mail: <cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU>


Secular Humanists of the East Bay
Molleen Matsumura
CODESH chapter
PO Box 5313
Berkeley, CA 94705
Tel: +1 415 486-0553


South Bay Secular Humanists
CODESH chapter
Jim Stauffer
PO Box 4396
Mountain VIew, CA 94040
Tel: +1 415 966-1312


Stanford Humanists
Stanford University
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/Humanists/

Santa Barbara


Santa Barbara Humanist Society
PO Box 30804,
Santa Barbara, CA 93130
Tel: +1 805 682-6606

Weed


Siskiyou Humanists
CODESH chapter
Michael Roesch
PO Box 223
Weed, CA 96094
Tel: +1 916 938-2838


Humanists of the Desert Communities
AHA chapter
Phil Russo, contact
PO Box 719
Palm Springs, CA 92263-0719
Tel: +1 619 329-3285

_________________________________________________________________

Colorado

Boulder


Humanists of Colorado -- Boulder
AHA chapter
Darryl Mehring, president
455 South 38th Street
Boulder, CO 80303-5407
Tel: +1 303 499-0347

Colorado Springs


Cadet Freethinkers' SPIRE Group
United States Air Force Academy
Colorado Springs, CO 80840


FFRF Chapter of Colorado Springs
FFRF Chapter
Gary King, Director
PO Box 1051
Colorado Springs, CO 80901


Freethinkers of Colorado Springs
Gary Betchan, Director
Colorado Springs, CO
E-mail: <gbet...@aol.com>


Humanist Association of Pikes Peak
AHA chapter
John Ramsay, contact
PO Box 585
Colorado Springs, CO 80901-0585
Tel: +1 719 635-2416

Denver


Humanists of Colorado -- Denver
AHA chapter
Vance George Reed
11353 Humboldt Street
Northglenn, CO 80233-3256
Tel: +1 303 452-1246


Denver Freethought Society
FFRF Chapter
contact FFRF
PO Box 750
Madison, WI 53701


Walk Away
Local group to support recovering fundamentalists
Jim Hoyne
1700 Rutledge Court
Ft. Collins, CO 80526

_________________________________________________________________

Connecticut


Humanist Association of Central Connecticut
AHA chapter
David Schafer, president
27 Thornton Street
Hamden, CT 06517-1321
Tel: +1 203 281-6232


Humanist Friendship Center of Western Connecticut
AHA chapter
Robert Wolsch, contact
PO Box 200
Southbury, CT 06488-0200
Tel: +1 203 262-6123


Humanists of Fairfield County
AHA chapter
Uri Brier, president
17 Whipoorwill Lane
Westport, CT 06880-2258 Tel: +1 203 227-2434


Northeast Atheist Association
Franklin Marshall
PO Box 63
Simsbury, CT 06070
Tel: +1 203 658-7254

_________________________________________________________________

District of Columbia


Humanist Association of the National Capital Area
Karen Stewart, contact
PO Box 200
Southbury, CT 06488-0200
Tel: +1 301 656-5621

_________________________________________________________________

Florida

Miami Area (Dade, Broward, Palm Beach)


Atheists of Florida, Miami
member Atheist Alliance
Christos Tzanetakos, President
PO Box 530102
Miami Shores, FL 33153-0102
Tel: +1 305 936-0210


Humanists of the Gold Coast
AHA chapter
Dr. Albert Maizels, president
500 S. Ocean Boulevard
Boca Raton, FL 33432-6249
Tel: +1 407 338-9622


Humanists of the Palm Beaches
Marvin Eagle, contact
860 Lakeside Drive
North Palm Beach, FL 33408-3810
Tel: +1 407 626-6556


Secular Humanists of South Florida
CODESH chapter
Irwin Leibowitz
5009 Arthur Street
Hollywood, FL 33021
Tel: +1 305 966-7505

Tampa Bay Area


Atheists of Florida, Tampa Bay
member Atheist Alliance
PO Box 130753
Tampa, FL 33681-0753


Humanists of South Pinellas
AHA chapter
Robert D. Collette
PO Box 3641
St. Petersburg, FL 33731-3641


Humanists of the Sun Coast
AHA chapter
Ken Poulson
237 Mariner Drive
Tarpon Springs, FL 34689
Tel: +1 813 942-1112


Humanists of St Petersburg
Jan Eisler
13336 Gulf Boulevard #304
Madeira Beach, FL 33708-2551
Tel: +1 813-399-9322


Thomas Jefferson Societies, USA
Sydney Goetz
6020 Shore Bouleverd South
Gulfport, FL 33707

Orlando Area


Freethinkers, Inc.
CODESH chapter
Andree Spuhler
PO Box 724
Winter Park, FL 32790
Tel: +1 407 628-2729


Humanists of Florida
AHA chapter
Mithcell Modisett, President
35123 Makenzie Street
Zephyrhills, FL 33541-2346
Tel: +1 813 788-5516

Gainesville


Humanist Society of Gainesville
AHA chapter
Dom Nozzi, president
PO Box 12125
Gainesville, FL 32604-0125 Tel: +1 904 375-0746 E-mail:
<huma...@freenet.ufl.edu>

Tallahassee


Humanists of Tallahassee
AHA chapter
Jim Peterson, president
1009 Apache Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301-7007
Tel: +1 904 878-1549 E-mail: <jam...@freenet.SCRI.FSU.EDU>

Pensacola/Fort Walton Beach


Humanist Society of Greater Fort Walton Beach
AHA chapter
Kenneth Gibbs
308 Pontevedra Drive
Niceville, FL 32578-3238
Tel: +1 904 678-3949


Humanists of the Suncoast
Hal East, secretary/treasurer
317 Highland Avenue N
Clearwater, FL 34615-5714
Tel: +1 813 446-0312


Humanists of Indian River
The Ed Wilson Memorial Chapter
Bill Ranck, contact
PO Box 2532
Melbourne, FL 32902-2532

Daytona Beach Area


Ormond Beach Freethought Society
FFRF Chapter
Blanche Fearn
c/o FFRF
PO Box 750
Madison, WI 53701

_________________________________________________________________

Georgia

Atlanta


Atlanta Freethought Society
Kimberly Lyle-Wilson, Director
PO Box 813392
Smyrna, GA 30081-3392
Tel: +1 770 641-2903
JKWi...@cris.com


Humanists of Georgia
AHA chapter
Tom Malone, Director
PO box 2385
Stone Mountain, GA 30086-2385
Tel: +1 770 662-6274 10213...@compuserve.com

_________________________________________________________________

Hawaii


Hawaii Rationalists
508 Pepeekeo Pl.
Honolulu, HI 96822
Tel: +1 808 235-0206


Humanists Hawaii
AHA chapter
Philip Michaels
46-187 Lilipuna Road
Kaneohe, HI 96744-3646
Tel: +1 808 235-0206


Secular Humanists of Honolulu
CODESH chapter
Vic Stenger
Department of Physics
University of Hawaii
Honolulu, HI 96822
Tel: +1 808 956-2942

_________________________________________________________________

Idaho


Humanists of Idaho
Jim Holden
1100 Berkeley
Boise, ID 83705-2135
Tel: +1 208 343-2838

_________________________________________________________________

Illinois

Chicagoland


Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago AEU
1700 Maple
Evanston, IL
Tel: +1 708 256-6022


Freethinkers, Humanists, and Atheists at UIC
University of Illinois at Chicago
http://www_lac.eecs.uic.edu/~dhanley/fha.html


Free Inquiry Network
CODESH affiliate
publish newsletter "Ideas"
Jim Zaluba
PO Box 3696
Oak Park, IL 60303
Tel: +1 708 386-9100


Humanists of Chicagoland
AHA chapter
Mike Werner, contact
6439 Coach House Road
Lisle, IL 60532-3214
Tel: +1 708 416-0855


Independent Atheist
Jeff Frankel
1127 North College
Decatur, IL 62522


Midwest Committe For Rational Inquiry
MCR-1 B-2792
Des Plaines, IL 60017

Peoria


Friends of Robert G. Ingersoll
CODESH affiliate
PO Box 5082
Peoria, IL 61601


Peoria Secular Humanists
PO Box 994
Normal, IL 61761
Tel: +1 309 452-8907


Campus Atheists and Agnostics
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/caa/

_________________________________________________________________

Iowa


Humanists of Iowa
AHA chapter
Betty McCollister, president
314 Woodbridge Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52245-6054
Tel: +1 319 351-2590

_________________________________________________________________

Kentucky

Louisville


Louisville Area Secular Humanists (LASH)
Emmett Fields
514 Eastern Parkway
Louisville, KY 40217-1818
Tel: +1 502 634-0590
BBS +1 502 635-0204


Louisville Association of Secular Humanists
PO Box 91453
Louisville, KY 40291
Tel: +1 502 491-6693
http://www.wfu.edu/~ledukal4/backslash.html

_________________________________________________________________

Louisiana

New Orleans


New Orleans Secular Humanists
CODESH affiliate
180 Willow Dr.
Gretna, LA 70053
Tel: +1 504 831-4484 / +1 504 737-7282

A small, tightly knit group that has been in existence for about 3
years. Atheists will feel at home here.

Shreveport


Shreveport Humanists
CODESH affiliate
Richard Pevey
9476 Boxwood Dr.
Shreveport, LA 71118-4003
Tel: +1 318 687-8175 / +1 318 688-7983
http://www.softdisk.com/shreve/shume/

_________________________________________________________________

Maryland

Baltimore Area


Baltimore Secular Humanists
PO Box 24115
Baltimore, MD 21227
Tel: +1 410 467-3225


Atheist Students Association
University of Marlyand at College Park
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~kaugust/asa.html

ASA was formed with the purpose of providing a gathering place for
atheists to meet and interact. The group also tries to dispell the
myths and misconceptions held about atheists.

DC area


Humanist Association of the National Capital Area
AHA chapter
Roy Torcaso (Supreme Court Litigant)
PO Box 2465
Wheaton, MD 20915-2465

_________________________________________________________________

Massachusetts

Boston


The Atheist Discussion Group
Boston, MA


Coalition of Humanist, Atheist, and Ethical Organizations of New
England
Joe Gerstein
Tel: +1 617 891-7574


Heathens and Heretics at MIT
Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Humanist Association of Massachusetts
AHA chapter
Tom Ferrick, executive director
PO Box 1125
Cambridge, MA 02238-1125
Tel: +1 617 547-1497


Humanist Chaplaincy of Harvard University
Nicolas Johnson, president
87 Wells Road
Lincoln, MA 01773-3703
Tel: +1 617 259-0070

_________________________________________________________________

Michigan

Caledonia


Humanist Fellowship of West Michigan
AHA chapter
Dirk Nebbeling, cochairperson
6647 Noffke Drive
Caledonia, MI 49316-9302
Tel: +1 616 891-1135

Detroit


Humanists of Southeast Michigan
AHA chapter
Thelma Murrell and T. L. Hall
PO Box 432191
Pontiac, MI 48343-2191
Tel: +1 313 284-1890


Secular Humanists of Detroit
CODESH affiliate
Steve Walker
PO Box 432191
Pontiac, MI 48343-2191
Tel: +1 313 962-1777


Society for Humanistic Judaism
28611 W 12 Mile Road
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Tel: +1 313 478-7610 / +1 313 477-9014

Lansing


Humanist Community of Central Michigan
AHA chapter
Teresa Weaver, president
2401 Wellington Road
Lansing, MI 48910-2445
Tel: +1 517 487-2102


Atheist & Agnostic Student Organization
Michigan State University
Julie Jacobs, Chair
East Lansing, MI
jaco...@pilot.msu.edu
http://www.cps.msu.edu/~taylorj/skeptic

_________________________________________________________________

Minnesota

Twin Cities


Friends Free of Theism
Bob Nienkerk
Charles French
7227 Park Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423-3231
Tel: +1 612 866-6200/ +1 612 561-6452


Humanist Association of Minneapolis and St. Paul
AHA chapter
Scott Lohman
3822 Aldrich Avenue N.
Minneapolis, MN 55412-2153
Tel: +1 612 521-4766
Scott...@aol.com


Minnesota Atheists
member Atheist Alliance
Steve Petersen +1 612 642-9325
Marie Castle +1 612 588-1597
PO Box 6261
Minneapolis, MN 55406


University of Minnesota Atheists and Unbelievers
Stephanie Erickson and Jason Erickson, Presidents
235 Coffman Memorial Union
300 Washington Avenue SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455
E-mail: <Huma...@tc.umn.edu

Mississippi


Humanist Association of Mississippi
AHA chapter
Charles L. Graham, president
Route 1 Box 170
Enterprise, MS 39330-9408
Tel: +1 601 693-1244


Mississippi Freethought Association
Clark Adams, Founder
PO Box 7375
Gulfport, MS 39506-7375
Tel: +1 601 863-6531
E-mail: <cda...@whale.st.usm.edu>

_________________________________________________________________

Missouri

Kansas City


Humanists Mid-Continent
AHA chapter
Audra and Delta Gier
5828 Cherry Street
Kansan City, MO 64110-3024


Kansas City Euphraxophy Center
CODESH affiliate
Verne Muhrer
2658 East 7th
Kansas City, MO 64124
Tel: +1 816 241-9162

St. Louis


Ethical Society of St. Louis
9001 Clayton Road
St. Louis, MO 63117


Rationalists of St. Louis
affiliated with American Rationalists
Barbara Stocker
2001 St. Clair Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63114

_________________________________________________________________

Montana


E (empiricism) Club
Frank and Marie Skiles
600 Chestnut
Anaconda, MT 59711-2457

_________________________________________________________________

North Carolina


Humanists of North Carolina
AHA chapter
Marge Glanzman
PO Box 1491
Pisgah Forest, NC 28768

_________________________________________________________________

Nevada

Las Vegas


Secular Humanist Society of Las Vegas
CODESH affiliate
Loretta Cardaronella
240 North Jones Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89107
Tel: +1 702 876-8270

_________________________________________________________________

New Hampshire


Secular Humanists of Merrimack Valley
CODESH affiliate
Margaret Bennet
PO Box 368
Londonberry, NH 03053
Tel: +1 603 434-4195


Humanist Association of New Hampshire-Vermont
AHA chapter
Arpad Toth, contact
PO Box 23
Keene, NH 03431-0023
Tel: +1 603 357-1344

_________________________________________________________________

New Jersey


Freethought Commentary
Carl Shapiro
PO Box 162 Park Station
Park Station, NJ 07513
Tel: +1 201 943-7299


Northern New Jersey Freethought Association
FFRF Chapter
Jo and Charline Kotula
c/o FFRF
PO Box 750
Madison, WI 53701


Humanists of North Jersey
AHA chapter
Bob Garber
27 Bedford Place
Glen Rock, NJ 07452-1305
Tel: +1 210 444-6627


Humanists of South Jersey
AHA chapter
Jean Nelson
55 Bella Road
Meford, NJ 08055-4201
Tel: +1 609 267-6665


New Jersey Humanist Network
PO Box 51
Washington, NJ 07882
Tel: +1 908 689-2813

_________________________________________________________________

New Mexico

Albuquerque


Humanist Society of New Mexico
AHA chapter
Gordon W. McClure
3901 Indian School Road NE #A408
Albuquerque, NM 87110-3841
Tel: +1 505 265-7203

_________________________________________________________________

New York

Albany


Capital District Humanist Society
CODESH affiliate
Dennis Bender
PO Box 2148
Scotia, NY 12302
Tel: +1 518 381-6239


Northeast Atheist Association
Robert Blokesberg-Fireovid
Route 1 Box 1090
Athens, NY 12015

Buffalo Area


Humanist Society of Western New York
AHA chapter (and Headquarters)
Fred Edwords
PO Box 1188
Amherst, NY 14226-7188
Tel: +1 716 839-5080
E-mail: <ap...@freenet.Buffalo.EDU>


Western New York Secular Humanists
CODESH chapter (and Headquarters)
Tim Madigan
PO Box 664
Amherst, NY 14226
Tel: +1 716 636-7571

New York City


Harlem Atheist Association
Eugene Charrington, Director
424 Vanderbilt Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11238
Tel: +1 718 638-5197


Humanist Fellowship of Brooklyn
AHA chapter
Martin Morgan
334 Howard Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11233-3968


Humanist society of Metropolitan New York
Sala E. Farber, executive director
AHA chapter
777 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017-3521
Tel: +1 212 353-2213


Secular Humanist Society of New York
CODESH chapter
Warren Allen Smith
10 D, 31 Jane Street
New York, NY 10014

_________________________________________________________________

Ohio

Akron


Free Inquirers of Northeast Ohio
PO Box 2637
Akron, OH 44309-2137
Tel: +1 216 869-2025

Cincinnati


Free Inquiry Group
CODESH affiliate
Joe Levee
PO Box 8128
Cincinnati, OH 45208

Columbus


Humanist Community of Central Ohio
AHA chapter
Derrick Strobl, president
PO Box 141373
Columbus, OH 43214-6373
Tel: +1 614 470-0811
BBS +1 614 267-1176
E-mail: <jste...@infinet.com>
http://www.infinet.com:80/~jstewart/hcco/


Humanist Special Interest Group
AHA chapter
Larry Reyka, coordinator
PO Box 14123
Columbus, OH 43214-0123
Tel: +1 614 267-4030
E-mail: <7251...@compuserve.com>

Dayton


Humanist Chapter of the Miami Valley
AHA chapter
Karen A. Price
809 McCleary
Dayton, OH 45406-2820

Toledo


Humanists of Northwest Ohio
AHA chapter
Phyllis C. Cauffiel
4126 Nantucket Drive
Toledo, OH 43623-3223
Tel: +1 419 841-1836

_________________________________________________________________

Oklahoma

Oklahoma City


Humanists of Central Oklahoma
AHA chapter
Clinton Wiles, president
PO Box 10641
Oklahoma City, OK 73140-1641
Tel: +1 405 769-6770

Stillwater


Humanist Society of Payne County
AHA chapter
Dr. Mary M. Grula, president
Route 1, Box 656-2
Stillwater, OK 74075-9786

Tulsa


Humanist Association of Tulsa
AHA chapter
Dan Nerren, treasurer
PO Box 904182
Tulsa, OK 74105-0182
Tel: +1 918 245-2024

_________________________________________________________________

Oregon

Portland


Center for Rational Thought
Lanny Swerdlow, President
415 SW 13th Avenue
Portland, OR 05826


Humanists of Portland-Vancouver Metro Area
AHA chapter
Dennis H. Brown
6411 SW 25th Avenue
Portland, OR 97201-1982
Tel: +1 503 244-4283
E-mail: <bro...@teleport.com>

Salem


Family of Humanists
AHA, IHEU affiliates
Devin Carroll
PO Box 4153
Salem, OR 97302-8153
Tel: +1 503 371-1255

Publishes magazines for humanist children and families.


Humanist Association of Salem
AHA chapter
Lloyd Kumley
PO Box 4153
Salem, OR 97302-8153
Tel: +1 503 371-1255
Dial A Humanist +1 503 370-7576
E-mail: <llo...@teleport.com>

Rogue Valley


Humanists of the Rogue Valley
AHA chapter
Roy Kindell, president
PO Box 659
Talent, OR 97540-0659
Tel: +1 503 535-2723

_________________________________________________________________

Pennsylvania

Pittsburgh


Humanist Community of Pittsburgh
AHA chapter
Stephen Yelanich
735 Summeriea Avenue
Washington, PA 15301-3826


Pittsburgh Secular Humanists
CODESH affiliate
Victor Bernard
325 Park Avenue
West Mifflin, PA 15122
Tel: +1 412 466-4615

Philadelphia


Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia
FFRF Chapter and member Atheist Alliance
Margaret Downey-Schottmiller, President
PO Box 242
Pocopson, PA 19366-0242


Humanist Association of Greater Philadelphia
AHA chapter
Gabriel Elias, contact
509 Spring Avenue
Elkins Park, PA 19117-2687
Tel: +1 215 635-0305

_________________________________________________________________

Rhode Island


Rhode Island Atheists
Lud Mahan
P O Box 22
Coventry, RI 02816
Tel: +1 401 397-7395

_________________________________________________________________

South Carolina


Monkey's Uncle
Ed Babinski
109 Burwood Drive
Simpsoville, SC 29681


Secular Humanists of the Low Country
PO Box 32256
Charleston, SC 29417
Tel: +1 803 577-0637
http://www.serve.com/SECHUMLO/


Secular Humanists of Greenville
CODESH affiliate
Jacques Benbassat, President
Suite 168, Box 3000
Taylors, SC 29687
Tel: +1 803 244-3708

_________________________________________________________________

South Dakota


Campus Atheists and Agnostics
South Dakota School of Mines & Technology
E-mail: <apb...@silver.sdsmt.edu>
http://www.sdsmt.edu/student_orgs/caa/


Humanist Association of South Dakota
Mary Groethe
815 Beta Place
Sioux Falls, SD 57106-0337

_________________________________________________________________

Tennessee

Nashville


Humanists Association of Middle Tennessee
AHA chapter
Bill Conte, contact
8070 Regency Drive
Nashville, TN 37221-1844
Tel: +1 615 646-6245
E-mail: <fcv...@prodigy.com>

_________________________________________________________________

Texas

Austin


Humanists of Austin
AHA chapter
Earle Beach, President
PO Box 4721
Austin, TX 78765-4721
Tel: +1 512 454-0977
http://www.ma.utexas.edu/~mlerma/hoa/

Carrollton


North Texas Church of Freethought: A Fellowship of Unbelievers
PO Box 111894
Carrollton, TX 75011-1894
Tel: +1 214 880-9201 (24-hour information line)
E-mail: <mailto:dls...@airmail.net>
http://web2.airmail.net/freethgt/

College Station


Agnostic and Atheist Student Group
Jamie Henderson, President
M.S., 4237 Philosophy
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
Tel: +1 409 260 AASG
E-mail: <aa...@atheist.tamu.edu>
http://atheist.tamu.edu/~aasg/

Dallas/Ft. Worth & Misc.


Atheists and Freethinkers Unite
Gene Geirman, President
1730 Clydesdale
Louisville, TX 75267


Human Concerns Center
AHA chapter
Bruce Hunter, President
7481 Daingerfield
Dallas, TX 75227
Tel: +1 214 381-1818


Humanists of Greater Dallas
Dick Nelson
7417 Alto Caro Drive
Dallas, TX 75248-4244
Tel: +1 214 980-7706


Metroplex Atheists
PO Box 885
Mansfield, TX 76063-0885

Houston


Atheist Network
member Atheist Alliance
PO Box 130898
Houston, TX 77219


Humanists Involved in Greater Houston (HIGH)
AHA chapter
P. O. Box 5888
Pasadena, TX 77508-5888


Humanists of Houston
AHA chapter
Robert Finch
211 Lombardy Drive
Sugar Land, TX 77478-3420
Tel: +1 713 491-1608

Lubbock


Humanists of West Texas
Sharon Sarles, contact
3407 30th Street
Lubbock, TX 79401-2798
Tel: +1 806 799-0682

San Antonio


Secular Humanist Association of San Antonio
Beni Dean, PO Box 160881
San Antonio, TX 78216
Tel: +1 512 494-4949

_________________________________________________________________

Utah

Salt Lake City


American Atheists, Utah Chapter
(last American Atheist chapter?)
P. O. Box 11622
Salt Lake City, UT 84147-0622
Chris Allen, Director
Tel: +1 801 364-4939
BBS +1 801 466-4261


Humanists of Utah
AHA chapter
Florien J. Wineriter, President
PO Box 58521
Salt Lake City, UT 84158-3442
Tel: +1 801 273-7144
E-mail: <jdh...@prodigy.com>

_________________________________________________________________

Vermont


Humanist Association of New Hampshire/Vermont
Arpad Toth, contact
PO Box 23
Keene, NH 03431-0023
Tel: +1 603 357-1344

_________________________________________________________________

Virginia


Humanists of The Jefferson Tradition
AHA chapter
Preston Page, President
Route 4, Box 411
Bassett, VA 24055-9020

_________________________________________________________________

Washington

La Conner


Humanists of North Puget Sound
AHA Chapter
Harry App, president
PO Box 405
La Conner, WA 98257-0405
Tel: +1 206 466-4513
E-mail: <app...@pacificrim.net>

Seattle


Humanists of Washington (HOW)
Barbara Dority, President
PO Box 1293
Seattle, WA 98111
Tel +1 206 527-8518 (24 hour recording)
http://www.seanet.com/~stebbins/how.htm


Student Humanist Association
University of Washington
Jerry Schiffelbein, President
207 HUB, BOX 85, FK-30
Seattle, WA 98195
Tel +1 206 763-9096

Spokane


Spokane Freethought Society
FFRF Chapter

Tacoma


Humanist Society of South Puget Sound
AHA chapter
Bette Chambers, interim leader
4116 Candlewood Dr SE
Lacey, WA 98503-4422
Tel +1 360 491-8671

_________________________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.


Washington Area Secular Humanists
CODESH affiliate
Ken Marsalek
PO Box 15319
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel: +1 202 298-0921

_________________________________________________________________

Wisconsin


Humanist Quest of Milwaukee
Charles Gottschalk, contact
9026 N. 70th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53223-2114
Tel: +1 414 354-2670


Milwaukee Freethought Society
1908 E. Edgewood
Shorewood, WI 53211
Tel: +1 414 964-5271

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Canada

Humanist Association of Canada

Publish a magazine "Humanist in Canada". Have local groups existing or
starting up coast to coast in major cities.


Humanist Association of Canada
PO Box 3769
Station C
Ottawa, Ontario.
K1Y 4J8.
Web: http://magi.com/~hac/hac.html

Humanist Association of Ottawa


Humanist Association of Ottawa
PO Box 3769
Station C
Ottawa, Ontario.
K1Y 4J8
Web: http://magi.com/~galent/hao.html
E-mail: <godf...@atheist.com>

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

United Kingdom

Rationalist Press Association


Rationalist Press Association
88 Islington High Street,
London.
N1 8EW.
Tel: 071 226 7251

National Secular Society


National Secular Society
47, Theobalds Road
London.
WC1X 8SP.
Tel: 071 404 3126.

Publish "The Freethinker", a monthly magazine founded in 1881.

British Humanist Association


British Humanist Association
14 Lamb's Conduit Passage
London.
WC1R 4RH.
Tel: 071 430 0908
Fax: 071 430 1271

South Place Ethical Society


South Place Ethical Society
Conway Hall
Red Lion Square
London.
WC1R 4RL.
Tel: 071 831 7723

Prometheus Books

Prometheus seem to have a distributor in the UK now. They sell books,
including Haught's "Holy Horrors".


Prometheus Books
10 Crescent View
Loughton,
Essex.
RG10 4PZ.
Tel: 081 508 2989

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Germany

IBKA e.V.


IBKA e.V.
Postfach 880,
D-12118 Berlin.
Germany.
Tel +49 30 826 61 52

IBKA is Internationaler Bund der Konfessionslosen und Atheisten, They
publish a journal "MIZ -- Materialien und Informationen zur Zeit
(Politisches Journal der Konfessionslosen und Atheisten)." (Snappy
title, huh?) Write to "MIZ-Vertrieb" at the IBKA address.

For atheist books, write to:


IBDK-Verlag GmbH,
Postfach 167,
D-63703 Aschaffenburg.
Germany.
Tel: +49 6021 15744

IBDK is Internationaler Bücherdienst der Konfessionslosen.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Finland

Vapaa-ajattelijain liitto (Union of Freethinkers)


Vapaa-ajattelijain liitto
Siltasaarenkatu 15 C 65,
00530 Helsinki.
Finland.
Tel: +358 0 715 601

This society works as a interest, cultural and legal protection group
of non-religious people in Finland. More information can be obtained
via WWW at the address http://www.helsinki.fi/~rbrother/val.html. The
document is in Finnish.

Prometheus-leirin tuki (Support society of Prometheus camp)

This society organizes Prometheus camps, which are for youngsters
(14-15 years old) who don't belong to any religious community. The
camps serve as an alternative to the confirmation class camps
organized by the Lutheran Church of Finland.

More information is on
http://blues.helsinki.fi/~vhakulin/prometheus.html.


PL 33,
03601 Karkkila,
Finland.
Tel + 358 0 225 7622

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

France

Libre Pensée

B. Russell and J. Rostand have been "Honor Presidents" of this
association, which was founded in 1847. It considers that religions
are a major obstacle to the development of autonomous thinking based
on Science and Reason, where "reason" is to be taken in the sense of
the philosophers of 18th century. It defends Peace, Liberties, Human
Rights, and "Laicité" (i.e. independence of of the education system
and the state from all religions). Its monthly 32 page bulletin is
called "La Raison" ("Reason"). The president of the organization is
Joseph Berny.


La Libre Pensée,
10/12 rue des Fossés Saint-Jacques,
75 005 Paris
France
Tel: +33 1 46 34 21 50

Founded in 1846, especially concerned with separation of State (and
education system) from all religions. Publishes a monthly bulletin,
"La Raison".

Others


L'Union Rationaliste
14 Rue de l'École Polytechnique
75 005 Paris
France
Tel: +33 1 46 33 03 50

Cocnerned with "laicite" and pseudo-science. Publishes a monthly
bulletin, "Les cahiers rationalistes".


L'Union des Athées
A. Beaughon, President
03330 BELLENAVES, France

Concerned with "laicite" and rational criticism of all religions.
Publishes a bulletin, "La Tribune des Athées", every 3 months.


Le Cercle Ernest Renan
9ter rue Paul Féval
75018 PARIS

Publishes critical studies of religious texts (biblical
contradictions, nonexistence of Jesus). Its bulletin, "Les Cahiers du
Cercle E. Renan" is issued every 2 months.

Centre d'Action Europeenne Démocratique et Laique

Defends separation of the state and education system from all
religions; issues a bulletin every 3 months called "Europe and
Laicité", which provides information on religious lobbies in all
European countries.


Centre d'Action Europeenne Démocratique et Laique,
11 Rue des Huguenots,
94 420 Le Plessis-Trevise,
France.
Tel: +33 1 45 76 42 63
Fax: +33 1 45 76 75 91

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Netherlands

De Vrije Gedachte (The Dutch Freethinking Association)


The Dutch Freethinking Association
De Vrije Gedachte
Postbus 1087
3000 BB ROTTERDAM
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 10-412-9745 (Mr. Jan Vis, Chairman of DVG)
Fax: +31 10-412-9745 or +31 33-461-4471
E-mail: <D...@netcetera.netcetera.nl>
Web: http://www.netcetera.nl/dvg/ (in Dutch) and
http://www.dra.nl:80/~dvg/freethougt.htm (in Dutch and English)

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Luxembourg

La Libre Pensée Luxembourgeoise


Letzeburger Freidenkerbond
B.P.: 198
L-2011 Luxembourg
Tel.: ++352 329110
The "Libre pensée" publishes a bulletin every four month (french and
german).

Liberté de Conscience (LIBCO)


B.P. 18
L-5801 Hesperange
Email: theodore....@sip.etat.lu
The "LIBCO" defends separation of state and education system from
all religions. It issues a bulletin called "La voix de la
conscience" every four month (french and german).
_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Norway


The Net Atheists


The Net Atheists
http://home.sol.no/heldal/tna/tna.html
One beatiful day some atheists got together and decided that this
world, nay, this electronic world we call the Internet needs a good
atheist organization. However, we want it to be something like none
before (none that we're aware of, anyway). So, here are some basic
pointers:
1. It's Free! Never pay a dime for your disbelief!
2. There's no governing body! No one to tell you how to be an
atheist!
3. There's no leader! Just like the real world, which has no god!
4. It's fun! Being an atheist is fun! Identifying yourself as an
atheist is even funner!
5. It identifies yourself for what you are, an atheist, and proud of
it, damn it!


So, you ask, what do I do to become a Net Atheist? It's simple.
Simply copy the GIF of our logo (available at
http://home.sol.no/heldal/tna/tna.gif), put it on your home page,
link it here, and you're in! To make it easier, you'll find all the
information, and a cut-and-paste link to build into your home page.
Hey, it's free, and it's time we stand up together and say, "Yeah,
I'm an atheist and I'm sick of your crap!"

The Norwegian Heathen Society


Det norske Hedningsamfunn
Collettsg. 31 B
N-0169 OSLO, NORWAY
Tel: +47 22 56 65 55
E-mail: <hel...@telepost.no>
http://www.hedning.no/hedning/e-index.html
Our goal is to contribute to reduction of the superior force the
church and christianiti has in Norway, with it's exceptional
position in Norwegian laws, school and culture. We also want to
bring into focus the harmful sides of christianity and organized
religious movements. Our target is not the christians, but the ones
that became a member of the church as infants and constitutes the
foundation of the power the church has today.
We don't believe in either gods nor devils. Our activities often
feature humour and unceremonious spontanity. As a member you will
regulary get our magazine "Oss Hedninger Imellom" and are free to
join our meetings, arangements and social activities.
The Heathen Society is more like a fighting organization than a
organization for a specific view of life. Most of us concider us as
humanists. You can be a member of The Heathen Society even though
you are a member of other organizations, like Human-Etisk Forbund or
even the state church. The Norwegian Heathen Society is politicaly
indepentent.
_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

New Zealand


The New Zealand Rationalist Association, Inc.


Mr Bill Cooke, President
Rationalist House
64 Symonds Street
Auckland 1
New Zealand
Tel: +64 9 373 5131
The Rationalists meet once a month at Rationalist House on the
second Sunday of the month.

The Auckland University Atheists


Mr Bryce Boland <bbo...@cs.auckland.ac.nz>, President
c/- Auckland University Students Association
The University of Auckland
PO Box 92019
Auckland
New Zealand.
The Auckland University Atheists was formed in 1990 in response to
growing evangelism on campus. It is currently the longest running
Atheist organisation in New Zealand. The AU Atheists meet once a
week to discuss religious/atheist issues or listen/argue with
speakers from other groups, in addition to regular entertainment
events both on and off campus. The AU Atheists are affiliated with
the New Zealand Rationalist Association.

Freethought New Zealand


A set of web pages for:
* Auckland University Atheists
* New Zealand Rationalist Association
* New Zealand Humanist Society


Available at http://rembrandt.gen.nz/~remk/fnz/

Australia

Council for Australian Humanist Societies
Dorothy Bell, President
GPO Box 177
Adelaide 5001
Tel: 61 8 297 3078
Fax: 61 3 9853 4150

Humanist Society of NSW
Victor Bien, vice president
10 Shepherd St
Chippendale 2008
Tel: 61 2 212 2122
<vcb...@sydney.dialix.oz.au>
http://sydney.dialix.oz.au/~hsnsw/homepage.html

Humanist Society of Queensland
Dennis O'Flahert, president
GPO Box 2041 Brisbane 4001
Tel: 61 7 3262 8842

Humanist Society of South Australia
Dorothy Bell, president
GPO Box 177
Adelaide 5001
Tel: 61 8 297 3078

Humanist Society of Victoria
Ray Dahlitz, president
GPO Box 1555P
Melbourne 3001
Tel: 61 3 9857 9717

Humanist Society of Western Australia
Roland Farrant, President
GPO Box T1799
Perth 6001
Tel: 61 9 383 3532

Rationalist Association of NSW
Peter Hanna, journal editor
58 Regent St
Chippendale 2008
Tel: 61 2 310 2218

_________________________________________________________________


Electronic Resources for Atheists

This file contains listings of electronic resources for atheists,
including electronic mail, FTP servers, Usenet newsgroups, and World
Wide Web pages.

_________________________________________________________________

Electronic Mail

DEBATE (Apologetics Debates List)

Subscription Requests: send mail to list...@freethought.tamu.edu. In
the message body, type "subscribe debate Firstname Lastname".

Moderated: No

Closed: No

Owner: Jeff Lowder <jlo...@atheist.tamu.edu>

Description:

This is a forum for discussing arguments used by Christian
apologists in debates. Appropriate topics include: the problem of
evil, abstract objects, cosmological argument, the anthropic
principle, objective moral values, the resurrection, and religious
experience.

_________________________________________________________________

ERRANCY (Skeptical Review Discussion List)

Subscription Requests: send mail to list...@atheist.tamu.edu. In the
message body, type "subscribe ERRANCY Firstname Lastname".

Moderated: No

Closed: No

Owner: Farrell Till <jft...@aol.com>

Description:

_________________________________________________________________

EX-TIAN (Ex-Christian List)

Subscription Requests: send mail to list...@atheist.tamu.edu and type
the command "subscribe EX-TIAN Firstname Lastname" in the message
body.

Moderated: No

Closed: No

Owner: Robby Berry <be...@coil.com>

Description:

This list is for and about ex-Christians. Hot topics here include
coming out of the closet as an ex-Christian, how to deal with the
family around Easter and Christmas, etc.

_________________________________________________________________

FOXHOLE (Atheists in the Military List)

Subscription Requests: send mail to list...@atheist.tamu.edu and type
the command "subscribe FOXHOLE Firstname Lastname" in the message
body.

Moderated: No

Closed: No

Owner: Brett Lemoine <blem...@atheist.tamu.edu>

Description:

_________________________________________________________________

HUMANIST (Humanist Initiatives List)

Subscription Requests: send email to lu...@phantom.com, and tell a bit
about the activity you are involved in right now, or about your
organization.

Moderated: Yes

Closed: No

Owner: Lucas Parra <lu...@phantom.com>

Description:

* Communication media for humanist organizations all over the world
* Distribution and exchange of declarations of humanist
organizations
* Report of humanist activities and initiatives
* Exchange of experiences
* Discussion forum for humanist points of view
* The list accepts English or Spanish
* All ACTIVE individuals and organizations welcome

_________________________________________________________________

LOGIC-L

Subscription Requests: send mail to list...@bucknell.edu, with the
command " sub logic-l firstname lastname" in the message body.

Moderated: No

Closed: No

Owner:

Description:

The primary purpose of this List is to provide a forum for the
exchange of views, experiences, techniques, and professional
information pertaining to the teaching and study of elementary
logic.

_________________________________________________________________

MCDOWELL (Josh McDowell Critical Discussion List)

Subscription Requests: send mail to list...@freethought.tamu.edu. In
the message body, type "subscribe mcdowell Firstname Lastname".

Moderated: Yes

Closed: No

Owner: Jeff Lowder <jlo...@atheist.tamu.edu>

Description:

A forum for critical discussions of Josh McDowell's apologetics.
This list was originally created for contributors to "The Jury Is
In: The Ruling on Josh McDowell's `Evidence'", an on-line rebuttal
to McDowell's book Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

_________________________________________________________________

NAT-SELS (Natural Selections Mailing List)

Subscription Requests: send mail to list...@atheist.tamu.edu. In the
message body, type "subscribe NAT-SELS Firstname Lastname".

Moderated: No

Closed: Yes

Owner: Anson Kennedy <AN...@netcom.com>

Description:

Precedence is given to collaboration on hardcopy resource packets
of evolution arguments & evidence intended to aid amateur
pro-evolutionists with good science backgrounds who want to make
certain specific points when addressing an untutored nonscientific
target audience composed chiefly of noncreationists. This would
include pre-selecting lines of argument known to be (A)
comprehensible, and (B) effective in countering specific flavors of
antievolution arguments. In furtherance of this, comparative
analysis of evolution- and evolution/creation-related online,
hardcopy and video resources are expected, as is input from the
Skeptics community. We require that in excess of 50% of list
traffic be devoted to this. The rest should be confined to the
broader issue of getting persuasive material out of the ivory tower
and down to street level where Joe Beercan can expect to benefit
from it.

_________________________________________________________________

OBJ-REL (Objective Discussion of Religion)

Subscription Requests: send email to list...@emuvm1.cc.emory.edu. In
the message body, type "subscribe obj-rel Firstname Lastname".

Moderated: No

Closed: No

Owner: Bert Bruner <OS...@emuvm1.cc.emory.edu>

Description:

Discussion is intended to be centred around such topics as:
existence of God or gods, creationism versus evolution, reasons for
the existence of religions, epistemology, religion and government,
religious behavioural norms, effects of religi on on society, and
any discussion related to religion that offers to broaden our scope
of understanding.

_________________________________________________________________

SECHUM-L (CODESH's Secular Humanist List)

Subscription Requests: Send mail to >LIST...@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu<
with the command "sub SECHUM-L Firstname Lastname".

Moderated: No

Closed: No

Owner: Jonathan Jiras <aa...@freenet.buffalo.edu>

Description:

A forum for the discussion of secular humanist issues such as:
atheism, church/state separation, living a moral life without
having religious beliefs, examining supernatural claims, and
raising non-religious children. Archives available.

_________________________________________________________________

Sindicato dos Messias

Subscription Requests: send mail to esquina-d...@dcc.unicamp.br.
In the message body, type "inscreva sindicato-dos-messias".

Moderated: No

Closed: No

Owner: Joao Sebastiao de Oliveira Bueno <gwi...@ifi.unicamp.br>

Description:

We are an Atheist group which is fundamented in distributing
humorous and ironical fiction texts, which generally exagerate and
show as comical some ritualistic pratics on today's theistic groups
(mainly christianism) rather then trying to persuade theists
throught logical arguments, wich they seen not to listen. Most of
these texts are placed on the list, but as of yet there are no
foreigner subscribers, all material posted is in _Portuguese_, but
that may and will be changed under demand.

_________________________________________________________________

SINGLES (Secular Singles Email List)

Subscription Requests: send email to list...@freethought.tamu.edu. In
the message body, type "subscribe singles Firstname Lastname".

Moderated: No

Closed: No

Owner: Jeff Lowder<jlo...@atheist.tamu.edu>

Description:

In today's predominantly religious society, it is often difficult
to find that "special someone" who does not adhere to religious
belief systems. SINGLES is a forum for the discussion of secular
singles issues such as: the pros and cons of dating people with
religious beliefs, personal ads, etc.

_________________________________________________________________

FTP Servers

American Atheists FTP archive

Alt.Atheism FTP Archive

A selection of files culled from alt.atheism is available for
anonymous ftp access at ftp.mantis.co.uk. For those without access to
FTP, a mail server provides access to the files; send mail to
<mail-...@mantis.co.uk> with the single word help in the Subject:
line.

When calling the ftp site, please try and pick times which are not
office hours in the UK -- that is, not between 09:00 and 18:00 UTC.

The Secular Web FTP Archive

The FTP server for the Secular Web. Many of the documents on the
Secular Web are also available via ftp://www.infidels.org.

_________________________________________________________________

Usenet newsgroups

alt.atheism

The oldest atheism-related newsgroup; it is currently believed to have
been created in February, 1990.

alt.atheism.moderated

Created as a lower-traffic moderated alternative to alt.atheism. A
refuge for those who have tired of arguing over whether God does or
doesn't exist, and who want to talk about something slightly
different.

soc.atheism

Moderated newsgroup for discussion of atheism in everyday life. How do
atheists spend religious holidays? What should you do if
fundamentalist colleagues cause friction at work? These and other
topics are discussed in a relatively quiet and friendly atmosphere.

talk.atheism

The new mainstream Usenet replacement for alt.atheism. General
discussion of atheism vs religion.

_________________________________________________________________

World Wide Web Pages

ACA-WWW: Freedom of Religion

http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/www/religion.html has links to lots
of works related to freedom of (and from) religion.

The Left Hemisphere

Point your Web browser to http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/left_hem.shtml
for links to skeptical and secular sites.

Humanism Web

Purdue University has some web pages on humanism at
http://purcell.ecn.purdue.edu/~willey/.

Man is Man-Made

A site which aims to give a more UK-based perspective on atheism.
Located at

Secular Web

Maintained by the Internet Infidels, this is arguably the premier
atheistic site on the Web. There's an archive of freethought writings
(both historical and contemporary), transcripts of debates between
famous theists and atheists, electronic versions of several
freethought magazines, home pages for many freethought organizations,
atheist satire, and more. The Secular Web is located at
http://www.infidels.org/.

Skeptic Magazine Archive

There is an archive of selected articles from Skeptic magazine
available; the files are also accessible via ftp at ftp.skeptic.com in
/pub/skeptic.

Subscription information is also available there, with special rates
for Internet users.

The Dao of Atheism / The Shaman Atheist

Musings on atheism as "the non-experience of deity", rather than as
rejection of the concept of deity.
http://www.chattanooga.net/~tpkunesh/shaman.f/sa00.htm.

Research on the Historical Origins of Christianity

A dissertation by Dr. David Donnini on history vs. myth, with the
synopsis:

The scientific analysis of the literature of the New Testament
reveals many signs of a heavy ecclesiastical censorship of the
historical aspects of the early christian origins

To be found at http://www.dada.it/donnini/gesing.htm, in both English
and Italian.

[mathew]

Archive-name: atheism/faq
Alt-atheism-archive-name: faq
Last-modified: Tue Sep 10 10:07:19 1996
Version: 3.2

For the latest version of this information, see
<http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/>

Atheist Arguments

Introduction

This document contains responses to points which have been brought up
repeatedly in the Usenet newsgroups devoted to discussion of atheism.
Points covered here are ones which are not covered in the document "An
Introduction to Atheism"; it's recommended that you read that document
first.

These answers are not intended to be exhaustive or definitive. The
purpose of FAQ documents is not to stifle debate, but to raise its
level. If you have something to say concerning one of these questions
and which isn't covered by the answer given, please feel free to make
your point in the newsgroup.

Overview of contents:

* Adolf Hitler was an atheist!
* The Bible proves it
* Pascal's Wager (Why God is a safe bet)
* Lord, Liar or Lunatic?
* What is Occam's Razor?
* Why it's good to believe in Jesus
* Why I know that God exists
* Einstein and "God does not play dice"
* Everyone worships something
* The universe is so complex it must have been designed
* Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem
* George Bush on atheism and patriotism
* I know where hell is!
* Biblical contradictions wanted
* The USA is a Christian nation/state
* The USA is not a Christian nation/state
* The Bible says 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'...
* What does "xian" mean?
* The Bible says pi is 3!
* Aren't atheists Satanic?

_________________________________________________________________

Adolf Hitler was an atheist!

"Hitler was an atheist, and look at what he did!"

Adolf Hitler was emphatically not an atheist. As he said himself:

The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in
his own denomination, of making people stop just talking
superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and
not let God's word be desecrated. [original italics]

For God's will gave men their form, their essence, and their
abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the
Lord's creation, the divine will. Therefore, let every man be
active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every
man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who
in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his
religious community and tries to butt into the other.

[...]

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will
of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am
fighting for the work of the Lord. [original italics]

-- Adolf Hitler, from "Mein Kampf",
translation by Ralph Mannheim.

Hitler certainly appeared at times to be a theist, and claimed to be a
Christian:

The Führer made it known to those entrusted with the Final Solution
that the killings should be done as humanely as possible. This was
in line with his conviction that he was observing God's injunction
to cleanse the world of vermin. Still a member in good standing of
the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy ("I am now
as before a Catholic and will always remain so" [quoting Hitler]),
he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of
God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge
of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of
God -- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.

-- John Toland (Pulitzer Prize winner),
from "Adolf Hitler", pp 507, talking about the Autumn of 1941.

The "I am now as before a Catholic..." quotation from Hitler was
recorded in the diary of Gerhard Engel, an SS Adjutant, in October
1941. Hitler was speaking in private, not before a mass audience, and
so it is difficult to dismiss the comment as propaganda lies.

Of course, someone bad believing something does not make that belief
wrong. It's also entirely possible that Hitler was lying when he
claimed to believe in God. We certainly can't conclude that he's an
atheist, though.

_________________________________________________________________

The Bible proves it

"In the Bible it says that..."

Most atheists feel that the Bible is of questionable accuracy, as it
was written thousands of years ago by many authors who were recording
oral tradition that existed many years before. Thus, any claimed
'truth' in it is of questionable legitimacy. This isn't to say that
The Bible has no truth in it; simply that any truth must be examined
before being accepted.

Many atheists also feel that because any passage is subject to
"interpretation", any claim that a passage 'means' one thing and one
thing only is not legitimate.

Note that this feeling tends to extend to other books.

It is also remarkable to many atheists that theists tend to ignore
other equally plausible religious books in favour of those of their
own religion.

_________________________________________________________________

Pascal's Wager (God is a safe bet)

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost
nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be
incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an
atheist."

This argument is known as Pascal's Wager. It has several flaws.

Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there
are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there.
This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a
person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another
religion's version of hell.

Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that there's
one unique God. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of
them, how will we decide which commandments to follow?

Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out to be
incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're
believing in the wrong God -- the true God might punish you for your
foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people
rejecting medicine in favour of prayer.

Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption
that the two possibilities are equally likely -- or at least, that
they are of comparable likelihood. If, in fact, the possibility of
there being a God is close to zero, the argument becomes much less
persuasive. So sadly the argument is only likely to convince those who
believe already.

Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based
on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will
or cost-benefit analysis.

Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:

1. One does not know whether God exists.
2. Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does
exist.
3. Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist.
4. Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God.

There are two approaches to the argument. The first is to view
Statement 1 as an assumption, and Statement 2 as a consequence of it.
One problem with this approach, in the abstract, is that it creates
information from no information. This is considered invalid in
information theory. Statement 1 indicates one has no information about
God -- but Statement 2 indicates that beneficial information can be
gained from the absolute lack of information about God. This violates
information entropy -- information has been extracted from no
information, at no "cost".

The alternative approach is to claim that Statements 1 and 2 are both
assumptions. The problem with this is that Statement 2 is then
basically an assumption which states the Christian position, and only
a Christian will agree with that assumption. The argument thus
collapses to "If you are a Christian, it is in your interests to
believe in God" -- a rather vacuous tautology, and not the way Pascal
intended the argument to be viewed.

The biggest reason why Pascal's wager is a failure is that if God is
omniscient he will certainly know who really believes and who believes
as a wager. He will spurn the latter... assuming he actually cares at
all whether people believe in him. In addition, he may require more
than simple belief; almost all Christians believe that the Christian
God requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers, and
that destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you
lose nothing.

Finally, if this God is a fair and just God, he will judge people on
their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him. A
God who sends good and kind people to hell is not one most atheists
would be prepared to consider worshipping.

_________________________________________________________________

Lord, Liar or Lunatic?

"Did Jesus exist? If not, then there's not much to talk about. If he
did, he called himself Lord. This means that either:

* He was Lord,
* He was a liar, or
* He was a lunatic.

It's unlikely he was a liar, given his morals as described in the
Bible, and his behaviour doesn't sound like that of a lunatic. So
surely we must conclude that he was Lord?"

Firstly, note that this argument hinges on the assumption that Jesus
did in fact exist. This is at least debatable.

Secondly, the argument attempts a logical fallacy which we might call
"trifurcation", by analogy with "bifurcation" (see the "Constructing a
Logical Argument" document). That is, the argument attempts to
restrict us to three possibilities, when in fact there are many more.

Two of the more likely alternatives are:

1. He was misquoted in the Bible, and did not claim to be Lord.
2. The stories about him were made up, or embroidered with fictitious
material by the early Christians.

Note that in the New Testament Jesus does not say that he is God,
although John 10:30 claims that he said "I and my father are one". The
claim that Jesus was God was first made after the death of Jesus and
his twelve disciples.

Finally, note that the possibility that he was a "lunatic" is not
easily discountable. Even today in the western world there are
numerous people who have managed to convince hundreds or thousands of
followers that they are the Lord or his One True Prophet. People like
L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, Jim Jones and David Koresh continue to
peddle their divinity. In more superstitious countries, there are
literally hundreds of present-day messiahs.

Incidentally, the "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument was devised by C.
S. Lewis, the well known author and committed Christian. He wrote many
books containing similar apologia, and also a number of fantasy and SF
novels influenced by Christian themes. His most famous books, the
Narnia series of novels, are a fantasy retelling of many aspects of
Christian faith, with Aslan taking the place of Jesus. Amusingly, some
Christian fundamentalists in the USA have attempted to have Lewis's
books banned from schools, alleging that they are "Satanic" in
influence.

_________________________________________________________________

What is Occam's Razor?

"People keep talking about Occam's Razor. What is it?"

William of Occam formulated a principle which has become known as
Occam's Razor. In its original form, it said "Do not multiply entities
unnecessarily." That is, if you can explain something without
supposing the existence of some entity, then do so.

Nowadays when people refer to Occam's Razor, they often express it
more generally, for example as "Take the simplest solution".

The relevance to atheism is that we can look at two possible
explanations for what we see around us:

* There is an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there,
which came into being as a result of natural processes.
* There is an incredibly intricate and complex universe out there,
and there is also a God who created the universe. Clearly this God
must be of non-zero complexity.

Given that both explanations fit the facts, Occam's Razor might
suggest that we should take the simpler of the two -- solution number
one. Unfortunately, some argue that there is a third even more simple
solution:

* There isn't an incredibly intricate and complex universe out
there. We just imagine that there is.

This third option leads us logically towards solipsism, which many
people find unacceptable.

_________________________________________________________________

Why it's good to believe in Jesus

"I want to tell people about the virtues and benefits of my religion."

Preaching is not appreciated.

Feel free to talk about your religion, but please do not write
postings that are on a "conversion" theme. Such postings do not belong
on atheist newsgroups, and will be rejected from alt.atheism.moderated
or soc.atheism. Try the newsgroup talk.religion.misc.

You would doubtless not welcome postings from atheists to your
favourite newsgroup in an attempt to convert you; please do unto
others as you would have them do unto you!

Often theists make their basic claims about God in the form of lengthy
analogies or parables. Be aware that atheists have heard of God and
know the basic claims about him; if the sole purpose of your parable
is to tell atheists that God exists and brings salvation, you may as
well not post it, since it tells us nothing we have not been told
before.

_________________________________________________________________

Why I know that God exists

"I know from personal experience and prayer that God exists."

Just as many theists have personal evidence that the being they
worship exists, so many atheists have personal evidence that such
beings do not exist. That evidence varies from person to person.

Furthermore, without wishing to dismiss your evidence out of hand,
many people have claimed all kinds of unlikely things -- that they
have been abducted by UFOs, visited by the ghost of Elvis, and so on.

_________________________________________________________________

Einstein and "God does not play dice"

"Albert Einstein believed in God. Do you think you're cleverer than
him?"

Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the
universe]". This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein
believed in the Christian God. Used this way, it is out of context; it
refers to Einstein's refusal to accept some aspects of the most
popular interpretations of quantum theory. Furthermore, Einstein's
religious background was Jewish rather than Christian.

A better quotation showing what Einstein thought about God is the
following:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly
harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with
fates and actions of human beings."

Einstein recognized Quantum Theory as the best scientific model for
the physical data available. He did not accept claims that the theory
was complete, or that probability and randomness were an essential
part of nature. He believed that a better, more complete theory would
be found, which would have no need for statistical interpretations or
randomness.

So far no such better theory has been found, and much evidence
suggests that it never will be.

A longer quote from Einstein appears in "Science, Philosophy, and
Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science,
Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of
Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he says:

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events
the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the
side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature.
For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will
exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the
doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could
never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for
this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which
scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of
representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also
fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear
light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on
mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their
struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the
stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up
that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast
power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to
avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating
the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is,
to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy
task...

Einstein has also said:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of
the world so far as our science can reveal it.

The latter quote is from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by
Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University
Press. Also from the same book:

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider
ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman
authority behind it.

Of course, the fact that Einstein chose not to believe in Christianity
does not in itself imply that Christianity is false.

_________________________________________________________________

Everyone worships something

"Everyone worships something, whether it's money, power or God."

If that is true, everyone is a polytheist. Theists care just as much
about those things that atheists care about. If the atheists'
reactions to (for example) their families amount to worship then so do
the theists'.

Also, holding something as more important than all other things does
not constitute "worship" by any meaningful definition of the word.

_________________________________________________________________

The universe is so complex it must have been designed

"The presence of design in the universe proves there is a God. Surely
you don't think all this appeared here just by chance?"

This is known as the Argument From Design.

It is a matter of dispute whether there is any element of design in
the universe. Those who believe that the complexity and diversity of
living creatures on the earth is evidence of a creator are best
advised to read the newsgroup talk.origins for a while.

There is insufficient space to summarize both sides of that debate
here. However, the conclusion is that there is no scientific evidence
in favour of so-called Scientific Creationism. Furthermore, there is
much evidence, observation and theory that can explain many of the
complexities of the universe and life on earth.

The origin of the Argument by Design is a feeling that the existence
of something as incredibly intricate as, say, a human is so improbable
that surely it can't have come about by chance; that surely there must
be some external intelligence directing things so that humans come
from the chaos deliberately.

But if human intelligence is so improbable, surely the existence of a
mind capable of fashioning an entire universe complete with conscious
beings must be immeasurably more unlikely? The approach used to argue
in favour of the existence of a creator can be turned around and
applied to the Creationist position.

This leads us to the familiar theme of "If a creator created the
universe, what created the creator?", but with the addition of
spiralling improbability. The only way out is to declare that the
creator was not created and just "is" (or "was").

From here we might as well ask what is wrong with saying that the
universe just "is" without introducing a creator? Indeed Stephen
Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time", explains his theory
that the universe is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning or
end.

The Argument From Design is often stated by analogy, in the so-called
Watchmaker Argument. One is asked to imagine that one has found a
watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a
watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a
watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex;
so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator.

The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three particular flaws, over and
above those common to all Arguments By Design. Firstly, a watchmaker
creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to
have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation
are clearly fundamentally different, and the analogy is therefore
rather weak.

Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things
in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a nuclear
reactor, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker. The
argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each
responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe,
if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).

Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that
the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore
stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of
the argument, we start from the position that the universe is
obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker
argument is thus internally inconsistent.

Apart from logical inconsistencies in the watchmaker argument, it's
worth pointing out that biological systems and mechanical systems
behave very differently. What's unlikely for a pile of gears is not
necessarily unlikely for a mixture of biological molecules.

_________________________________________________________________

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem

"Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that it is impossible for
the Bible to be both true and complete."

Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem applies to any consistent formal
system which:

* Is sufficiently expressive that it can model ordinary arithmetic
* Has a decision procedure for determining whether a given string is
an axiom within the formal system (i.e. is "recursive")

Gödel showed that in any such system S, it is possible to formulate an
expression which says "This statement is unprovable in S".

If such a statement were provable in S, then S would be inconsistent.
Hence any such system must either be incomplete or inconsistent. If a
formal system is incomplete, then there exist statements within the
system which can never be proven to be valid or invalid ('true' or
'false') within the system.

Essentially, Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem revolves around
getting formal systems to formulate a variation on the "Liar Paradox".
The classic Liar Paradox sentence in ordinary English is "This
sentence is false."

Note that if a proposition is undecidable, the formal system cannot
even deduce that it is undecidable. (This is Gödel's Second
Incompleteness Theorem, which is rather tricky to prove.)

The logic used in theological discussions is rarely well defined, so
claims that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that it is
impossible to prove (or disprove) the existence of God are worthless
in isolation.

One can trivially define a formal system in which it is possible to
prove the existence of God, simply by having the existence of God
stated as an axiom. (This is unlikely to be viewed by atheists as a
convincing proof, however.)

It may be possible to succeed in producing a formal system built on
axioms that both atheists and theists agree with. It may then be
possible to show that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem holds for that
system. However, that would still not demonstrate that it is
impossible to prove that God exists within the system. Furthermore, it
certainly wouldn't tell us anything about whether it is possible to
prove the existence of God generally.

Note also that all of these hypothetical formal systems tell us
nothing about the actual existence of God; the formal systems are just
abstractions.

Another frequent claim is that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem
demonstrates that a religious text (the Bible, the Book of Mormon or
whatever) cannot be both consistent and universally applicable.
Religious texts are not formal systems, so such claims are nonsense.

_________________________________________________________________

George Bush on atheism and patriotism

"Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered
citizens?"

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between
Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August
27 1988. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by
invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential
nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois.
The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS:
"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are
atheists?"

GB:
"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God
is important to me."

RS:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
Americans who are atheists?"

GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as
citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one
nation under God."

RS:
"Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the
separation of state and church?"

GB:
"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just
not very high on atheists."

UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were
still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February
27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988
issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane,
co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a
lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated
School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade
atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as
"one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation
took place:

RS:
"American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit
yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to
this filing?"

EM:
"It's bullshit."

RS:
"What is bullshit?"

EM:
"Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit."

RS:
"Thank you for telling me what the official position of the
Bush campaign is on this issue."

EM:
"You're welcome."

After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to
retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel
to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush
substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote:

As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither
supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily
encouraged or supported by the government."

For further information, contact American Atheist Veterans at the
American Atheist Press's Cameron Road address.

_________________________________________________________________

I know where hell is!

"I know where Hell is! Hell is in Norway!"

There are several towns called "Hell" in various countries around the
world, including Norway and the USA. Whilst this information is mildly
amusing the first time one hears it, readers of Usenet are now getting
pretty fed up with hearing it every week.

_________________________________________________________________

Biblical contradictions wanted

"Does anyone have a list of Biblical contradictions?"

American Atheist Press publish an atheist's handbook detailing
Biblical contradictions. See the accompanying document on Atheist
Media for lists of other such books.

There are also files containing some Biblical contradictions available
from ftp.mantis.co.uk. Jim Meritt's list is available in hypertext
form.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation have a list of bible
contradictions on their web pages. The URL is
<URL:http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/lfif/contra.html>.

Of course, the newsgroup soc.religion.christian has a selection of
files which claim to rebut most of the alleged inconsistencies in the
Bible.

_________________________________________________________________

The USA is a Christian nation/state

"Because of the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, shouldn't
the United States be considered a Christian nation?"

Based upon the writings of several important founding fathers, it is
clear that they never intended the US to be a Christian nation. Here
are some quotes; there are more in a companion document, and the
archives at ftp.mantis.co.uk contain still more.

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on
society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual
tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they
have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no
instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the
people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have
found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just
government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them
not."

-- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785.

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal
example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has
preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of
grief has produced!"

-- John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of
ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders
will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

-- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813.

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father,
expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is
even infinitely above it."

-- Benjamin Franklin, from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion",
Nov. 20, 1728.

_________________________________________________________________

The USA is not a Christian nation/state

"Is it true that George Washington said that the United States is not
in any sense founded upon the Christian religion?"

No. The quotation often given is in fact from Article XI of the Treaty
of Tripoli (8 Stat 154, Treaty Series 358):

Article 11

As the government of the United States of America is not in any
sense founded on the Christian Religion, -- as it has in itself no
character or enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of
Musselmen, -- and as the said States never have entered into any
war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is
declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious
opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing
between the two countries.

The text may be found in the Congressional Record or in treaty
collections such as Charles I. Bevans' "Treaties and Other
International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949",
vol. 11 (pp. 1070-1080).

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed in Tripoli on November 4th, 1796. The
English text of the treaty was approved by the U.S. Senate on June 7,
1797 and ratified by President John Adams on June 10, 1797. It was
recently discovered that the US copy of the Arabic version of the
treaty not only lacks the quotation, it lacks Article XI altogether.
Instead it seems to contain the text of a letter to the Pasha of
Tripoli from the Dey of Algiers.

The person who translated the Arabic to English was Joel Barlow,
Consul General at Algiers, a close friend of Thomas Paine -- and an
opponent of Christianity. It is possible that Barlow made up Article
XI, but since there is no Arabic version of that article to be found,
it's hard to say. It seems unlikely, however.

In 1806 a new Treaty of Tripoli was ratified which no longer contained
the quotation. The 1815 Treaty With Algiers contains a similar
article, but does not state that the US government is not founded on
religion, only that it is not incompatible with any religion.

Ignoring the question of the wording of the Arabic version of the 1776
Treaty of Tripoli, we can conclude that the wording of the English
article XI fairly represents the opinion of the time, as it was passed
and approved by both the US Senate and the President.

_________________________________________________________________

The Bible says 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'...

"The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill", yet many Christians serve in
the military. What hypocrites!"

The commandment is more properly translated as "Thou shalt not
murder". Most modern translations of the Bible express it that way.

_________________________________________________________________

What does 'xian' mean?

"What does the abbreviation 'xian' mean? Is it an insult?"

When writing the name "Christ", it is quite common to abbreviate it to
X or x, representing the first letter (kai) of the Greek XPICTOC
khristos. For example, "xmas" is a common abbreviation of "Christmas".
"Xian" just means "Christian".

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the use of the
abbreviation "xian" or "xtian" for "Christian" dates back at least as
far as 1634. Before that, it was more usual to take the first two
letters of XPICTOC, and write "xpian" for "Christian". Priests would
record Christenings using the shorthand "xpen" or "xpn".

So no, it's not an insult.

_________________________________________________________________

The Bible says pi is 3!

In I Kings 7:23, the Bible says:

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the
other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and
a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

If you make a molten sea with a circumference of thirty cubits, you'll
find that the diameter is 30/pi or 9.55 cubits. Or ten cubits, to
round to the nearest integer.

In short, the Bible does not say that pi must be three, unless you are
going to assume that the numbers given are accurate to more than two
significant figures, which is unjustifiable given the wording.

_________________________________________________________________

Aren't atheists Satanic?

Atheists don't believe in any kind of supernatural divine being. They
view Satan as being every bit as mythological and nonexistent as God.