As has been noted elsewhere, "If you could reason with theists, there wouldn't be any theists."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/letters/stories/DN-monartletters_0114edi.ART.State.Edition1.377c5dd.html

Prayer is far from banned in public schools

Re: "There are no atheists," by Jean Roberts, Thursday Letters.

I laugh every time religious people think that their rights are being threatened when a special privilege is at stake.

Prayer is far from banned in schools. Schoolchildren have ample opportunity to pray if they so wish. Why students' rights to "express themselves" would depend so highly on a mandatory "moment of silence" is beyond me.

Atheists do exist, and we have every right to object when people try to turn America's classrooms into churches.

Michela Brumfield, senior, Trenton High School, Trenton

We're asking for acceptance of a different view

The extraordinarily provincial view (i.e., that all atheists believe in God) presented by Jean Roberts illustrates the wacky logic in the heads of some religious people. Yes, Ms. Roberts, there really are plenty of people like me who don't believe in God. Or in Zeus. Or in Santa Claus. I accept that you do believe in at least one of those things.

The world would be a much kinder place if folks like you could accept that some of us believe in one less God than you do. And that we are no better or worse than anybody else for believing that way.

Brad Stone, Dallas

Thanks for telling me what I think

Thank you, Jean Roberts, for explaining to me what I think. I thought I knew what I thought, but she explained to me in her letter what it is that I believe in "my heart." Please continue to write about what I truly believe, because apparently I don't know what I think.

David Armstrong, Poetry

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/01/why_teachers_dont_teach_evolut.php#more

Thank you Alan, and thank you Adam I'm glad I stopped by and paused to read. Entertaining and meaningful in so many ways. Keep up the good works.

TS

I assume you've never heard of metonymy. . . . Please don't hesitate to ask if I can supply you with additional editorial assistance in the future.

Adam, I almost choked when I read that. And he is going to choke, too, you know.

I feel bad for finding this so entertaining.

Not very bad, though ;-)

=

Hello Dave,

Well, I have to say, this is a surprise. I wasn't expecting a personal response, and I particularly wasn't expecting the editor and publisher of the paper to write directly to me. I have to say that, given your angry and hostile tone, this strikes me as inappropriate. However, if you'd like to have a man-to-man discussion rather than one between reader and publisher, I'd be glad to respond to your questions.

On 11/01/2008, Dave Kucifer wrote:
>
> As Editor and Publisher of the Navasota Examiner I make it a general rule
> not to respond to letters-to-editor unless they cross the line which yours
> has certainly done.
> First let me explain- The Examiner is an inanimate object incapable of
> action or thought.

I assume you've never heard of metonymy. (When the president issues a statement and reporters say, "The White House said...", do you send them irritated corrections because everyone knows that houses can't talk?) Since you're the editor of a newspaper, it seems odd to me that you're not familiar with that device, but I'm glad I was able to bring it to your attention. Please don't hesitate to ask if I can supply you with additional editorial assistance in the future.

> Secondly Mrs. Christiansen's response where her own,
> just as your letter is your thoughts.

I see now that Evalyn Christensen isn't an employee of the paper, as I had mistakenly assumed. My apologies. Nevertheless, given that you chose to exercise editorial discretion in publishing her letter, and given the sentiments you've expressed to me, I think it's pretty clear that her attitude is shared by the editorial staff of your paper.

> To accuse her, and us, of a personal
> attack is ludicrous. It was no more a personal attack than the letter you
> submitted. If you remember you accused Mrs. Stephenson of being uninformed,
> and biased.

Both of which, I believe, are valid criticisms. She obviously doesn't know much about the history of the United States if she thinks the reason we have separation of church and state was to punish Christianity for the Inquisition. And if she assumes that atheists want to ban the celebration of Christmas or are about to do so, then I think that is reasonable evidence of bias. Evalyn's response, on the other hand - now *that* was a personal attack, and a quite vicious and nasty one at that.

> You and other of your ilk are quick to take offense when someone shares
> the truth,

But what she wrote was *not* the truth. It was factually incorrect and, frankly, dreadfully ill-informed. Neither her, nor you, nor Mrs. Christiansen, nor anyone else speaking for your paper has so far acknowledged this obvious point. It seems to me that many Christian believers thoughtlessly write and say the most incorrect and ignorant things about atheists and atheism, and then accuse *us* of being the angry ones when we take umbrage. Also - a related tendency which is sadly on display here - I find that many Christians are quick to rally around one of their own and defend that person against atheists' criticisms, even when the person being defended was factually in the wrong. Regrettably, among theists, group loyalty often takes the place of allegiance to the truth.

> Before closing I would like to know what an Atheist believes happens after
> death... Do they believe they simply cease to exist?

Yes. That's why it's so important for us to make the best of this life while we have it: to live to the fullest for ourselves, and to promote the happiness of others.

> ..Do you and others
> such as yourself truly believe the world does not have a creator?

Yes. That's pretty much the definition of an atheist, isn't it?

> It is easier to explain creation than evolution....all things must have a
> beginning.

And what was the creator's beginning? Or are you now going to declare for yourself a special exception to the principle you just proclaimed? As the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has said, if you're going to say "God was always there," you might as well save a step and say "The universe was always there" or "Life was always there" and be done with it.

> The First Amendment of our Constitution, which was authored by men of faith
> guaranties the right of free speech for everyone even those who disagree
> with you.

Indeed. But it does not guarantee immunity from criticism, and my readers and I have used that same right to bring to your attention the factual errors in Joy's original column. I'm disappointed that you've chosen to react in this way.

-Adam