A Christian going by name Lightfoot posted a thread as Question for Atheists on Reasonable Faith.org. I did not respond to the Opening Post on that forum, largely because I agreed with what others said. Since it may be of interest to my readers here, I will respond to the various parts of Lightfoot's OP in this thread.

Let me summarize. In the first part, he wants to know why, if atheists think this life is all there is, we are not (minor editing for spelling; format is mine):

• out enjoying a cheeseburger,
• or picking up a hot woman
• or if you're a lady picking up your dream man,
• or just utilizing the short time that is so meaningful to you

He thinks that by posting on Reasonable Faith.org we are wasting our time trying to convince people whom, for the most part, we will never convince.

Answer: As Jesus said, this life is more than food and drink. I'm a born intellectual and the things you suggest are shallow and meaningless so far as I'm concerned. There's some tolerably intelligent Christians on Reasonable Faith.org. One of my deepest lifelong interests has always been theology. I have never before had opportunity to learn evangelical theology. RF provides an opportunity to discuss theology on a level I have never before had opportunity.

Christians will want to know why I am not a Christian if I love theology so much. Matter of the fact is that theology is not restricted to Christianity by any means. As a fellow atheist pointed out, theology provides insight on human nature. A broader and deeper interest of mine is: What makes the human happy? Since the vast majority of the human population adheres to some religion or other, the study of theology must of necessity lend some insight to the human psyche.

I never look at theology without asking myself how a specific concept impacts the human psyche, how it might satisfy an inherent human need. Abraham H. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Charles L. Whitfield's Inner Child concept in Healing the Child Within are a few of my guidelines. Another is Rudolph Otto's "numinous" in Idea of the Holy.

In the second part, Lightfoot wants to know why, if atheists want to make a difference in the world and help as many people as they can, they don't "work in a soup kitchen or get involved in programs that brings the most change." He does not ask whether or not we are involved in such a program.

Direct quote:

But spending time --YOUR PRECIOUS TIME THAT MEANS SO MUCH--on something that will bear the least amount of "fruit" doesn't make any sense. I mean, I would never waiste so much time arguing about Santa Claus or Zeus!

He is overtly ridiculing atheists while at the same time claiming a wish to understand them; he had opened the post with the statement that he does not understand most atheists. Also, the title of the thread addresses atheists. He failed to respond to my post in which I stated that one gets the impression that atheists are not wanted on the forums.

There is really not much to respond to in this part. Lightfoot has already decided that:

1. we want to make a difference in the world and that
2. the only way for us to do this is by working in soup kitchens and
3. otherwise ministering to the needy.

He has also concluded--without checking things out--that we are not already doing this kind of thing to the limits of our abilities.

I did a bit of research and I know that atheists and agnostics were among the biggest philanthropists in the United States in the twentieth century. I also know that some have started their own organizations to help the needy, and others contribute anonymously through various systems. It seems Christians are ignorant of these contributions--and assume they don't occur--because we don't make big announcements of our "good works" like churches tend to do.

As for physical labour. How does he know what we do? Is building homes with Habitat Humanity not good enough? Is serving in programs for the homeless not appropriate? Does attending a church supper to raise funds for a program to aid the local poor not count?

But he never asked. He never checked to see if we ever do this kind of thing. Normal humans automatically help their less fortunate peers when they can. We are normal humans. He does not see us as such. And we are not about to throw our pearls to the pigs.

It feels really stupid to say things like:

• "Hey! I just got snacks for a batch of kids in the housing project."
• "Hey! I just got some winter coats for a family in Romania."
• "Hey! My friends and I just dug a well in a village in Africa."
• "Hey! I spent the weekend shingling a house for a family in our town."
• "Hey! I helped an old lady get to her doctor's appointment."

Why does it feel stupid to say such things? Because it is stupid. Normal people like to share when they can just because that's what it means to be human. We're social beings and we enjoy the connection.

One might respond to Lightfoot's charge about Santa Claus. I posted a number of my responses to that charge on these forums as Santa Claus: The Atheist's Analogy for God.

My most recent post on Santa Claus follows as Post 93:



I realize that this is a very "un-nice" response. As stated in the post above, Lightfoot overtly ridicules atheists, yet he somehow expects us to respond to his question. For some reason, Christians consider their coarse and disrespectful behaviour toward atheists to be Christlike, yet they judge atheists' honest questions and disagreement regarding god-beliefs to be blasphemous and worse. This discrepancy is keenly observed and deeply analyzed by atheists and agnostics; many consider it shameful to be caught on as low a moral ground as Christians. I do not necessarily agree with that position; if you want my respect you gotta earn it.

All the same, this is Post 93. I had written a lot of decent ones earlier (see The Atheist's Analogy for God or read the thread itself on RF) and exercised a lot of patience. He was nasty from Post 1.

In the third and last part he urges us to get out and enjoy the sunshine, to connect with long lost loved ones (as though we had such a one), and again he harps on his argument that we can't change people. The argument can be summed up in the final sentence:



As stated above in Post 93, it's what belief in mythical characters makes him and fellow believers do that we object to.

If I didn't get a lot out of it for myself on a personal level I would not be doing it. I love intellectual debate for its own sake--the verbal sparring, the strategizing to see what strategy will get what response, the experimentation to see how to get the answer I need to a certain life-long question, etc. Constructing theories to explain life, demolishing them to set up better ones, then finding a totally new approach in another area--this is what makes life worth living.

Lightfoot can't even spell (I got tired of correcting the self-righteous hypocrite's mistakes after the first post); I don't think he's got the faintest inkling of the pure bliss derived from such intellectual pursuits and gymnastics. To make up for his ignorance he (or some other Christian) sarcastically refers to our claims of loving debate as though it were a false or ridiculous claim. I think that says more about the speaker than the target.

Nothing else than the bliss of intellectual pursuits and learning accounts for the advancement evident in scholarship across the centuries since the invention of the printing press. Religionists tend to put it down to egotism. However, any honest researcher knows that there were easier ways to fame during the Inquisition than to announce that the earth was not the centre of the universe.

To break through the extreme scientific ignorance and religious superstition of late Medieval Europe required more than egotism. Egotism could not have progressed despite the Inquisition--would not have overcome death itself and pressed forward despite torture and live stake-burnings--to build the intellectual edifices we inherit today.

A true thirst for knowledge, however, could--and did. The bliss of achieving new understanding was powerful enough to drive isolated scholars working long and lonely hours with primitive technology and candle light. Isolation, opposition, blindness, illness, and house arrest did not stop Galileo from writing in his old age and smuggling his work out of the country from under the noses of his captors to get it published. Others paid with their lives. Find links for more information in Enlightenment Scientists Crash Ptolemaic Cosmology.

I can't think of any other arguments the Christians make that I haven't answered. They tend to go in circles and poke ridicule when they run out of arguments. Any monkey can do that--myself included, but that is not an argument.