Atheodicy

Many religious philosophers have created theodicies, which are logical arguments for various levels of belief in deism or theism.

What do modern Atheists have?

Atheodicy: "Lack of belief".

What, exactly do they lack belief in? Theodicies? The Qur'an? The Bible? Buddha? Ganesh? Well that's not the point.

Here's the point: what are the Atheodicies which support the Atheist position of "lack of belief"?

Posit:

"I lack belief."

Really? Belief in what?

"I lack belief in X, Y, Z."

Why?

"I just don't have belief."

For what reasons?

"I don't have to have reasons for a LACK."

As is intended, this goes nowhere rational. It is a LACK of specifics, reasoning, logic, evidence, and rationality. Especially rationality.

It is purely the irrational defense for an indefensible position.

Let's distill out the Atheodicy from the conversation:

"I lack belief."
"I lack belief in X, Y, Z."
"I just don't have belief."
"I don't have to have reasons for a LACK."

No intellectual content; none.

Atheists and "Disbelief"

The inability of Atheists to support the supposed “rationality” of their position is illuminated by the completely irrational attempt to claim mere disbelief, rather than outright rejection for cause. The Atheist pretends to have a position which cannot be analyzed or even discussed by having asserted this transparently false claim. The Atheist making this claim apparently thinks that there is no possible way to penetrate this illusion, so that he will never be required to actually provide rational reasons or reasoning for his rejectionism.

Let’s take a look at the logic underlying such claims.

Either a person has heard the posits of a creating deity, or he has not.
If not, then he is ignorant.
If so, then he knows the posits.

If a person knows the posits about a creating deity, then either he accepts them or rejects them or cannot decide.
If he cannot decide, he is an agnostic, not an Atheist, yet he either has reasons and reasoning, or he does not.
If he rejects them (Atheist), either he has reasons or reasoning, or he does not.
If he does not have reasons or reasoning, then he is not rational in his rejection.

If he does have reasons or reasoning, then either the reasons are comprised of disciplined logic and/or material evidence, or not.
If not, he is not rational.
If he has rejected the posits using disciplined logic and/or material evidence, then he can present that to support his rejection, or not.
If not, he is intellectually dishonest, and doesn’t want his disciplined logic and/or material evidence examined, analyzed and refuted.

If he doesn’t want his disciplined logic and/or material evidence examined, analyzed and refuted, then he is either an intellectual coward, or he knows that the logic and material evidence are false (intellectual fraud). Both of these eventualities indicate emotional disturbance in that individual.

Since Atheists do not ever present either logic or evidence which prove categorically and incorrigibly that the posits of a creating deity are immutably false, then it is proper to assume that either they do not actually have either logic or evidence to support their rejection (This is supported by the Atheist belief in “Hitchens’ Razor”), or they are intellectually dishonest. Or in this case, both.

If they claim mere “disbelief” without any responsibility to support their position with logic or evidence, Then it is proper to assume that either they are intellectually dishonest in their claim, or they have no reason or reasoning in their disbelief. Both of these are intellectually empty positions. Both of these are universal amongst modern Atheists.

Here is a simple form of a posit of a creating deity:

Either the universe always existed, or it came into being.

If it is thought to have always existed, then a) it is an infinite regression (fallacy); b) the Big Bang and Expansionary Theory is a false theory (anti-science).

If the universe is an infinite regression, then empirical evidence is needed; there is none.

If the universe came into being at the Big Bang, then empirical evidence is needed; that evidence exists.

If the universe came into being, it violates the null hypothesis that “nothing” is more parsimonious than is “something”.

If the new existence of a universe is less parsimonious than its prior non-existence, it is proper to assume that there is a reason that the universe came into existence, overcoming the null hypothesis. That reason correlates with a cause, pre-existing the material universe, with the power and causal ability to create the universe, and is therefore greater than the universe.

Further, that causal power had a reason to create the universe, and therefore was an agent.

Further, the creating agent created the rational laws for ordered material existence which were installed, rather than mere chaos, when chaos (non-ordered) would be the null hypothesis. Given the existence of rational laws for ordered existence, then the creating agent is rational.

Therefore, it is more rational to conclude that the universe came into being in opposition to the null state of non-existence, and it did so due a creating agent which is sufficiently powerful, purposeful, and rational.

Now, this argument can be rejected by Atheists who are not ignorant of it, for two possible reasons: 1) rational objections using disciplined logic and/or material evidence, OR 2) emotional reasons. But the Atheist cannot claim to have NO reasons or reasoning, to have mere disbelief without cause for disbelief, without also being obviously intellectually dishonest and emotionally based, and completely without any intellectual content in his position.

Atheism reduces and resolves to blind belief that there is no creating deity, and does so in the complete absence of disciplined logic and/or material evidence; in fact it must deny disciplined logic and existing material evidence, in order to maintain the blind belief.

How To Be An Atheist

In Ten Easy Commandments:

Valerie Tarico, Atheist Psychologist, Explains Why Religions Are Guilty, Not Guilty and Are Guilty of Violence.

Valerie Tarico gives us another lesson in the Atheist attack on religions, this time throwing in a little false psychological melodrama to boot things down the path. It's a twisty, turny ride toward Christian guilt. Well, all religions, but let's face it: Christians are the most hated; this time around it's for their violence.

When going after religionS (frequently plural and non-distinguished or differentiated), Atheists always ignores their own Marxist history, and the Enlightenment's creation in the genocidal French Revolution. Tarico is certainly in line with that.

”Is monotheism inherently violent? Is religion an excuse or cover for other kinds of conflict? Are Western colonialism and warmongering in the root of the problem? Do blasphemers make themselves targets? Is the very concept of blasphemy a form of coercion or violence that demands resistance? Is killing in the name of gods a distortion of religion? Alternately, is it the real thing?

Each of these questions is best answered “yes, and” rather than “yes/no.”

With the possible exception of Buddhism, the world’s most powerful religions give wildly contradictory messages about violence. The Christian Bible is full of exhortations to kindness, compassion, humility, mercy and justice. It is also full of exhortations to stoning, burning, slavery, torture, and slaughter. If the Bible were law, most people you know would qualify for the death penalty. The same can be said of the Quran. The same can be said of the Torah. Believers who claim that Islam or Christianity or Judaism is a religion of peace are speaking a half-truth—and a naive falsehood.”

Fortunately for us, Tarico answers her own questions because we might have gotten it wrong. For example, that religion is the root of the problem. I, for one, would not have guessed that the KGB or the Maoists were all that religious. But they are not the “root”; religion is. Further, it is a naïve falsehood to claim otherwise, so all the Atheist Marxists are safe from her condemnations, as are the Atheist heirs of the French Revolution.

The AtheoLeftist always goes straight to the biblical rules made for historical Jewish communities while they wandered without a homeland, and ignores the New Testament completely (almost), or at least trivialize it as much as possible. By basing their rhetoric on the Old Testament they can claim that Christians must be violent, despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary. Evidence is important only when it confirms the narrative, and that also explains the lack of interest in the Atheist bloody ravages in just the past 100 years, far more bloody and moral-free than Christianity has ever been, even cumulatively. And it is always necessary to associate Christianity with Islam; otherwise the accusation would fall flat, even on cynical Atheist ears.

Further, her reference to the Christian “ethnic cleansing” in the Central African Republic seems to be false: there is no reference for this at the UN Security Council page specifically for the CAR itself, and all other reports seem to be based on a circular rumor, while none give any link to an actual report.

The obvious fallacy, Guilt By Association, is the only weapon that the AtheoLeft has against its major enemy, Christianity. And to do that AtheoLeftists must accept the fact that Islam, their own partner in Christian-hating, is extremely violent. That partnership is temporarily ignored just so that Christianity can be falsely associated with the violence and totalitarian barbarism of Islam. The ploy is so transparent as to be obvious at the primary school level.

”I would argue that, like alcohol, religion disinhibits violence rather than causing it, and that it does so only when other factors have created conditions favorable toward aggression. I might also argue that under better circumstances religion disinhibits generosity and compassion, increasing giving and helping behaviors. Religion often is centered around authority and text worship (aka “bibliolatry”). Because of this, it has the power to lower the threshold on any behavior sanctioned by either a sacred text or a trusted religious leader and is at its most powerful when one is echoed by the other.”

This psychologist gives nothing but her Atheist opinion, no evidence, no references. Actual evidence consistently shows that in the west, Atheists give almost nothing to charity while the religious give generously to secular as well as religious charities. Further, studies show that Atheists have a decreased empathy level compared to Christians, in that they are far less likely to help a particular needy individual. Atheists think they are empathetic if they get teary eyed over a TV documentary alleging society’s persecution of polar bears. AtheoLeftists are known to be tax dead-beats as well, putting the lie to any claim that they “gave” to the government for distribution.

Also she promotes the concept of Authoritarian or forced worship, despite the lack of authority in western religions (save cults). She is thus equating the generic class, “religion”, with cult properties in order to support her Atheist needs. Atheism comes closer to cult thought, enforced by peer ridicule, but she ignores the worshipful reverence for Richard Dawkins who has “saved” millions for Atheism. That would not be helpful for her narrative.

”Despite the fact that violence is repeatedly endorsed in sacred texts, most Christians, Muslims and Jews never commit acts of violence in the service of their religion. Similarly, millions of people consume alcohol without insulting, hitting, kicking, stabbing or shooting anyone. Most of us are peaceful drinkers and peaceful believers.

You know there is another shoe to drop:

” Yet, [here it is, the contradiction of the previous statement] statistically we know that without alcohol assaults would be less common. [Start with False Association; justify what "we all know": Fallacy Argumentum Ad Populum ] - So too, we all know that when suicide bombings happen, or blasphemers and apostates are condemned to die, or a rape victim is stoned to death, Islam is likely to be involved. And when we hear that an obstetrics doctor has been shot or a gay teen beaten and left for dead, or a U.S. president has announced a “crusade”, we know that Christianity was likely a part of the mix.”

This is the ultimate in stretching reality via demonstrable logic fallacy in order to support an ideology. First compare religion to alcoholic violence; then compare that to Islamic violence; find the remote violence by alleged Christians which occurs once every decade or so. Claim that Christianity, despite previous disclaimers, is known to be actually violent, imply that it is to be feared more than the excesses of world wide Atheism. Claim that war on terrorists is an illegitimate “presidential crusade” and thus Christian violence, as if no Atheist or Leftist approved it.

Only the deranged would believe these claims.

And the final claim, dredged from past millennia:

”American Christianity retains shadows of the inquisitor’s hood and implements of torture.”

If this is so, then Atheism is to be fully condemned based on the hundreds of millions killed by atheists in very recent history, and even their brutality in major Atheist nations still today. So I feel free and comfortable in condemning her as an Atheist under her own principles of condemnation.

”As Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity spread across Nigeria and Congo, thousands of children are being beaten or burned or disfigured with acid after being condemned by Christian ministers as “witches.” ”

There is nothing in Christianity about witches; the Vulgate says “wizards”, not witches; i.e., treasonous deceivers. Period. And the right of all punishment belongs not to Christians, it belongs to the deity, to be meted out only by the deity. The doctrinal abuse of Cults are again being equated as if they are exemplary of Christian doctrine and Christians in general.

”Meanwhile in Uganda, American Evangelicals have helped to advance prison terms and death penalties for African gays. The Family, an American Christian organization with members in congress helped to convert Uganda’s president to their form of politicized Christianity. American activists attended a conference in Uganda aimed at “wiping out” homosexuality. ” [It’s Family Research Council, not “the Family”; obviously no research done here for supporting her false conclusion].

That is true, they (FRC leaders) did go to the conference, but not to support the “wiping out”; they went to attempt to instill tolerance per the actual Christian faith which is voluntary, but they failed, probably because of the AIDs epidemic which homosexuals spread throughout their country. The lie, once told to liars, becomes truth; what she and the Atheists push is the lie which by its prevalence is now a received, dogmatic “truth” despite being a lie. Narrative always trumps truth.

”Were the Fort Hood and Charlie Hebdo murder sprees or Boko Haram massacres caused by Islam? Are the Central African murder sprees caused by Christianity? A yes answer is far too simple.”

Oh really? Religion is not the cause? That sudden disclaimer seems out of place, being lost amongst the other prior claims to the contrary. After all, it's "what we all know".

”But violence, tribalism, and mutually exclusive truth claims are built into in our sacred texts and traditions. As a consequence, religion around the world continues to disinhibit lethal violence at a horrendous rate

Oh. OK, then. Religions ARE guilty after all.

” For us to vilify Muslims or Christians or any group of believers collectively is to engage in the familiar act of cowardice we call scapegoating. It means, ever and always, that we end up sacrificing innocents to appease our own fear, anger and thirst for vengeance.”

Oh. Wait. Religions are NOT guilty again. It’s the Atheist’s own “thirst for vengeance”? Hmm.

”But for us to ignore the complicated role of religion in violence is a different kind of cowardice, one that has been indulged by peace-lovers among the faithful for far too long.”

OK, now we’re back to “religions ARE guilty after all.” Whew. I'm glad she stopped here. I was getting whiplash.

HT: Anshuman Reddy - thanks for the link!

Atheist Fundamentalism?

An Atheist Asserts “Religious Privilege” as a counter-attack. James Croft, a leader in training at the Ethical Society of St. Louis, writes about it at Chris Stedman's site, and we'll look at his claims.

It is not enough to merely be non-religious any more. You must declare your opposition to and offense taken by religious existence itself, not to mention your Victimization by religion. Religious existence is characterized by religious privilege, “privilege” being the new microagression which is visible only to those with highly specialized sensory apparati, those new privilege detector organs recently acquired by evolution in the Messiah Class.

Here Croft gives the defining situation:

“’I don’t believe in God,’ he said looking up from the menu. Was he challenging me because he knows I’m a Christian minister, I wondered?… Was he intentionally being aggressive?”

“Consider how intolerant this reaction is; how immediate, how judgmental. The mere words “I don’t believe in God” are a potential aggression. This is a reaction of someone with religious privilege, unused to having her assumptions about the world challenged. If your response to hearing someone say “I don’t believe in God” is to consider it an attack on your own beliefs, the problem is with you—not with any “fundamentalist atheism.” Imagine if I took every expression that someone is a Christian as a potential affront to me. How ridiculous would that seem? Yet atheists put up with this reaction all the time.”

It’s hard not to laugh in the face of this Atheist (and his apologist). The blurting of Atheism out of the blue, for no contextual reason borne of conversation, obviously was meant for other than information transfer. But what was it meant to accomplish? Any rational person would wonder. But not this Atheist, of course. For him, the incongruity of this out of place declaration bears no examination; in fact, the examination which it does produce in the Christian is decried as irrational. Only in the inverted logic of Atheism could this possibly be the case.

And contrary to what he claims, Atheists do indeed take any profession of faith as a personal attack on themselves; it produces the "gastric distress" claims used in court by the American Atheists. Faith belongs in the basement. Massive Atheist organizations exist specifically to drive religion out of their sight. They are cultural bullies.

The nouveau classist-chic privilege "microaggression" charge is similar to the charge that

“you’re too stupid to know how stupid you are, but I’m smart and I will tell you how stupid you are; believe me, you are stupid”.

In the case of the three-class Messiahs, microaggression is visible only to themselves, as is your perpetual guilt:

“you’re too biased by privilege and stupid to know how biased by privilege and stupid you are, but I am smart and unbiased by privilege, so I will tell you how biased by privilege and stupid you are”

– hence, microaggression, invisible except to Messiahs and their pet Victims.

However, the main thrust of the article is that Atheists cannot be fundamentalists because they have no principles at all, no fundamentals and no principles about which to be fundamental.

That is false, but just to this extent. Atheists are pretty much in agreement that religion of all types is wrong, evil, and that Atheists are put upon by the existence of religion. There undoubtedly are some who do not care about religion one way or another, but those people are not out making claims about how abused they are by religion all over the web. Everyone who goes onto the web as an Atheist is highly likely to adhere to the above fundamentals (and more, but that’s for a different time).

Free Thinking means thinking anarchically without constraints by religion. If hatred of religion did not exist, there would be no reason to claim Free Thinking. The same applies to the religion of Humanism, which started from the premise of religious hatred, and elitist desire to eradicate all religion by taking over all institutions (as always, read the Humanist Manifesto I).

But back to Croft and his claims regarding the persecution of Atheists:

That the charge of “atheist fundamentalism” is frequently a fig leaf for distaste of atheism in general is clear in the way the term is used by enormously powerful religious individuals to push their own agendas. The Archbishop of Wales, for instance, once decried “atheistic fundamentalism” for, among other things, wanting public hospitals to not assume all of their clients are Christian, and wanting public schools to respect the religious diversity of their students. To the archbishop, the desire of atheists to be equal is “atheist fundamentalism.”

This is false, at its core. What Atheists want is not “diversity respect” in any sense: they do not respect diversity. What they demand is pure Atheism in schools and hospitals, not tolerance of diversity.

This nefarious use of the term reveals the charge of “atheist fundamentalism” for what it sometimes is: A weapon to marginalize critique of religion and the religious, and to maintain a status quo in which religious viewpoints, practices, and communities are privileged over nonreligious ones.

And of course it is not “critique of religion” which is the issue. It is the Atheist raw attacks on religion by attempting to drive religion underground as they Athei-ize all of culture, education and government. Croft is deliberately misrepresenting Atheist actions as benign critiques, abstract discussions regarding religions and the religious: Atheist actions are anything but benign; their attacks are anything but mere "critiques", as Croft's use of the weaponized "privilege" demonstrates.

Croft is certainly correct in his claim that there are no binding moral principles to Atheism, if that is indeed his claim. That includes lying in defense of a false picture of Atheism, concealing that which Atheism becomes as it metastasizes into Leftist, totalitarian, elitist three-class Messiahism, and its attack on western civil culture in general.

It is this which one sees when one sees an Atheist, and for good reason. They are both Messiahs and Victims, and religion is the Oppressor Class.

Croft tries to calm the dialog with the following:

“I understand the desire of some religious people to hit back against what seems to them—and what sometimes really is—unreasonable and unfair criticism of their faith tradition. I understand too the desire of many atheists to improve the quality of discourse within our own community, so that we become more thoughtful, precise, and kind in our critiques of religion. But the term “atheist fundamentalism” is always inaccurate and often harmful. We should find clearer terms.”

Well, to be more specific, accurate and descriptive, I suggest the term “Atheist fundamentalism” be replaced with “Atheist Three-Class Messiahism”. That should clear up their position.

NPR Headline: "What If Atheists Were Defined By Their Actions?"

I quit listening to NPR decades ago. I was a volunteer radio host for about a year at a public radio station in a moderate size city, and while my weekly show was purely music and non-political, I could not stand the intellectual warping of the news and magazines on NPR. Those who listen avidly to NPR as a news source get themselves warped clear out of reality.

So I'm not surprised at this self-serving Atheist article posted at NPR. If you want their answer to this question, by all means go there. But here I will answer their question differently.

All one needs to do to answer the question, "What If Atheists Were Defined By Their Actions?" is to observe the actual actions of Atheists. Since the majority of Atheists leave the Atheist VOID by marching lock-step into Leftist cant, then the actions of Atheists are those of AtheoLeftism. AtheoLeftism is not a benign, tolerant, culture-friendly grouping of jovial glad-handers.

AtheoLeftism is actively engaged in the cultural destruction of all moral precepts, all cultural institutions, and those who defend them. It really is that simple.

Observe Silverman and his American Atheists.

Observe The Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Observe the American Huminists

Read the history of Atheist humanism, starting with reading in detail the First Humanist Manifesto.

Read the history of Comte's humanism.

Study the association of Atheistic, Scientistic revolution a la Lenin.

Fully explore the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror.

Ask any Atheist for his fixed moral principles and their source. Compare with the document, "Atheist Principles of Morality" (hint: it doesn't exist).

Finally, study the principles of homosexual/lesbianism in university cloisters: destruction of heteronormativity; institutionalizing promiscuity; trivializing males, family, education, logic and rationality.

Yes. Atheists and Atheism should, in fact, be characterized by both actions and lack of moral beliefs. It's only fair.

Poster Boy For Atheist Irrationality

From Salon’s Jeffrey Taylor, who “analyzes” the debate surrounding Bill Mahr and Reze Aslan:

”The so-called “New Atheists,” including Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, have tried to do the opposite: get people to examine religion and help them understand it as innately backward, obscurantist, irrational and dangerous. Their aggressive secularism has, of course, stirred controversy and resentment. It was bound to do so. For millennia, the faithful have held the high moral ground virtually unopposed. Now (at least occasionally) under fire, some modern-day believers have taken to levying a clever yet false counter-accusation; namely, that the so-called “New Atheism” amounts to a “religion all its own” and that nonbelief can be just as hazardous as nonbelievers say religion is.

Aslan has proven a masterly practitioner of this ruse. He has used it to muddy the rhetorical waters to the extent that both belief and nonbelief come off, in his telling, as comparable, with “fundamentalism” a problem for both.

“Atheism is a belief system like any other belief system,” he told HuffPost Live last week in a lengthy interview about – again – Bill Maher’s stance on Islam. “It’s a set of propositions about the nature of reality. And like any set of propositions, it can neither be proven nor disproven.”

This is patently untrue: nonbelief is not a “belief system.” Atheism simply denotes nonbelief in a god, and the rejection of god-related assertions, advanced without evidence, or with risible semblances of evidence drawn from the holy writings themselves in dispute, that an invisible, almighty Supreme Being superintends the universe, grants our wishes or not as He sees fit, and demands to be both loved and feared. Smart atheists know that God’s inexistence cannot be proven, but find no reason to accept the absurd claims the three Abrahamic faiths make, and every reason to react with anger and contempt when adherents of those religions attempt to impose them on the rest of us. The religious argue that the absurdity of their holy books’ tenets presents them with an opportunity to win bona fides with their god by suspending their critical faculties and believing them anyway, but no rational human being should be obligated to respect their decision – let alone submit to their mandates.”

Atheism is, in fact, a belief system no matter how diligently Atheists queue up to deny it. Even the author of the above admits such in his internally contradictory denial:

First he claims that there are no beliefs. Then he claims that god-related assertions are rejected, presumably because the Atheist BELIEVES them to be false. This is non-coherent: irrational.

But he charges ahead with more, itemizing the premises which Atheists Believe are false. So false as to be, in his term: risable, in other words, BELIEVED to be suitable for ridicule.

Atheism has necessary and sufficient beliefs about the nature of reality, and one belief is that they have no beliefs. That is a logically falsifiable statement, under Reductio Ad Absurdum, and it is internally contradictory, thus failing the First Principle of Non-Contradiction. It could not be more irrational. This is followed with other unfalsifiable beliefs such as the presupposition of Naturalism/Philosophical Materialism, which is the fundamental premise supporting all of the elements of their worldview (except for their elitism due to BELIEVING in it).

All these BELIEFs tumble out of the BELIEF that they can reject a premise without giving any reason or reasoning for having rejected it.

Atheism is a continuing process of irrational justifications necessary to justify the first non-coherent premise which they BELIEVE. They protect these irrational justifications by calling them rational BELIEFS and claim to be evidence and logic based at the same time. Nothing short of emotional disruption can explain this behavior.

Lying By Definition Manipulation

At CAPRO: Atheism: The Belief of Convenience

While I wouldn't go to the lengths that the author at CAPRO does, I do like this segment of his reasoning:

"Yet, if he [the Atheist] claims that he is not omniscient—that that is something those dastardly theists have falsely pinned on him to try and smear the atheist non-belief system—then how can he be absolutely certain that God does not exist?

Would he then not have to change his definition of atheism to include belief? That atheism is a belief about God’s non-existence; not an absence of belief?

Surely Mr. Smith, and other atheists who cling to this manufactured definition of atheism, has painted himself into a corner that he cannot get out of.

On the one hand he wishes for his audience to believe that he lacks belief, while on the other he wants his audience to believe in what he believes is true, simply because he believes it; namely that God does not exist."

Atheism Definitions

I should have started this long ago, and I belatedly do so now. I'm starting a new category of Definitions of Atheism. It seems as if every Atheist wants his own definition, and that dovetails with the general self-ness which Atheism confers upon its adherents. In fact, many will reject any definition but their own. So I'll collect those I find.

Here's one now:

"As far as the exact meaning of atheism goes, in the general sense of the term, it is the rejection of beliefs that embrace the worship of deities."

http://www.boldsky.com/yoga-spirituality/faith-mysticism/2014/what-is-philosophical-atheism-044655.html

Quote of the Day

"Atheism, after all, is as much a religion as any other in that it is a belief system that can’t be tested, which is the definition of religion. You can no more prove the nonexistence of God than you can prove His existence. Of course, Dawkins’s book The God Delusion, has sold more than 2 million copies and been translated into 31 languages, so perhaps it was a commercial decision to be an atheist."
RE: The Nasty, Brutish World of Richard Dawkins; John Steele Gordon