CVAAS has a new website!

If you haven't stopped by the website for the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics, now would be the time to do so!

We are finally online with an interactive website, using a website content management system called "Drupal" that allows us to show upcoming events, host individual blogs, use forums and a host of other tools.

I'd like to give warm thanks to Richard, cofounder of CVAAS, for doing all the work to get this site up and going. If you find anything on this site that is slow or broken, it's probably because of my own ham-handedness. If it is sleek and fast then you can bet that Richard is responsible.

The next goal of CVAAS is to get our bylaws finished so that we can offer membership benefits from our new website. For example, how would you like a members-only cvaas.org email address?

But even if you are not a CVAAS member and you never plan to be, you can still visit our website and sign up for more in-depth content. We offer something for everyone.... so come by and help us form our new Central Valley community!

Calladus to debate at Fresno Pacific University on April 3rd

Next Thursday, April 3rd, I will be participating in a mini-debate with New Covenant Youth Pastor Loren Pankratz on the campus of the Fresno Pacific University. The topic of the debate is, "Does God Exist?" (I'll be taking the negative - just in case you were wondering.)

Details:
Mark, Cofounder CVAAS, will be debating Loren Pankratz, New Covenant Youth Pastor
To be resolved, "Does God Exist?"
Date: 3 April 2008
Time: 12:40 PM

Location:
Encore Amphitheater, Fresno Pacific University,
1717 S. Chestnut Ave.
Fresno, CA 93702-4709
(Google map)

The debate will be held outdoors at Fresno Pacific University's Encore Amphitheater, located near the corner of E Hamilton Ave & S Winery Ave. This is right behind the Steinert Campus Center. Here is a link to the google map of the location (map1). In the case of inclement weather the debate will be moved to the Wiebe Education Center, room #218. Wiebe is located near the corner of Chestnut & Butler. You can download the entire Fresno Pacific University campus map in PDF form by clicking this link (map2).

As for parking - well I have no idea what parking will be like. College campuses are notorious for their parking problems. I'd suggest that if you are going to go, to arrive at least 30 minutes early, and bring a pocket full of change to feed any possible parking meters. Bring some walking shoes just in case - cheap or free parking is probably a block or so away.

Fresno Pacific University asked me to pass on the following to those who are planning to attend. They do not want any Atheists to make a spectacle of themselves. No protest signs or disrespectful T-shirts. No, really! They're really worried about that!

Okay, I do know that there are some non-believers who like to shock the believers. I understand that. I really don't think that it would be a issue - but the campus is concerned. I don't see a problem with wearing your Big Red "A" T-shirt, or your Flying Spaghetti Monster hat. But leave your "Jesus is a lie" T-shirt at home please.

I mentioned a while back that I would be taking part in this debate, but I've kept quiet about it since then because the details were still being decided upon.

Well, everything happened pretty quickly yesterday - and now the incidentals have been set into stone.

This debate is a sort of "warm up" to the upcoming Shermer / D'Souza debate to be held on April 18th. (Have you RSVP'd for that yet? Time is running out!)

I'm participating in this because New Covenant invited me. I have no illusions that my words will cause any sudden philosophical transformations. Seriously, I'm simply worried about speaking clearly and intelligently in front of an opposing audience of religious students. But who knows, maybe I'll plant a seed of doubt - I can recall clearly being a Christian listening to rational speakers and being absolutely sure that they were in the wrong, but being willing to at least honestly examine their words.

Now that I think of it, the last time that I spoke in front of a large audience was from behind a pulpit, as a "guest speaker" at my old church. I expect an audience of between 100 to 400 students for this event.

So if you have nothing better to do next week, (like your job, or going to school) then I'd love for you to stop by and watch as I attempt to not bomb onstage in my first ever public debate, and my first ever appearance in front of a live audience as an Atheist.

What? Me worried?

On a technical note - I will be recording the debate with my little hand-held tape recorder. If anyone owns better recording equipment, including video, and would like to participate in recording this event, please let me know!

"EXPELLED" Runs away and hides!

"I did so hit a home run! And if you don't agree with me then I'll just take my baseball and my bat and go home! So there!"

Ben Stein's movie Expelled has gone MIA. Emails have been sent out to all confirmed that showings are canceled due to "technical difficulties". Their RSVP website no longer advertises upcoming showings - they've evaporated and the only trace they've ever existed is in screen captures and Google cache.

The technical difficulty? I can't be sure, but I would guess that they technically hated using a boring, poorly made movie to perpetuate a lie, and getting caught doing so.

If Expelled gets set up to start allowing screenings again before the movie's official release, then it will be with very strict procedures to vet those who live in the reality based community.

Expelling Dr. PZed Myers from a movie called "Expelled" while allowing Dr. Dawkins in instead has got to be one of the worst public relations disasters ever. This is worse than Scientology's "Battlefield Earth" - it's worse than "New Coke".

For the next 20 years business schools will be using the mistake made by Associate Producer Mark Mathis as the textbook example of what not to do regarding public relations.

Mathis (and by association Ben Stein) are petty and dishonest. And when they got called on it Mathis naturally panicked and fled.

Are these the sort of people you want to represent your religion?

"Expelled" has gone truant in Santa Clara!

After all the religious spin put onto the ejection of PZ Myers while allowing Richard Dawkins into last night's showing of "Expelled", I decided that I wanted to see for myself just how easy it was to get an invite to the movie.

There seems to be some controversy about tickets - with one side saying that Dr. Myers didn't have a ticket and was acting the bully, and the other side saying that tickets weren't required, that a simple sign up was all that was required.

So I went over to the Expelled RSVP site, and signed up. BAM! I got an instant return email saying that I was golden, with a seat reserved for me. I could now attend the Santa Clara event next week Friday merely by checking my ID against a list at the door.

I told my friends about this, and started thinking... there's really no way to tell that I'm not just some average guy, and not the co-founder of an Atheist / Skeptic organization. I put "none" both in the organization and the title blocks of the registration.

My friend Richard, co-founder of CVAAS, went that extra mile and registered under our organization's name.

But it was all for naught, I'm afraid. I've just received an email notifying me that the Santa Clara showing of "Expelled" has been canceled "due to technical issues". A quick peek at the Expelled RSVP site shows that Santa Clara has been removed from the list of screenings.

Ah well, I really didn't want to drive to the San Jose area, three hours away through bad traffic to see a movie which has been described by those I trust as 'deceitful' at best, and 'boring' at worst. Now I have an excuse to not go. I guess I'll wait for it to come out on DVD, then dig it out of the Wal-mart bargain bin. It should be there right next to "Battlefield Earth".

Hm. I wonder if the Santa Clara event was canceled because members of the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics were attending? I'd guess not - 'cause that would mean that we're more "mighty" than even the dreaded PZ Myers himself!

Friday in the atelier: “Young Girl with Bouquet" by Charles Joshua Chaplin

Today's artist, Charles Joshua Chaplin, has very little written about him that is easily available online. This makes him a mystery, and that is a shame considering the quality of his work.

I'm showing two images of Chaplin's work today, the first is called, "Young Girl with Bouquet". The painting is interesting because it seems to give a hint of Chaplin's life. The alternate title of this painting is, "Daughter of the Painter". I like this painting because it seems so real - it doesn't seem as if it were posed.

Charles Chaplin... an aside here. There is more than one painter named "Charles Chaplin", and as far as I know, the very famous comedian Charlie Chaplin was never a painter. Charles Joshua Chaplin (1825-1891) was born in Normandy, France. His father was English and his mother French, so Chaplin wasn't a French citizen. Nevertheless, he lived in France all his life, and was naturalized 5 years before his death.

From the best biography I could find of Chaplin, at the Antiques and Fine Art website:

Chaplin began is formal studies in 1840 at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts as a student of Michel-Martin Drolling [the younger] (1786-1851). Upon finishing his studies, he had developed into an accomplished painter, pastellist, etcher and lithographer. Charles debuted at the Salon of 1845 with a portrait of a young woman. This painting brought attention to Chaplin's ability to paint magical portraits of women and children and would crystallize his career making him one of Frances most famous painters.

Starting in 1847, Chaplin would become a regular exhibitor at the Paris Salons and at the Royal Academy in London. Besides his portraits of young women and children, he also exhibited landscapes and animal portraits.
...

Many of Chaplin's paintings are considered very erotic. He often painted very provocative portraits of women wearing transparent clothing. In fact, "Aurora" which he presented to the Salon jury of 1859 was refused as scandalous and the Count de Nieuwerkerke, superintendent of the fine arts under Napoleon III, imposed an exhibition prohibition for this painting. But Napoleon III would abolish this prohibition order.

Charles Chaplin became Paris' most popular fashion painter. He was also Napoleon and l'imperatrice Eugene's favorite court painters during the 1860's. Charles Chaplin was also a teacher at his own atelier, which was reserved for women only. His most noted students were Norwegian artist Marie Helene Aarestrup (1826-?), Louise Abbema (1858-1927) and Mary Cassatt (1855-1926).

Charles Chaplin was awarded medals at the Salons throughout the course of his career. In 1878, he was elected to Chevalier de la Legion d'honneur and he became an officer in the Legion 1881.

It's a tantalizing biography isn't it? His art is displayed in collections around the world, but as for biographies - they seem to be very sparse in quantity and detail. At least where I can get to them. Perhaps if I were a professional art collector I'd be able to find out much more.

Chaplin's art was considered to be erotic. I'm going to show one work that might be considered sensual today - "Girl with a Nest". This work just jumps out at me, again because it doesn't seem posed, but also because the tilt of her lips makes me think she's on the edge of laughter. It touches my heart and makes me feel both protective and eager to share her joy.

As always, click on the paintings to see them in full.

"Expelled" Graciously allows Dawkins to watch film, but boots PZ Myers

I've been reading about this since it started happening last night. I got a notice via my cell phone / computer that biologist PZ Myers, author of the Pharyngula blog, was refused entrance to a showing of "Expelled" at the Mall of America in Minnesota.

PZ Myers then live blogged his experience from the Mall's Apple store - where he then explained that his family and his guest were allowed in. Dr. Myer's guest was Dr. Richard Dawkins.

The sheer amount of stupid attached to this shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Analogies abound, but what this reminds me of the most is the way that Scientology tends to react to its detractors.


Just how sound are your so called "scientific" ideas when they have to be protected using tactics from L. Ron Hubbard's methods of operation?

(A very fanboy wave to Dawkin's lovely and talented wife, Lalla Ward, for the original photo. I have no idea if she's the one who added the LOLDAWKINS text. Click the photo to see it in full!)

Friday in the atelier: “After The Bath” by Mary Minifie

Today's “Friday in the atelier” is brought to you today in honor of two Internet gadflies - Ray Comfort and Theodore Beale (aka “Vox Day”).

First, my apologies to my readers. Usually atelier entries only deal with the normal politics and critics of the art world. Although I've mentioned pseudoscience in the art world, I've never directly related art to Secular topics. While I don't plan on making this a usual occurrence, I'll happily do so again in the future if there is sufficient reason.

If you want to skip ahead to the meat of today's atelier, you can do so by clicking here.

For those who don't know anything about Ray Comfort, he's a former street-preacher who's clawed his way up to the evangelical minor leagues – he transferred his soapbox from the street to his blog on the Information Highway. I've written about him before. (link1, link2, link3)

I dedicate today's atelier entry to Comfort due to his equating art with bathroom porn. In a recent blog posting Comfort said:

If you too enjoy gazing at the naked female form, you don’t have to go to New York to see similar works. You can find them scrawled on the walls of most public rest rooms.

Comfort wrote this little throw-away condescending comment at the end of a mini-biography of artist Gustav Klimt. The biography of course focused on Klimt's eroticism and decadence, and included a warped version of Klimt's “The Kiss” (as drawn by cartoonist Richard Gunther) that changed the artist's original meaning.

As for Vox Day – he's a misogynistic Christian Dominionist and libertarian who frequently touts his own superiority in the ultra conservative site Worldnetdaily and on his own blog. Normally I ignore this type of person, and categorize him with Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but he recently got my attention with a little rant about women in which he said (in part):

Women love education; it's the actual application they don't particularly like. Whereas the first thought of a woman who enjoys the idea of painting is to take an art appreciation class, a similarly interested man is more likely to just pick up a paintbrush and paint something – usually a naked woman.

So thank you Ray Comfort, for letting me know I should show (more) nude figures in my atelier series, and thank you Theodore Beale for pointing out my lack of female master artists in my Friday series. I think I'll start correcting both of those errors right now.



Today's artist is Mary Minifie, who paints in the tradition of the Boston School of Academic Art, which is in turn rooted in the 19 century French Academy. Minifie received her Bachelor of Arts from Wellesley College in 1973, where she studied studio art and art history. She received her Master of Fine Arts degree from the Boston University School of Fine Arts in 1976. She then spent ten years in Cairo, Egypt, Oxford, England, and Vienna, Austria, where she lived and worked and studied the works of other masters as she exhibited her own works.

After Minifie and her husband returned to the United States in 1985, she found that Paul Ingbretson's works inspired her, and sought out Ingbretson for private study in his atelier.

Ingbretson also painted in the tradition of the Boston School of Fine Arts, and he was trained in the atelier of R.H. Ives Gammell. Gammell was trained by William Paxton, who studied with Jean-Léon Gérôme.

Minifie studied with Ingbretson for nine years, learning the very exacting methods of the French Academy, until 1997. She had always been a serious painter with her own goals, but her husband's sudden death forced her support herself and her two children. She became a portrait painter, and her painting sessions became more intense, more goal focused, and more based upon a timetable.

Modern life for a painter is not like what was available for painters at the turn of the century. In today's world, it is difficult or impossible to find a patron that would allow an artist to follow their own pursuits. Minifie had to be successful. And in her atelier - a converted mill in Manchester, New Hampshire - she learned that she could continue to paint quality work at a pace that would support her and her family.

I'm showing two of Minifie's works today. The first is called “After The Bath”, painted in 2000. This painting demonstrates why artists, even female artists, paint the female nude form. It isn't because it's pornography, it is because it requires a great deal of skill to create the naturally pleasing graceful lines and skin tones that attract the human eye. Nude figures are to the art world what the Olympics are to the sports world.

Take some time to walk around a big city and study the architecture. Architecture is one of the traditional “Fine Arts”, which – like painting and like dance – is best represented with smooth, flowing and graceful lines. An artist can create a series of graceful lines that causes a person's eye to follow, from one line to the next, to wherever the artist wishes it to go. This directing of the eye develops interest, and your eye will follow one line to the next and then the next. This is why nudes are so often painted gracefully, carefully drawing your eye through the painting.

Although the lines themselves require a great deal of skill and accuracy, skin – painted realistically – is a huge challenge for any artist. Skin has depth to it, it reflects its surroundings, and it is something that we humans understand so instinctively that we notice when there is even a faint imperfection. (This is a reason why makeup is so popular – to blend out the imperfections!)

In “After the Bath”, Minifie draws your eye up the model's arm to her face, you follow her eyes to her hand, and then follow her leg upwards again – the movement of your eye around the painting is what captures your interest. I did not crop this work as I usually do, but it is reduced in size. Click on it to see it larger from the Art Renewal Center.

I also wanted to show a charcoal drawing from Minifie. The drawing is titled, “Ray”, and it shows the artist's technical skills. Realistic figure drawing is an exacting skill that impressionistic or abstract artists don't have to worry about as much. This ability to be precisely exact is very important because humans are wired through evolution to immediately recognize subtle details (and imperfections!) in the faces and bodies of others. You don't have to be trained as an art critic to see when a figure drawing is poorly executed – you don't need training when the visual “hardware” that does this automatically is in everyone.

But our minds don't store exact representations of what we see – instead our memories hold “shortcuts” that indicate greater detail. This is why an amateur artist draws coffee cup handles instead of ears – because our memories are getting in the way of our visual processing.

This is one reason why artists like Minifie spend a lifetime learning how to draw and paint realistically. And of course artists learn about human psychology, and how to draw the eye in a subtle fashion around the painting.

Go check out Minifie's web site, or you can check her work at the Vose Galleries of Boston.

Friday in the atelier: “Shelter for the Heart” by Steve Hanks

There is something about New Mexico that attracts artists. Maybe it is the cost of living, or perhaps its because it is a beautiful land in its contrasts – from painted mesas and flat no-man's lands to snowy mountains. When the song “America the Beautiful” speaks of “purple mountain's majesties” I always think of Sierra Blanka, or of Capitan as seen from Roswell.

Steve Hanks resides in New Mexico – and although his first relocation from California was as an unwilling teenager, he went back there later in his life for his art.

Today I'm presenting two works from this living master, who has become a master in an unusual medium for painting – Steve Hanks paints his pieces in watercolors. And since he has his own Internet presence I'll be brief in describing him, instead directing my readers to the bio and news articles on his own website.

Steve Hanks' paintings are realistic and romantic, and are very much in the spirit of past oil painting masters using what seems to be Academic techniques mixed with modern subjects and poses - all in watercolor. Although Hanks is proficient in oils, he avoids them due to an allergic reaction. He's developed his own style in watercolor that results in paintings that lack the washed-out, “unfinished” look that watercolors often have. Instead, his paintings look as tightly detailed, as exact as any oil painting – with transparent colors layered upon each other to create depth and complexity.

The paintings I'm showing today are cropped details of the originals. As aways, click on the image to see the entire painting in full from the Art Renewal Center.

My readers know I have a fondness for figure painting, and yes I'm attracted to the female figure. Steve Hanks paints female nudes, and I have to tell you he is a wonderful at it – bringing a depth that is rarely seen.

But he paints other subjects too, and I've got to say that he captures children in a way that shows them at their best, and shows them as they are too – individuals in their own right. Too often when artists paint children it is as a prop to the main subject – but the children in Hanks' paintings have depth to them.

The first I'm showing is called, “Shelter for the Heart”. I love “big sister, little sister” aspect to this painting, where the big sister seems to be displaying what she will be like as a future adult – but she's still young enough to show her wonder at the falling rain. Click on the image and check out their galoshes! And then notice just how much detail, finely perfect detail is in this painting, and tell yourself that it's “only” a watercolor!

The second painting I'm showing is called, “A World for our Children”. The painting is carefree and open, but the title hints at Steve Hanks' values of social responsibility. He went to college in Oakland California during the more explosive times of the late sixties, and his exposure to social justice is evident in his attitude and his paintings. Bob Dylan's music and social commentary still influence Hanks even today, and Hanks has learned to be subtle in how he presents this to his viewers. A viewer who first sees “A World for our Children” can't help but feel happy, young and carefree again. It is only after noticing the title that the viewer's attention is brought to the question of what sort of world are we leaving for our children?

This is the other aspect of Hank's abilities... he makes you think. And that's a good thing.

You can see Steve Hanks work through his page on the Art Renewal Center, or from his page on the E.S. Lawrence gallery. You can also visit Steve Hanks' personal website, read his biography, and see what he's working on now.

Go take a look... you won't be disappointed.

The "Rational" Terminator

I want to take a moment away from all the other stuff that's going on with CVAAS and Skeptical and Secular activism to make a quick observation about something that's purely fantasy - the Terminator franchise.

As a hard-core Science Fiction junkie I've watched all the Terminator movies - I save up episodes of the Sara Conner Chronicles and watch them in bursts - when I have a little time. I've been keeping up with the Terminator Alternate Reality Game.

But one thing keeps bugging me about the whole time travel aspect.

Forget that Time Travel isn't real, and that the best of physicists point out that there is little chance that humans will ever experience it. Forget that Terminators have to be wrapped in meat or "mimetic polyalloy" in order to successfully time travel.

The point is that these thinking machines CAN time travel, and they're missing their best bet - von Neumann machines.

Forget 2008, or even 1988 - instead the winning game strategy for these game-playing machines is to carpet-bomb resource rich areas around the planet with self-replicating, self-contained micro-factories - in one million BC.

In a couple of hundred years the machines from the future could transform the planet into wall-to-wall metal and concrete - completely displacing the niches of any annoyingly intelligent future animals.

And even if there is time travel restrictions that prevent machines from being sent back earlier than 1998, von Neumann machines - especially in nanomachine sizes - is still the winning game strategy. Drop them into resource rich areas with the instruction to burrow underground and multiply until they get to the point where world conquest becomes simple.

For efficient self-replicating factories this should only take a couple of years - and might only take months.

It might seem silly to apply rational thought to movies, but I do it all the time. I'm quite willing to suspend my disbelief and enjoy the show - even in the face of egregious science fallacies or flaws as long as the movie takes pains to point out which areas we will agree to ignore.

Flying people - fine. Spaceships that intercept threatening meteors - fine.

But if Superman picks up an office building, it should crumble to bits - not stay in one piece. Spaceships shouldn't make noises in space (and they really shouldn't bank when they turn either). And an explosive charge on the surface of a threatening meteor should make a bunch of smaller threatening meteors from gravel size up to house size.

I do pick at movies while I'm watching them, and still enjoy the movie. But sometimes the discrepancies are just too jarring and I fall completely out of my state of suspended disbelief. That's a mark of a bad movie.

Calladus on Skepticality!

I'm appearing in today's issue of the Skepticality podcast (Skepticality issue #72). I had the pleasure and honor of talking with fellow geek Derek Colanduno, who interviewed me for Skepticality.

For those of you unfamiliar with Skepticality, it is the official podcast of Skeptic Magazine, so the hosts of Skepticality work together with Michael Shermer. My interview served to announce the upcoming debate between Shermer and D'Souza, hosted by the New Covenant Community Church and to plug the Central Valley Alliance of Atheists and Skeptics.

Others mentioned in this podcast are CVAAS co-founder Richard, who has been gracious in developing the CVAAS website and is perhaps even more involved with CVAAS than I am; and Scott Hatfield, writer of the blog Monkey Trials and all around defender of science and evolution.

For those of you who have found your way to my blog through the Skepticality podcast – if you want a skeptical taste of what I write I recommend my entry titled, “Testing the counterfeit money detector pen by DriMark". James Randi has said in the past that these sorts of pens can be fooled with spray-on starch – well, being a Skeptic I didn't take even the Amazing Randi at his word, and instead I tested his assertion. The article that resulted from that test has been extremely popular.

Mere Atheism

There's an old joke about an American who is visiting Ireland. The gentleman stops off for a pint in a local pub, and as he's taking his first sip one of the other patrons strikes up a conversation. During that conversation he asks the American if he is a Catholic or a Protestant.

The American answered, “Neither. I'm an Atheist.”

“I see,” replied the Irishman. “Well then, are ya a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?"

This is part two of my two-part investigation of former Atheists. In part one I claim that Christians who use the label of "former Atheist" in reality never gave much thought to Atheism, and instead have used their past Atheism as part of their Christian Credentials in order to claim greater authority.

In part two, I'll examine several famous ex-Atheists. Unlike Christians, I don't claim these people were never "True" Atheists - I just don't think they gave Atheism or any form of Secular moral philosophy much serious thought.


In Lee Strobel's book “The Case for Christ” Strobel writes about his Atheism:

For much of my life I was a skeptic. In fact, I considered myself an atheist. To me, there was far too much evidence that God was merely a product of wishful thinking, of ancient mythology, of primitive superstition. How could there be a loving God if he consigned people to hell just for not believing in him? How could miracles contravene the basic laws of nature? Didn't evolution satisfactorily explain how life originated? Doesn't scientific reasoning dispel belief in the supernatural?

But that's all I had ever really given the evidence: a cursory look. I had read just enough philosophy and history to find support for my skepticism – a fact here, a scientific theory there, a pithy quote a clever argument. Sure I could see some gaps and inconsistencies, but I had a strong motivation to ignore them: a self-serving and immoral lifestyle that I would be compelled to abandon if I were ever to change my views and become a follower of Jesus.

Strobel makes many errors in “The Case for Christ” but the most glaring errors are his failure to investigate Secular moral philosophy, the equating his love of an immoral lifestyle with Atheism, and believing that his one sided interviews of several Christian experts proved his point in a manner supposedly equivalent to the way that lawyers prove a case in a court of law.

Strobel interviewed strong witnesses to Christian Apologetics – but opposing witnesses and rebuttal witnesses are ignored completely. Is this his idea of a fair trial? Strobel also ignored the fact that other religions have their own Apologetics, and so the reader is never treated to Strobel's “Case for Mohamed”, or perhaps “The Case for Judaism”. I believe that if he had used the same flawed methods Strobel might have found the case for Islam to be just as compelling as his case for Christianity. These points alone demonstrate that Strobel never actually gave much thought to the Atheism he supposedly espoused.

In my last post on this topic I showed a chart that defined the differences between implicit and explicit Atheism – I'll reproduce it here. Strobel's version of Atheism is firmly implicit, even though he might claim it to be explicit. It wasn't that he didn't think about Atheism, he did give it some thought. But he seems to have come to the conclusion that people always claim Atheism out of immorality. If he had bothered to seriously interview anyone who understands Secular philosophy based upon empathy and sympathy for others he might have changed his mind.

Strobel used Atheism as an excuse for an immoral lifestyle and he framed the question of religion as an either-or proposition - “Either Christianity is true, or nothing is true” in a classic Pascal's Wager fallacy. So was Strobel an Atheist? Sure – for a sufficiently wide definition of Atheist. He never saw the need to put much thought into his pre-Christian position.


Strobel borrowed a Christian apologetic argument from the popular writer C. S. Lewis. In the chapter called, “The Psychological Evidence” Strobel asked if Jesus is sane and rational – a restatement of Lewis' “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” argument from Lewis' book “Mere Christianity”.

In “Mere Christianity” Lewis also clams status as a past Atheist. He doesn't speak of his own salvation story in this book, but he makes several references to his godlessness. (Lewis gives his personal testimony in his autobiography, “Surprised by Joy”.)

In Book II of “Mere Christianity” Lewis starts out with this statement:

I have been asked to tell you what Christians believe, and I am going to begin by telling you one thing that Christians do not need to believe. If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth.

Lewis makes a mistake that anyone who has ever studied comparative religions easily recognizes. Yes, various religions seem to “hint of the truth” but that is not because they've all seen the “Truth” of Christianity through a distorting lens, it is because they all are invented by humans, and humans tell stories that are related to human experience and to the human condition. After a study of religions that predate Christ it becomes easy to count the similarities, to identify stories in the Bible have earlier equivalents. Humans love stories, and they love heroic legends whether the hero wears a red cape and a big red “S” or if they're dressed in a tunic and sandals while performing their miracles.

Lewis is the first to state the Trilemma, “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” - but he leaves out the possibility that Jesus was merely a “Legend” - someone of which stories were told and embellished.

In my opinion Lewis' biggest mistake in “Mere Christianity” is that he attempts to dismiss the serious doctrinal differences between the various “flavors” of Christianity. Catholic versus Protestant, Reformed versus Traditional, sect against sect. Lewis conveniently forgets that wars have been fought over doctrinal differences. Many Christian religions actively proselytize to members of other Christian congregations in an effort to sway them from a perceived false faith and in an effort to bring them to the “real” truth. From the viewpoint of a studious Atheist, attempting to gather Christian groups who oppose each other, sometimes violently, under one roof is a serious flaw in Christian Apologetics.

Was C. S. Lewis an Atheist? Implicitly yes – but in reading “Mere Christianity” it becomes clear that he was never explicitly Atheist – he never gave any thought to Secular philosophy or serious consideration that other opposing religions or Christian sects might have equal validity.


What about other famous former Atheists, such as Josh McDowell and Ray Comfort? I've been confronted by acquaintances who who claim their conversions are a blow to Atheism. But when I did some digging, I found out that neither of these people were ever Atheist.


Popular Christian author Josh McDowell was an agnostic who once claimed that Christ wasn't divine, but had no problem believing in a deistic God. In his book “More than a Carpenter” McDowell uses the “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” fallacy from C.S. Lewis, and he completely misses the point in his brief study of comparative religions in the chapter “Will the Real Messiah please stand up?” He either ignores or hand-waves away Biblical contradictions, which is understandable – his degree from Talbot Seminary is based upon a requirement of Biblical literalism.

McDowell's own words show that he was not even atheistic, and his arguments based upon a predetermined conclusion show a dishonesty that Atheists are wise to note.


In Ray Comfort's Christian testimony he said that although he thought the religion of Christianity was “boring”, he had no problem believing in God. Transcribed from his audio testimony:

“I thought a Christian was someone who believed in God, that's all. And I thought if someone had said “Are you a Christian?” and I would have said, “Sure”. Because I said prayers at night, I believed in God – I wasn't a fool. If there's a creation, there must be a Creator, if things are made there must be a Maker.”

Comfort's arguments against Atheism certainly don't come from personal knowledge. His version of Christianity also dishonestly predetermines a conclusion – that of Creationism.


What about other famous former Atheists? Ray Comfort's partner, Kirk Cameron, claims past Atheism. According to his interview in Today's Christian:

Although he had only been to church once or twice in his life, the young man had seen hypocrisy and self-righteousness among those who believed in God—so much so that Cameron began to consider himself a "devout atheist."

"As far as I was concerned, thinking people didn't believe in fairy tales," he remembers telling himself. When asked in interviews about God, the teenager would respond: "There's no God. You can't prove that there's a God. Absolutely not. You guys are performing your own lobotomy in order to believe this kind of stuff."

Cameron makes two very revealing statements in this interview. First:

Cameron, 32, says he viewed the world as though he were the center of it and began expecting things to be done for him—because they were. "Anything I wanted was given to me. That was what I expected because that was my reality."

And second:

Cameron likens that time in his life to biting into a chocolate bunny on Easter and realizing that it's hollow. "There was this aching, empty feeling that left me very disillusioned with the business I was working in," he says. "What else was there? What else did I have to shoot for? I'd basically reached the top of the ladder, and I was 18."

Kirk Cameron's life before Christianity was that of a spoiled brat. He had no moral foundations on which to build – so of course this must be the fault of Atheism, and not a lack of character or good upbringing. How different his life might have been if he had found a strong moral Atheist role model, or if he had learned a Secular philosophy based upon empathy and sympathy for others. If he had instead been invited to a Secular Humanism function instead of a Christian service, Cameron might still have turned his meaningless life around, but in a Secular direction.

Kirk was firmly, implicitly atheistic – and never explicitly Atheist. This really doesn't surprise me because from the debate he participated in against the Rational Response Squad, it is easy to see that he doesn't put much thought into anything.


Implicit Atheism seems to be the general trend for those Christians who claim past Atheism as part of their credentials. But in every case I've examined so far, the form of Atheism they claim seems to be the a version that doesn't include ethics or a positive Secular moral philosophy.

I'm not saying that these people were milquetoast Atheists – some like born again Christian William J. Murray, son of famous Atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair grew up vehemently denying God in an explicit version of “strong Atheism”. But in every case, even William Murray's, they lacked any foundation in Secular moral philosophy. The lacked an upbringing or training in methods of answering ethical questions from a compassionate, empathic, sympathetic Secular point of view. These people used Atheism as an excuse to be bad, not as a position of reason or logic.

Were these people Atheists? Sure, for a sufficiently wide definition of Atheism. But these people weren't Atheists due to logic, reason or understanding. They were merely atheistic for wholly selfish reasons.

Mere Atheists.