Talking back
We are pleased to revive the “Talking Back” department that was so popular during the days that Robin Murray-O’Hair was the editor of this journal. “Talking Back” contained the replies of both ordinary and extraordinary Atheists to what nowadays are called FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions). Some replies could be sardonic one-liners: Q. Why are you an Atheist? A. I’ve read all the Bible. Other replies might take several carefully reasoned paragraphs to answer. We hope to be able to publish the responses of several different people to given questions at the same time, and so we published a partial list of popular questions in the last issue and asked readers to take a crack at one or more of them. If you would like to respond to any of those questions or to ‘pet-peeve’ questions that you yourself have had to answer, we would like to hear from you.
E-mail responses may be sent to: editor@atheists.org
Snail-mail responses may be sent to:
Talking Back
American Atheist Press
P.O. Box 5733
Parsippany, NJ 07054-6733
2. Prove there isn’t a god.
It’snotpossible.Butneitherisitpossibletoprovetherearen’t
leprechauns–in fact, its impossible to prove the non-existence of an
infinitevarietyofimaginedgodsand”supernatural”creatures.Bysuch
astandard,thereisnowaytodiscriminatebetweena”god”claimand
any arbitrary assertion.
For good reason, we must impose certain requirements on any claim
before we can accept it as being true, thus the burden of proof falls
upon the person making the claim, and not those who ask for real-world
evidence.
–Wayne Aiken
Provethereisn’taPurplePeopleEater.
–Edward Hill
This is not a proof but rather a response to this challenge. The
reason I call it a response is that the challenge is meaningless. It is
meaningless because assertions are proved or disproved only within the
context of a theory. Since no such theory (a description which predicts
an observable phenomenon) exists concerning such supernatural beings (a
nonobservable being) a proof cannot be given. I can however give a
response and it is as follows.
The number of assertions I cannot disprove are only limited by the
imaginationoftheasserter.Willyou”believe”the”truth”ofallsuch
assertions simply because I cannot disprove them? Oh you will? Well
then, for each such assertion there can be constructed a mutually
exclusive assertion. Both cannot be true. Will you take the psychotic
positionofholdingthatbothassertionsare”true”simplybecauseI
still cannot disprove either? You will? Oh well, good luck with the new
medication.
–Daniel Sheltraw
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
3. How did you get here?
I walked. Sometimes I stagger. Sometimes I crawl. Depends on how much
I’vehadtodrink.
–Edward Hill
Bypurelynaturalmeans,intheabsenceofany”supernatural”ones.
–Wayne Aiken
I usually drive, but today I had to take the bus.
–Bernie Klein
9. How does it hurt you to have “In God We Trust” on your money?
Howdoesithurtyoutohave”I’mAnIdiot”pinnedonyourback?
–Edward Hill
It hurts non-believers when religious groups point to such slogans and
mottoes in support of their political agenda–in fact, that was the
exactpurposeofthe”InGodWeTrust”mottoasstatedinthe
CongressionalRecord.It’sadangerousstepdownaveryslipperyslope,
when the government assumes the role of actively promoting any
particular position with regard to religious belief. It sends the wrong
messagethatone’scitizenshipandcivilrightsunderthelaware
dependentonone’sreligionorlackthereof.Putoutthismessagelong
enough, and someone is bound to act on it.
–Wayne Aiken
Whydon’twehave”InScienceWeTrust”onourmoney?Scienceismuch
more reliable; is self-correcting; expands, increases, and improves our
natural, material knowledge; is testable, revisable, etc.
IfyoureadtheentireHolyBible,”God”isnotreliable(Heisjust
Us);”God”andtheBiblearenotself-correctingandcannotbealtered
in spite of our scientific, medical, and archaeological findings because
itis”sacred,holy,andtheabsoluteInspiredWordof”God”[only
“Moses”received”thefingerofGod-sculptedstoneTenCommandments,
twice and different, which no longer exist or existed]; the printed
BiblehasbeenavailablesinceGutenbergbutour”spiritual”andnatural
material knowledge has not improved or expanded whatsoever. As a matter
offact,evangelistsarestillpreachingthesame”word”sincethefirst
century CE while humanity pretty much remains the same. The Bible is not
testable (not changed when it fails) and not revisable but always
reinterpreted with over 38,000 different Christian denominations each
believing itself to be the One and Only True Church of … .
Isaiah45:7has”God”statethatHemakespeaceandcreates
calamity/evil. How can anyone trust someone or any supernatural being
who”createsevil”?
Our national currency must respect the US Constitution and reflect the
whole population of the US of A and all of its citizens. Since I am a
Patriotic Atheist Citizen, it does not represent me. It used to have E
Pluribus Unum which did respect both the Constitution and all citizens.
“InGodWeTrust”respectsneither.
–Chester Twarog
22. If you’re right about god, when we both die we both just die. But if I’m right, then when I die I go to heaven and you go to hell. So why not believe in god, just in case?
How do I get to go to hell when you die? I thought I was supposed to
gowhenIdied.Anyway,ifI’mthereandyou’renot,whycallithell?
–Edward Hill
Which god? Literally millions of them have been imagined, often with
mutually-contradictory demands, and there is no way to distinguish any
choice as being better or worse than any other. It is equally likely
that any Supreme Being would value the honesty and reason of Atheists
and reward them with eternal paradise instead.
–Wayne Aiken
26 How can you have any ethics if you don’t believe in god?
In his book, What Evolution Is, Ernst Mayr makes the case for the
evolution of human ethics. He points out that altruistic behavior arises
from the natural activity of cooperation which develops in many
successful groups of animals. Altruism goes one step further in being
helpful or giving without the expectation of reward and at a cost to the
giver.Hestates,”Itrequiresnoargumenttodefendthestatementthat
such altruism would be favored by natural selection. Anything a parent
does to enhance the well-being and survival of its offspring favors its
owngenotype.”
Ethics then can be regarded as another product of evolution. Ethical
codes arise from natural selection and are enhanced by the experiences
and requirements of living in groups. Mayr extends this altruistic
proclivity to near relations and ultimately to the larger group since
it is still enhancing the group genotype. Perhaps the ethic is applied
with less intensity the further removed the relationship, but it can
still be operative.
Mayr then points out that the same altruism has not generally been
granted to outsiders. However, in modern times there is the pressure to
extend altruistic behavior and honorable ethics to those outside the
immediate group. Mayr makes the comparison between Old Testament ethics
and New Testament ethics in the Christian Bible. In the Old Testament,
outside groups are consistently treated differently than the family
group. He points in contrast to the parable of the good Samaritan in the
new testament wherein at some cost and inconvenience to himself a
Samaritan helps a complete stranger. This behavior is offered as a
favorable way to act towards others, even outside your own group.
These stories are separated by thousands of years, and by many
generations, but they do demonstrate a growth in the complexity of the
ethical outlook. I suggest that evolution has not stopped, but even in
the present time is being swayed by the influence of the wiser members
on the rest of the community. With the accumulation of greater knowledge
and the time for consideration of the thought patterns that knowledge
spawns, it seems to me that our ethics are even now still evolving.
Mayr’sargumentsareclearandcompelling.Ethicsarearesultofthe
evolution of individual and group reactions to life experiences. We
adopt our ethical attitudes on the basis of our total experience of
sensual input, since this is the only source we have for the
information to make these decisions.
By experience and teaching in addition to innate responses, the human
raceisgraduallyrealizingthattheoldmaxim,”Onecatchesmoreflies
withhoneythanwithvinegar”isactuallytrue.Evolutionisslow,but
inexorable. Even the evolution of human thought and perception is a
protracted process. We assimilate some kinds of knowledge slowly, but
perhaps humans will one day learn to live without war and to treat
others fairly and equally as they themselves would like to be treated.
It is a noble goal. Ethics are evolutionary, and no god or religion is
involved or necessary.
–John D. Boenke
34. If you don’t believe in God, why are you fighting against him?
I’mnot,I’mfightingagainst’his’followerswhoaretryingtopush
their beliefs and ideals on everyone else.
–Joseph Zarka
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
48. What would you put in religion’s place?
Science, reason, logic, and critical thinking.
–Joseph Zarka
What would you put in the place of cancer, smallpox, and plague?
–MadalynMurrayO’Hair
#53 What’s stopping you from killing someone?
Tobehonest,rightatthismoment,I’mstrugglingwiththat.
–Bernie Klein
Who?
–Edward Hill
The fact that I would go to prison for doing it.
–Joseph Zarka
COPYRIGHT 2004 American Atheists Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
