Emergent Phenomena.

I don't mean to lower all theists to the level of Ray Comfort, but his well-known argument reflects the same basic principle that all creationists and ID advocates use- "Every building has a builder, every painting has a painter."  Comfort says that the appearance of design is indicative of intelligence; that complexity organized in such a way that it operates toward a specific purpose or purposes must have a sentient designer behind it, much like we design buildings or machines for a specific purpose.  Is this argument valid?  All examples we have of design in our everyday life exhibit complexity and operate in a particular manner, towards a particular goal.

The largest objection to this reasoning was best articulated by Matt Dillahunty of The Atheist Experience, so I must give him the credit- "We don't know what an undesigned universe looks like."  This sums it up very well.  We do know that design generally shows complexity and features a discernible function; however, we may not have thought hard enough about what nature will do when left to its own devices.  It is likely that a universe so complex, with such a complex fundamental nature, will give rise not only to complexity but to such phenomena as life.  Indeed, I believe that a universe with no surprises, no oddities and no emergent phenomena would be much more confounding than the universe we see around us.  The elements of both chaos and order, complexity and entropy are all around us.  Our creations are complex, yes- but the entire universe is very complex, so that rather rules out the option of electing complexity as remotely compelling proof for "design".

Now, there is another variation on ID which takes yet another step back from life on Earth and instead turns to the laws of nature themselves.  This is the "fine-tuning argument", which argues that surely the six universal constants must be evidence of a designer, for if any one of them were a fraction of a percent lower or higher, life as we know it would not exist- in fact, such necessities as the forming of stars would be impossible (I'm no scientist, but you get the idea).  Therefore, a supervising being must have "twiddled the knobs", perfecting the conditions for life.  This fails in two ways; one is the misunderstanding of what the "laws of nature" actually are, and one is, we might say, a failure of imagination.

The laws of nature are not tangible laws.  In reality, they do not even exist outside of the conceptual.  They are descriptions of the universe's behavior.  These laws are not discovered; they are invented.  They are our interpretation of the fundamental nature of our universe.  Take the color blue- it's not really "blue" in a deep sense of the word.  The universe neither knows nor cares about the concept of "blue".  It's a description that we use to refer to a perception.  Now, these laws are not conceptual in the sense that they do not affect everyday life- if one jumps off a building, he will fall whether he believes in the law of gravity or not.  But the law of gravity is not a tangible, natural entity that governs the universe.  The law conforms to the universe, not the other way around.

The second flaw I find much more interesting.  Pay close attention to this argument- "If the laws of nature were even slightly different, life/the universe as we know it would not exist!"  Well, this is a rather meaningless statement.  It is doubtless that the conclusion is correct, but why does that matter?  Let's imagine that the universe's laws were slightly different (although in reality they couldn't be- this is the universe's fundamental nature; if that nature was different, it wouldn't be the universe).  As I explained above, when we deal with this much space, this much time, and this much complexity in nature, there will be surprises left and right no matter which numbers we're feeding into it.  Doubtless there would be phenomena just as- if not more- awe-inspiring than life or black holes (a fascination of mine).  Now, you may rightly claim that I have absolutely no empirical evidence for that statement.  However, if we are to trust the power of logic, then due to the frequency of phenomena in this universe alone, under all manner of conditions, and at every level of physical interaction, we can reasonably say that phenomena spring up rather frequently given such an astonishing complexity of nature.  Now, if you still disagreed with that on the grounds that this universe can have no say on the likelihood of emergent phenomena in other conceptual universes, then I have no retort- but you've just admitted that the "fine-tuning" argument is bogus, so there we are.

Varying validity.

     Attempts to validate the historicity of the Bible are, in a sense, pointless.  The sense I refer to is in which someone would use the Bible's historicity to prove the Christian religion.  The following is an example using the Bible's reliability in particular, but the core principle is definitely a lesson to be remembered at all times.

     "The historical evidence for the accuracy of our Bible manuscripts is just as strong as the historical evidence for countless other texts we accept as accurate."  This claim is made all the time by Christians.  I am not a Biblical historian, so this claim may very well be accurate (although there is much debate on the subject).  The point is, however, that this really does not matter in terms of proving the claims of Christianity.  Whether or not the original writers of the Gospels were misquoted does not matter.  We could know word for word what they wrote, and we would still be left with the word of four anonymous individuals writing some 40-50 years after  Jesus' ministry.
     "But we just have hearsay testimony of countless other historical documents, and we trust their accuracy!"  I am always surprised that I really need to point out the difference between the Bible and other historical documents.  All claims made in history books that we currently accept as accurate are not "extraordinary" claims.  The assertions they make are compatible with the body of knowledge (historical and otherwise) that we as a species have amassed up to this point.  When we examine a claim, we determine its likelihood based not only on the strength of the evidence in favor of the claim, but also the evidence against it, which is all our previously confirmed knowledge that contradicts or excessively complicates this claim.  I'll provide an analogy, because that has sort of become my thing:

     If I receive a text message from my friend which reads "I just found twenty dollars on the sidewalk", I will be most likely to believe him.  Why?  Because money is occasionally dropped and I have heard of this happening many times before (and confirmed it).  I have no knowledge that suggests my friend would not have been fortunate today.  Now, imagine I receive a text message from my friend that instead says "My cat has begun to levitate and speak English fluently."  My first thought might be that he is pulling my leg, or perhaps a friend of his has taken his phone and is trying to get funny responses from me.  I certainly would not immediately conclude that simply because I have the same evidence that I do for the previous message (my friend's word), then the most likely explanation is that his cat is truly levitating and conversing with him.  We must balance claims against what we have already inferred about the universe.

     Just for fun, let's examine the claims of the Bible.  It claims that there is an entirely separate plane of existence, independent of all things natural.  It claims that there is a being who created and supervises existence as we know it.  It claims that this being has total and absolute power over this universe, and that this being repeatedly stood the laws of physics on their head a few thousand years ago, performing acts that included but were not limited to parting an ocean, impregnating a virgin, raising people from the dead, turning a woman to salt, committing various acts of genocide, and commandeering a horde of bears to tear apart some children who made fun of Elisha's bald head.

     I assert that, if this had been documented by hundreds of independent contemporary sources, and we had the original manuscripts, and the manuscripts were all dated between 30 and 33 C.E., we would not have enough "evidence" to back up such ridiculous claims.  To validate these nonsensical, incoherent demonstrations of verbal and intellectual chaos, each and every separate claim would have to be cross-checked, tested, documented, taped, debated, and generally examined for at least a century and a half.

That's a hypothetical minimum, by the way; that exact amount of effort hasn't managed to convince creationists of evolution yet.

The Elusiveness of Objectivity.

I have been quite a happy person recently.  Recently following last week's debate between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss, another debate presented itself earlier this evening.  This one pitted Sam Harris, atheist philosopher and neuroscientist, against Craig (a very busy man).  Now, I must preface this commentary by saying that I'm a fan of both philosophers that participated in this debate.  That being said, however, I must admit that William Lane Craig was the clear winner.

I certainly do not think that this victory owed itself to theological superiority.  Rather, William Lane Craig not only presented his case clearly and systematically, he also was able to make himself sound like he was standing on firmer ground.  Harris simply failed to point out Craig's numerous logical fallacies and failed to clarify his position in the structured and audience-friendly manner which Craig's years of debating allowed him to do quite convincingly.  Sadly, yes- this debate fell victim to miscommunication as much as Craig's previous skirmish.

Harris really didn't say much that we have not heard before- the desire to help others is innate in the vast majority of the species, morality seems clear to us as an almost a priori function.  While I didn't really take issue with anything Harris said, I did take issue with very much that he did not say- a thorough list of Craig's errors, for instance; however, I'd be glad to help him out on the subject, and I shall waste no more time in doing so.

The debate aimed to address the question of morality, and whether a secular foundation or a theological foundation provided a better foundation for it- and whether this foundation could be objective.  Craig tirelessly repeated the opinion that theology provides a solid, objective foundation for morality.  However, this  opinion was only really supported by two facts (here we assume for the sake of argument that Christianity is true): that morality was independent of us and therefore objective, and that good was inseparable from God, as its very definition is that which is of God, or rather, God's will.  God's will is defined as goodness; the quality is inherent in God's will as part of His nature.  Well, I will start with the first assertion- the assertion of objectivity.  This wish for morality to be an objective, immutable law is not only derogatory to humanity, I believe, but it is also futile.  I ask you now to simply contemplate the thought process that takes place when we attribute morality to God: we cannot bear the concept of morality being nothing but an arbitrary concept which we create and shape; being nothing but the collective opinion of humanity.  We want to know that rape is truly evil, not simply that we consider it evil.  Such an act appears to hold an intrinsically evil nature.  So, there must be a lawgiver who makes these laws.  Think about that for a minute- we cannot bear the idea of morality being relative, and so we turn to God to create these laws (and apparently to enforce them as well).  The man who says that we are somehow creating an objective source of morality here is simply blinding himself to the obvious.  God is a sentient being; he chooses these laws.  They do not exist independent of him.  By definition, morality remains relative in this fashion.  All that we accomplish by "passing the buck" here is that morality continues to be nothing but an opinion, but now the opinion is being given by a being infinitely more powerful than us, so that resistance to these laws is ultimately futile- justice will be done, and God shall see to it.  Ironically, this smacks of the relativist ethics of social Darwinism that theists so often express their fear of: "But in your worldview, morality is nothing but the opinion of the strongest!  Might makes right!"  I find it rather amusing that this is exactly what they have done with their idea of God; once again He is let off the hook simply because He is God and that grants Him an inexplicable free pass to do whatever he pleases without question.  Rather than thinking critically, making observations, and creating as good a concept of morality as we are able, we simply obey orders from a more powerful Being because we are content with taking His word for it that everything he commands is ethically acceptable by definition.  "Should" and "should not" are entirely metaphysical concepts; they simply do not exist outside our minds.  Objective morality is inherently impossible.

As to Craig's second point, I really do not know how he overlooked such a simple fallacy.  He attempted to say that God provides us with an acceptable objective morality because good was, by definition, what God commands.  Now, I do not know why Harris did not press this point further- it was certainly the error that stood out the most to me.  Craig is, in this instance, simply assuming his conclusion as a premise- the aim of this debate was to discuss whether we should define "good" as "what God commands" or not.  Craig claims here that we must define "good" it this way, because that's the definition of "good"!  Now, Harris did make a small comment on this problem that Craig gave an unsatisfactory reply to.  Craig claimed that he was not simply assuming that morality was based on God's will; rather, that God's will itself created certain moral laws that exist whether we define them as such or not.  However, this gets us nowhere.  Even if we assume Craig's claim that God's laws exist, he has not explained why we should consider them "moral" by our standards and why we should obey them.  Simply by existing as sentient beings, we have responsibility thrust upon us to accept standards, to make statements- to believe this or not believe that.  We cannot simply throw up our hands and say that we should not do this because it is inherently evil.  As I stated before, "should" and "should not" are entirely conceptual and cannot exist outside of our minds.  Immutable laws may exist, but it still ultimately becomes our own decision as to whether these laws accurately represent our ideas of "should" and "should not".  Craig makes the mistake of assuming that beliefs and morality can be imposed- it is impossible. One can be forced to act a certain way, or even forced to say he believes that he should act a certain way, but these are ultimately a matter of personal decision- otherwise one is simply suspending what beliefs they have truly formed.

The ultimate goal of this debate, I think, would be to choose a definition of morality that seems the most rational to us.  We must decide whether we want to make an informed decision, or accept an arbitrary code that has no apparent grounding in any sort of logic.  The sooner we can make this decision to turn away from unquestioning obedience to a being who enforces his laws with threats of torture, the sooner we may be able to truly study the question of morality, and improve it as best we can.

A false dichotomy.

As some of you may know, William Lane Craig engaged in a spirited debate with Lawrence Krauss yesterday evening.  I very much enjoyed the debate; not only for the intelligence of its participants but also because it accomplished what I always hope for debates to accomplish- it made me think.  One issue rose most prominently to my attention during their debate.  There seemed to be a bit of a miscommunication between them; Krauss, of course, is a physicist, while Craig is a philosopher.  These are slightly different ways of looking at the world, and they both turn their attention to different things.  Both scientists and philosophers, however, both seek the same thing: truth.  These differences, however, are getting in the way of the peaceful coexistence of these two groups- there seems to be quite some enmity between the two.  We've all heard a philosopher complaining about how uneducated scientists are about the simplest logic or theology, and we all hear scientists dismissing philosophy as a dead science that only helped us when science had not surpassed its ability to learn about the universe we live in.  Even Stephen Hawking, possibly the greatest scientist in the world, briskly announced the death of philosophy in his latest book, The Grand Design.  Now, I must disagree.  I believe that philosophy is alive and well; there are, however, differences that must be addressed and understood if science and philosophy are to coexist (which would be much more beneficial to us all).

Science is observational.  It is based on empirical data; on falsifiability.  It is not concerned with the human side of things.  It simply gathers data, creates a hypothesis to explain the data, and tests it.  If our attempts to falsify the hypothesis fail, and we can accurately make predictions based on our hypothesis, then it becomes a tested theory.  A theory is a tested explanation of the world around us.  Science presupposes logic and the reliability of human cognition and deals with the physical- which is it getting quite good at.  Essentially, science is concerned with the world in itself- the world independent of human consciousness and perception, untainted by our languages and definitions and emotions.

Philosophy, however, deals with a completely different realm.  Philosophy focuses completely on the human side- our cognition, our knowledge a priori, our own powers of inductive and deductive reasoning.  It focuses on the powers of our perception, our ability to make sense of the world around us, and what we make of the world with what we have.  A rough generalization is to say that science deals with the physical and that philosophy deals with the conceptual.  For instance, science can tell us that morality has evolved in us as instincts which improve the probability of survival (or at least did so for our ancestors), but it cannot tell us whether we should ignore these instincts or adhere to them.  Such matters are a matter of choice, which there is no objectively right or wrong path to take.  It is simply up to us as humans to make certain decisions for ourselves.

While the aforementioned differences are admittedly only a rough summary, the basic point is made- there are two different methods used, and two different kinds of truth that are being sought after.  Philosophy and science complement each other; they do not conflict.

Let us not underestimate...

Well!

I have been gone for a while now, and I apologize to all my readers.  My long break was brought on by an unusually painful sickness and prolonged by brainstorming about changes I might make to improve the blog (and laziness).  The once-a-week routine, however, will now resume.

I have been doing quite a bit of reading recently, and the entirety of this reading has had its feet firmly planted in a very faithfully theistic position.  While I miss agreeing with everything I'm reading, as well as learning more about arguments against theism (and its widely accepted moral superiority), I figured it was time to give the other side its turn.  This blog post, therefore, will not necessarily be an attack on theology but rather a commentary on the intellectual God/no God issue, as it has been presented to me by Team God.  

I assure you, I have not singled out the simpletons or intellectually lacking representatives of Team God (although I did recently engage in a reading of Ray Comfort's You Can Lead An Atheist To Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think, which was finished in one evening, and luckily so; I feared I may be losing intellectual integrity simply by exposing myself to such a book, which, given its title, I foolishly expected to actually present evidence- Comfort did no such thing).  Anyways, to serious matters.  Recently I have been reading the popular book, I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, by apologist extraordinaire Frank Turek.  Turek, despite his flaws, did hold his own very well against Christopher Hitchens in a 2010 debate- I might even say Turek did a better job on arguments for a deistic God.  Another recent book is The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski, who I haven't been following very much until the reading of his book.  Berlinski proclaims himself to be an agnostic- odd for someone who speaks with such conviction about the soul- but he enjoys going after the Four Horsemen and their scientist colleagues every bit as much as more religious critics of the New Atheism.  (Just a quick note here- I use the phrase "New Atheism" simply as a name; I do not think there is really anything "new" about this atheism, I simply believe that this is a new, and more popular, resurfacing of atheism.)  Josh McDowell, Dinesh D'Souza, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, and the always-enjoyable William Lane Craig are among the other New Atheism critics who I wish to say a few words to.  I have found a couple common sentiments among the counter-atheist movement that I feel I should address.

#1.  Do not single out halfway intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins and claim that they speak for the entire atheist movement.  Many atheists do not claim such dogmatic beliefs as Dawkins, and many do not fall for the false dichotomy of science versus religion.  Science is only opposed to religion when religion begins making claims that are scientifically verifiable, such as "God created the world 6,000 years ago."  This only addresses the generally silly fundamentalist view of a theistic God that most theologians cast aside once they have received ample education in both philosophy and science.

#2.  We do not have to disprove God.  You must prove God.  The existence of a theistic deity does not become the default belief by logic simply because it has been around for a long time.  By claiming that something like consciousness is not yet explained by science, and therefore it is the product of a deity, you are helping to reinforce this false science/religion dichotomy.  A question's answer is not "God until answered by science."  This is elementary logic.

#3.  Proving the necessary existence of an attribute commonly associated with God, if this is ever done, does not prove God.  Example: "The universe is contingent; it arose from nothing, contrary to the laws of nature; therefore, something outside the universe caused it- a supernatural, uncaused cause.  There, I have just proven God."  Problem: eternal/supernatural does NOT equal God.  These are commonly attributed to God; they are not, however, all that God is.  The property of eternity, for example, does not include the property of omnipotence by necessity.  I have yet to hear any reasonable, coherent philosophical argument for the existence of a being that necessitates omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or omniscience (although, of course, I cannot claim to have read all the great theologians in their entirety yet).

#4.  Redressing the "God of the gaps" argument does not lend it validity.  I just recently witnessed Turek doing just this in his latest book.  If current science cannot account for consciousness, then it cannot account for consciousness.  It is, as of now, a mystery.  Someday we may find the answer.  Until then, however, this mystery does not prove any sort of deity; in fact, the existence of a deity does not even come close to being a rational or remotely reasonable explanation for consciousness.  Let us not forget to use Occam's Razor.

#5.  Do not claim that science cannot say anything about God, and then proceed to say that there is evidence for God written throughout science.  Either there is physically observable evidence for God or there is not, but do not continue flip-flopping whenever it is convenient for your argument.

I must not get carried away here.  This is not simply a spiritual war; it is a cultural and political war as well.  Religion has a frighteningly large effect on politics; it has always had a large influence on culture in America.  As with any confrontation that involves human beings, neither side is perfect.  We should not ignore the flaws of Team No God.  There are some things I'd like to say to specific players on my side of the field.

#1.  Dawkins:  This issue is not as easy as you think.  It is not black and white.  Religion is not simple stupidity.  It cannot be displaced with science.  The teaching of religion to children cannot be labeled child abuse by default.  Above all, do not put science above logic and philosophy.  Logic and philosophy are what science is built upon.  I do agree with many of your conclusions; your methods, however, show a definite lack of philosophical education.

#2.  Hitchens:  People's actions do not disprove God.  People do terrible things because of religion; however, to truly argue against the proposition of God, we need to enter the realms of logic and philosophy.  Arguing from people's misdeeds is simply an appeal to emotion.

#3.  Myers:  Do not attempt to give greater meaning to the term "atheism".  We are still trying to dispel misconceptions about its actual definition; this will only result in more confusion.  If atheists choose to hold particular beliefs, they may use other words for such beliefs.  Atheism should continue to be nothing but the lack of a belief in God.

A general observation:  In this issue of utmost importance, neither side seems to be taking the other one seriously.  The popular New Atheists seem to think religion is incredibly silly, stupid, and to be regarded with complete impunity, and that anyone who believes it is either stupid or crazy.  Berlinski, Turek, Dembski, and their ilk seem to think that atheism is nothing but scientific arrogance and a rejection of good philosophy that leads to social Darwinism and Nazi-esque eugenics.  Both sides need to be taken seriously and examined more closely.  I'd love to see more atheist discussion of Aquinas or Kierkegaard, and I'd love to see more theist discussion of serious atheist literature such as Jason Sobel's Theism And Logic.  Let us get a little more philosophical; it's quite the question to wax philosophical about.

A temple on a house of cards. (Theoretical, historical and empirical objections to Christianity.)

In previous posts, we have already discussed the definition of atheism and consequently where the burden of proof lies.  Today, I'll go over a quick summary of my basic objections to Christianity; for followers of other religions, I will begin with basic theism, so hopefully I will encourage some thought on your part as well.  

Beginning with first assertion that Christianity must make, which is that there is a sentient, omnipotent, omniscient entity existing independently of the observable natural universe and the laws which govern it- I object.  In my opinion, there is no evidence for such a being.  There is no mystery observable in the universe at this time which would point to such a being; there are myriad theories one may choose from, and there exists no evidence which would justify any sort of special consideration being given to this being described above, which, having now defined it, I shall refer to as God.  Even the Cosmological Argument, which has been one of the most convincing arguments thus far in the long history of supernatural beliefs, really does not get us quite as close to God as we would hope- in no way would the duties described in the First Cause argument which are attributed to God require such things as intelligence, omnipotence, or even sentience.  I also present to you a dilemma which revealed itself to me recently as I mused over the compatibility of such a being with our natural universe and our uncertain philosophies:  If God created everything, including the laws of logic which govern our reasoning, and, indeed, our synthetic judgments, then such a being would exist independently of said laws.  If this is true, then these laws in no way apply to God.  If this is true, how can we hope to prove his existence using laws that do not apply to him?  In my opinion, this paradox makes proving God with logic rather like trying to find the square root of blue, or trying to multiply by happiness.  We are using two concepts which are incompatible with each other.  It would seem, if my logic holds, that we are reduced to falling back upon revelation by way of such documents as the Bible- and I am about to explain just how unreliable I think such a revelation is.

Let us say that I am proven errant in my analysis of theology, and I admit the hypothesis of a God is logically defensible.  Our second hurdle is how we may come to a solid conclusion concerning his wishes and his goals for us- or whether he even considers it necessary to inform us of his cosmic plan.  Christians claim the Bible is God's word, revealed to us through his son Jesus Christ, who manifested himself on earth as a physical being (namely, a man) but shares God the Father's divine nature.  But why, exactly, should we believe the Bible?  We have a collection of books written by clearly uneducated men, most likely revised, edited or even rewritten in the subsequent couple of centuries after Jesus the Christ's alleged ministry (30-33 C.E.).  Even the Gospels are estimated to have been written about fifty years after Jesus' time on Earth, in the mid-80's of the first century.  Now, we have absolutely no proof that these gospels were actually written eyewitnesses; in fact, Luke is the only one who even claims to be writing history.  These gospels contradict each other constantly in everything from geography to genealogy to theology, often offering contradicting accounts of various parts of Jesus' ministry.  To make matters worse, every unbiased, reputable historian at the time fails to make any mention of Jesus during the time of his ministry- in fact, the earliest mention we have of Jesus is a paragraph written by Tacitus, a Roman historian, in 64 C.E. where he makes a brief reference to Christ as the leader of the cult of Christianity who suffered the death penalty at the hands of Pontius Pilate.  Unfortunately, the gap of about thirty years gives Christianity more than enough time to spread by word of mouth, and any historian could easily echo what the Christians themselves were saying.  We end up with no records of the Christ within decades of his ministry, and the documents written after Christianity had gained traction in Palestine are either simply repeating Christian beliefs or they are blatantly biased, such as is the case with the Gospels.  As if this was not bad enough, then these books were selected from hundreds of Christian texts at the Nicene Council in 325 C.E. and then labeled as the Word of God.  Even if these documents were not fabrications, the odds that the Council of Nicea selected the correct books from hundreds of frauds are quite hopeless.  Once we acknowledge the fantastical content of these writings, trusting the modern Bible as anything resembling truth seems rather silly, especially when we consider the tenacity with which every word of the Bible is scrutinized in an attempt to interpret Jesus' exact teachings to the most infinitesimal detail; even the slightest misinterpretation or alteration of a key verse could alter or even destroy the scriptural foundations of significant Christian teachings.

Now, there is another justification of belief in Christianity that is not a defense of historical reliability of its teachings or its founder.  It is, I believe, most accurately summarized by a quote from the brilliant and delightful Christian author C.S. Lewis: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. "  Now, I believe that Lewis has given a wonderful analogy here, but it stands on faulty ground.  Lewis' version of Christianity very well may give him a satisfactory explanation for the nature of the universe and of reality (I make a distinction between the two here because it is quite obviously a belief of Christians that reality contains far more than this universe), but the Bible is such a messy collection of contradictory doctrines that it is quite easy for anyone to read the Bible, do a small bit of personal interpretation, and see exactly what they want to see.  This is really not the fault of the reader- I would never accuse Lewis of being the type who is easily duped- but rather the fault of the Bible itself.  In accepting one claim, one must reject another, and so on, making it quite impossible for any man to accept the whole of Biblical moral teachings as valid and divinely inspired.  

In conclusion, for one to convert me- or any sensible man, for that matter- from atheism to Christianity, one cannot simply approach me with a Bible and a head full of assumptions.  This would be rather like trying to build a house and beginning with the second floor; no man will be surprised when the bricks fall to the ground with nothing beneath them for support.  One must prove God, along with his specific attributes; then prove that God does have a plan for us and has revealed it to us, then prove that the Bible is this revelation, then somehow explain the miserable inconsistency and unreliability of the Bible and reconcile it as the unchanging, unfailing Word of God.  This, I am reasonably sure, will not happen.

Meaning, and the emancipation of Man from objectivity.

Meaning is a curious word.  It comes in many forms and definitions, and very often it is used as a buzzword for theists as though it in some way validates their beliefs, even while it does not present any sort of evidence for theism.  It is a feel-good argument that, when correctly examined, really shouldn't make any reasonable person feel good at all.  Let us examine the argument that all atheists hear at some point or another: "Without God, life has no meaning."  This does sound rather like an egotistical simplification, doesn't it?  To many atheists, they would hear "Only people who believe in my religion have true meaning in their lives."  That is rather what theists are getting at, but they can't help it- the definition of meaning they are employing in this case is an objective meaning.  This is to say that the kind of meaning they are referring to is a meaning that can only be given to someone independent of one's own thoughts or opinions.  This meaning that they speak of is thrust upon us regardless of what we think or how we feel.  Now, what is so desirable about being told what to live for?  This definition of "meaning"- a universal dictation of servitude- does not hold any sort of appeal for me.  Imagine, if you will, that once you reach the age of reason, you are informed by a figure of authority what your job will be, who you will marry, and what type of car you will drive.  This would sound most unpleasant to anyone with a sense of self-respect.  However, the theistic "meaning" is far worse than that- it attacks human freedom on its most basic level: thought.  We are told that not only our actions, our speech, and our laws must all serve the specific purpose of glorifying a deity, but our very thoughts.  Everything about us, according to our theistic "meaning", must express servitude above all else.  This is our purpose; it is what we must do and what we are commanded to do for all eternity.  This sounds quite unpleasant when we look closely.  However, the Christian has his explanation all ready: We are quite free indeed; God has given us a choice.  We may either accept God or reject him.  Well, what does a rejection of God entail?  Unfortunately for those who are not content with eternal servitude, the alternative for them is eternal torture in "the fire".  Giving someone a choice between eternal servitude or eternal torture is not only immoral, but it is quite far from freedom; I submit that a God who truly desires freedom for us would simply let us choose to use our lives however we may desire, to whatever end, without thrusting horrible consequences upon us in an afterlife.  I am very unimpressed with this God's attempt at giving us "freedom".

This is the "meaning" that we are offered by the theistic God.  I could continue, but I believe that the unpleasantness of this God and his doctrine are quite apparent by now.  However, take heart- there is real meaning in this life.  It is not dictated to you; it is not eternal or immutable.  It is not something to be found, but something to be created.  This is subjective meaning.  As an atheist, I am free to say that I want to make music for the rest of my life.  I am free to say I want to be a writer, a philosopher, a scientist.  I am free to say that the greatest and most beautiful thing in the world is love, not an excessively distasteful book like the Bible.  Subjectivity is not a bad thing as theists often imply.  It is the opportunity for humanity to rise to its full potential and govern itself; to be unafraid to look towards the heavens and see no God telling them how to live, what to think, or what to feel.  The purest and most profound form of meaning comes from within.