For all of you Nexus readers, Ask an Atheist is a safe haven. An opportunity to ask what it really means to be an atheist, a rationalist, or a skeptic. We listen to everyone, no matter your beliefs, and offer the chance to pose moral, scientific, or even deeply personal questions (and watch us squirm).
For me, Ask an Atheist is an unsafe haven. This column is the most intellectually unsafe place I have ever inhabited. Between the constant challenges to my opinions from my fellow writers and the e-mails I receive as a result of unraveling my thoughts in public, I have been under constant intellectual siege since this column began. But I love it when someone pokes a hole in what I have written or said, because it offers me the chance to defend my mind and, when defeated, to learn something new.
I have written whole columns in 20 minutes with a big stupid smile plastered on my face, and I have also faced questions that have kept me up nights wondering whether I did the Nexus and its readers justice. And we live off of those readers. So the next time you’re ruminating on the meaning of life, the universe and everything as you stretch drunkenly out on a roof, staring up at the stars and listening to the shrieks of Del Playa Drive rising from the street below, put pen to paper and send it our way. I would love to hear what you have to say.
Connor Oakes is a third-year political science major.
Let’s be abrupt: God does not exist. I’m not at all shy or tentative in saying this because, even though many may find such blunt honesty arrogant and offensive, in reality it’s no different from saying leprechauns do not exist or that unicorns do not exist. Why? Because the story of God is indistinguishable from myth, from superstition and from fairy tale. Religion and its heap of gods are human creations, and this fact couldn’t be more obvious.
Nevertheless, to some, it’s not so obvious. In fact, four out of 10 Americans believe God created the universe roughly 10,000 years ago. Meanwhile, 85 percent of Americans admit to some form of religious identity. American religiosity isn’t what’s surprising to me, however. What’s surprising to me is this: Religious beliefs are plain weird and absurd, yet no one criticizes them. If there was a student group on campus whose mission statement was the belief that Elvis Presley will make his return and save music from its present degradation, would you simply walk by and politely smile? Is it just simply what’s “true for them” doesn’t have to be “true for me?” Fuck that. Elvis is dead; he’s not coming back. Your club’s batshit crazy and I worry for your mental health. That’s what I’d say. So I ask you, are the Elvis-crazies any different from the Jesus-crazies?
Of course, Christianity (and religion in general) does have its merits in community, in fellowship and in a sense of the spiritual. But here at Ask an Atheist, religion doesn’t get the “pass” it enjoys elsewhere because ultimately, it’s founded upon mistakes and ignorance.
Brian Gallagher is a fourth-year philosophy major.
When answering a question, we must first understand what is being asked. What is Ask an Atheist? With the verb here being “is,” we must wonder what it means to “be.” In what state does the column exist? Can it really be said to truly exist? We know that the “idea” of the column is present, insomuch as we are conscience of something with a name that can be assigned to a general description. But can the column, as a collective whole, really be said to be an object itself? Does it even need to be an object in order to “be?” Or perhaps the better question is to ask whether it does exist when referring to the whole — a collection of thoughts, together forming a single abstract; where the series of thoughtful, analytical, purposed and pointed weekly articles might truly only exist as a collective whole in the mind. The articles and papers themselves exist on paper, but can the idea of what it really represents be held, heard, smelled or seen? It would seem the representation and reputation of the column is, arguably, the most relevant part, but it exists only in the thoughts of the readers so long as they hold it. So we then ask, does thinking something make it real? Nope. Enjoy the upcoming year of Ask an Atheist, readers. We endeavor to make it even more interesting and provocative than it was last year.
Cameron Moody is a third-year computational biology major.
In saying that “the story of God is indistinguishable from myth, from superstition and from fairy tale” Mr. Brian Gallagher irresponsibly disregards the historical accuracy of many writings within the Bible. I don’t ask for him to believe anything worth a damn, just to not make atheists look bad this year with his blanket statements. (Though I commend his recognition of the merits of religion)
Mr. Cameron Moody’s response ignited in me familiar feelings of Eminem’s Rain Man, particularly when he says ‘I just did a whole song and I didn’t say shit.’
What historical accuracy is Erick talking about? The Exodus story that is full of anachronisms from the 1st millennium BC? The geography in the story that is off from the actual geography of the region in the time period that the Exodus supposedly happened? Or, are you talking about Genesis that puts the creation of the world 10,000 years ago?
The Bible is full of inaccuracy’s, failed prophecies, and logical inconsistencies. It can’t possibly be used as any sort of proof.
I believe historians are only preoccupied with the written record of history, as only then can they claim to be verified. The story of creation would fall under the jurisdiction of archaeologists. By history I meant the written account mostly relating people and certain events. By no means dare I claim that it is 100% accurate — after all, politics, editing and translations ultimately dictate what was written (and then included and then interpreted) into the book. A three minute google search turned up several results on the historical accuracy, though many of those are biased and extrapolate their findings… Read more »
and by cosmological I of course mean astronomical. Someday I’ll proofread what I write.
The “account mostly relating people and certain events” is notoriously hard to verify since primary sources and written records are hard to obtain.
While it’s the case that some historical details in the Bible are accurate, the fact that a lot are incorrect necessitates independent verification of every claim. In addition, a few historically accurate statements does not suffice to validate metaphysical claims nor the history of the Bible in general.
Precisely.
You’d be hard-pressed to verify anything written that long ago. Same reason that there’s still have people looking for Atlantis.
What Joe said.
Thank you, I was sort of aiming for that, as the other two made actual responses that pretty much covered the obvious, as opposed to my overly philosophical response.. I thought that my last couple sentences would make it blatantly obvious that the entire thing was a joke, but at least I get a chance here to clarify. Also, the Bible is laughably inaccurate. In fact, most historians only consider it a historical resource through examining all the huge errors and mistakes, using the dichotomy as a cultural/social reference for lack of education and literary liberties of the time. I’m… Read more »
Very nicely said, though even if the accuracies are not used as primary reference they are oftentimes (informally) cited as confirmation. I can’t give a very good example, but I’ve been to a few lectures here and in other cities where this happens.
Also, your existentialist rant was enjoyable, but I believe if you were to read Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are Dead it could improve immensely.
Wow, you’re heard of that play? I absolutely love R&GAD. I actually performed it back in high school as Guildenstern. Getting me a little excited here. But yes, to be fair, my rant came nowhere close to what it could have been. I could certainly work on that.
I call bullshit on this article. No one gives a shit about this column, its too PC, you might as well be writing about your favorite ice cream every fucking week.
“Next weeks question: reason number 342 to love chocolate!”
dont see the point of this shit if no one cares!
What would be a good way to improve it, short of ceasing to print it? We have no problem with stepping on a few toes if there is something worth saying. I’m interested to hear any input.
you could start by actually taking the time to write a decent column. Everyone is always writing like they are talking out of their ass. why is it so hard for people to actually write a decent column. every writer is always all over the place, and in 300 words they say almost nothing! when I troll the forums, Im allowed to write the comment in under an hour, leave it unedited and just post it. the writers are not! Id rather not have to dig around ur shitty writing to find the “gold nuggets” that u prob pat yourself… Read more »
Did you read this last year? I don’t attempt to defend this article, as it was an introduction, but I don’t really think there were many (if any) last year that didn’t have something to say. And I’d like to say the same will hold the rest of this year. I appreciate input, but “talking out your ass” isn’t the most useful criticism to work off of. I’d appreciate something more specific. FYI, We don’t write our titles. The opinion staff at the Nexus does. I usually find myself groaning at them as well. We have no say in the… Read more »
Atheism is the first step towards real-a-zation.
Although it is funny how the Atheist’s do not make the connection that theirs is a belief system, as if by saying something does not exist somehow makes this viewpoint… fact.
It is not a belief system inasmuch as there is no standard doctrine or unifying head figure. Your statement is as ignorant as the self-proclaimed atheists who claim certain writers to be the ‘head of atheism.’
correction, a system of belief that requires evidence to determine what is real, (scientific naturalism) leads one to the conclusion that there is no compelling evidence for the belief in anything that might be worthy of calling a GOD. So, a particular belief system can lead you to theism or atheism. not the other way around. And our viewpoint is actually a conclusion. The conclusion that there is no evidence for such a being. If you agree that scientific naturalism is the best way to observe reality objectively, so as to be able to determine facts, then you might very… Read more »
Atheism is a belief in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Agree with Joe as well. Fairy tales might be historically accurate in the sense that Santa Claus is based on a supposedly real person, and in the sense that people hundreds of years ago believed in fairies, but that doesn’t mean Santa is in fact going down chimneys or riding a sleigh through the sky, or that fairies actually exist and are trying to actively cause mischief. Its more plausible that parents are giving presents secretly and that annoying things just happen.
Moody mos def smokes the reefer.