Thanks for having me today.

Im here today to talk about atheism and my thoughts concerning

the question Does God exist? Individual topics Ill mention in my presentation could be entire
speeches on their own I wont give an exhaustive treatment to all of my sub-topics, but instead
will give a brief overview of several items I am interested in discussing. Ill take questions and
explain more in the question and answer session following my presentation.
First, Id like to tell you relevant information about myself as it relates to my presentation. I was
raised in a religious Roman Catholic household and attended religious C.C.D (Catholic
Childhood Development) classes from kindergarten through high school in addition to my public
school education. I went to church quite regularly with my father and received Roman Catholic
sacraments from baptism to confirmation.
I dont recall questioning the religious belief I was raised with until later years of high school
when I was challenged by some friends and eventually during my undergraduate education at
Kings College in Wilkes-Barre. Philosophy classes and presentations I attended led me to deeply
question my religious beliefs and ask myself whether there was good reason to maintain my
religious beliefs. College was a great opportunity to question my own beliefs, even those outside
of religion, as I was exposed to many new ideas and encouraged to think critically. Attending a
Catholic college, too, allowed for many discussions about religious belief as there were Bible
discussion groups, religious speakers, and a campus ministry office which held several events I
attended.
Eventually, as you might guess, I found that the answer to are my religious beliefs justified?
was no and declared myself an atheist not only keeping this a private matter, but rather going
public by joining and becoming an active member of a community organization I would later
become the spokesperson and organizer of the Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society
having conversations about religion, actively writing on a blog, hosting a podcast, participating
in public debates/discussions, and challenging several instances of government entanglement
with religion.
I first came into the public spotlight when I challenged a nativity scene prominently placed on
the lawn of the Luzerne County Courthouse in 2009 arguing for a more inclusive display and less
focus on religion in government. I protested a school voucher rally in Harrisburg and was
rebuked by a government official told to go back to my community of privilege. I worked
alongside an organization, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group whose focus is
opposing violations of separation of church and state and educating the public about non-theism,
to get God Bless America removed from Lackawanna County buses. I participated in a lawsuit
to overturn legislation declaring 2012 The Year of the Bible in Pennsylvania. I placed several
banners, also with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, in response to religious events and
symbols on government property. I protested rallies and events including a National Day of
Prayer rally calling for more government involvement with religion. I challenged prayer at
Wilkes-Barre city council meetings and offered a secular invocation of my own.
As one atheist, I can't claim to speak for everyone I can only speak about my personal
perspective. Knowing that a person is an atheist tells you only one thing about that person that
he or she lacks a belief in any gods this is no guarantee of critical thinking skills or anything

else like political affiliation, stance on particular social/political issues, or philosophical

positions. The atheist, or most atheists according to my experience, does not say for certain that
no gods exist or even make a positive claim that no gods exist, but rather just simply doesnt
believe any gods exist likely because they dont find good reason to believe. Maybe an atheist
was raised in a non-religious household and wasnt brought into religious belief by their
caretakers or people in their community, but many atheists, like me, have a religious background.
The atheist has simply not been persuaded by arguments and reasons for religious belief
provided by religious individuals. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the most well-known public
atheists today, puts himself as a six of seven on his seven point scale of religious belief in which
seven is absolute certainty that god does not exist very low probability but short of zero. What,
though, do atheists believe?
Personally, one of my main motivations in life, how I find meaning in life (Ill get to more about
this later), is pursuing knowledge and learning through study, conversation, and challenging
myself. I enjoy facing challenges, overcoming adversity, finding answers to questions, thinking
about complicated topics, and learning new information. Im curious I ask questions, challenge
information that is often taken for granted, and examine that which Im confused about. Im
interested in discussion about all kinds of issues.
From my experience, there seems to be a lack of thoughtful discussion about matters of religious
belief in our society. People perhaps avoid conversation because they want to preserve harmony
or what some call 'respect beliefs.' Some view disagreement as disrespect. Some even think that
disagreeing with people's religious belief in whatever manner or even providing counterarguments to religious belief is intolerant. Perhaps because people closely identify with their
religious beliefs and cherish their religious traditions, they view people who openly question
religion in a negative light and view such challenges as disrespectful confusing questioning
ideas or challenging ideas with attacks on a person.
I believe that people should be concerned with holding belief that is both true (corresponding
with reality) and justified (having good reason/argument). The Bible even, in some points,
specifically in 1 Peter 3:15, instructs people to, if asked, give the reason for the belief in your
heart to prepare a defense and do so with gentleness and respect. As an atheist, I am very
much in favor of this attitude. Discussions and disagreement can and should be had in a
respectful manner discussing ideas vigorously rather than attacking people. In challenging our
beliefs, especially our cherished beliefs, we can only learn and progress. If it is the case that
arguments can serve to lead us away from particular beliefs, we are better for that for having
beliefs which are justified and true should be a primary concern in our intellectual lives and
much more important than possible temporary discomfort.
Some think there is no such thing as truth, truth varies from person to person, or that holding
truth is impossible. Some believe that it is just fine to believe something because a belief makes
one feel good, because a belief is held by many people, because a belief is handed down through
a respected tradition, or even solely because of faith steadfast belief without evidence,
sometimes contrary to evidence. I believe that we, even though we may be limited with our
current state of limited knowledge, can talk about truth and collectively work toward reaching it.

A misconception atheists face is that we are closed-minded unwilling to change beliefs and
unwilling to engage with arguments from religious believers. I am willing to change any and all
of my beliefs provided good enough reason and argument is presented. I seek to find lapses in
my own reasoning and reasoning presented by others should something seem suspicious. If a
convincing argument for any gods or the Christian god comes forth, I will be better for
encountering that because I will have more justified true beliefs and fewer false unjustified
beliefs.
Even if we happen to not change our minds on issues, we're also, I would think, generally better
off for encountering people with whom we disagree provided something is learned. Justified true
beliefs, after all, should be able to withstand objections.
Sometimes religious believers, rather than giving reasons for belief in god, say that its just
simply wiser to believe God exists because the risk of not believing is just too big (punishment in
Hell for eternity or separation from God for eternity) while the believer has nothing to lose
through believing God exists and everything to gain. This formulation is better known as Pascals
Wager. Believing something is true, though, shouldnt be based on rewards and consequences of
belief that doesnt seem at all genuine to me and certainly isnt based on good reasoning.
Wouldnt God know if people believed just because they didnt want to go to Hell? Should this
sort of belief be rewarded or even desirable? I think not. Anyway, why privilege the Christian
god? What about thousands of other gods and religious traditions? Surely the Christian, for
instance, isnt worried about the consequences of disbelief in regards to other proposed gods.
Why be so public about my atheism and openly challenge religious beliefs? Am I strident or
militant for doing so as some perceive? We cannot doubt that our beliefs inform our actions and
some of our actions have the ability to harm others we live in societies in which our actions can
have impact on others. Of course not all religious beliefs or beliefs derived from religion are
harmful, but many can be.
Religious belief leads parents to refuse medical treatment for their children leading children to
die rather than receive simple vaccinations or medicines. Religious belief inspires a great deal of
divisiveness leading to violence, shunning, and discrimination. Atheists fear that going public
about their thoughts on religion -- especially in highly religious areas like the American South,
the Bible belt -- may lead to job termination, financial distress, political suicide in that people
would not vote for an atheist, and suspicion. Religious people, too, will not trust individuals of a
different religious worldview and even isolate themselves from entire communities of other
religious people. Some religious people believe, for instance, that atheists lack morality or
otherwise have no reason to be good people likely because these religious individuals think
that morality comes from religion and without religion people are simply without a moral
compass.
Thinking about complicated moral questions often seems difficult. Should we focus on the needs
and wants of society at large rather than needs and wants of specific groups of people? Should
we focus primarily on the consequences of implementing certain actions or policies rather than
the process do the ends justify the means? Should morality be something of universal
consideration or should certain practices vary from culture to culture? Although we can face

difficulty in considering ethical dilemmas or determining right and wrong, I think most people
even though, of course, there are people who take advantage of others or break just laws have a
general sense of right and wrong which is a product of cultural influence, self-reflection, and an
understanding that other humans have similar wants and needs. After all, we humans are social
animals beings that work together in social situations, cooperate in a larger society, and benefit
from interaction with others. Through cooperation, rather than violence and war, we realize that
by working together we can improve ourselves, the world around us, and make a lasting impact.
Why, as an atheist, should I be a good, ethical person treating others with kindness and respect? I
would imagine that religious individuals would provide similar answers although there may be
some differences in opinion about the source of morality. Perhaps we want to treat others with
kindness and respect because this is the way we want others to treat us we want to model the
behavior we want to see in others. Perhaps we take personal pleasure in treating others well and
would be wracked with guilt, rightly so, should we treat others poorly a blend of a selfinterested motivation and a yearning to treat others well. Perhaps we feel an inner obligation to
help others because we have the resources and time to do so.
Personally, I tend to lean toward what is referred to as virtue ethics an ethical framework by
which we aspire to make decisions and live our lives based on certain values we hold dear rather
than referring to duties or rules. Act how the virtuous person would act in a situation says the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in its article on virtue ethics. Virtues such as tolerance,
compassion, humility, fairness, kindness, loyalty, moderation, and many others guide by day-today life.
Indeed, there is some good within religion. Religion can provide some good ideas about
morality, advice about how to live life, and even good social networks and community services.
People are often inspired by religious beliefs to do good in the world. However, all of the good
that comes from religion, I would maintain, can be had without religion. Religion, too, as I
mentioned, can warp moral priorities and lead to harm.
Another misconception about atheists is that they are uninspired individuals who find no
meaning in life. This misconception likely comes from the religious conclusion that without God,
life is pointless because the purpose of life on earth is to serve god and fulfill some divine,
externally imposed will. While it might be the case that some atheists maintain that life itself or
the world itself is without meaning, many atheists, find meaning in life through a process of selfcreation - determining what in this life makes it worth living what motivates, what leads one to
wake up in the morning, what breaks the monotony of the usual day-to-day grind, what is a
valuable use of time, and what is worth our efforts.
For the atheist, finding meaning in life comes with a great deal of freedom. Although some
both religious and non-religious may encounter pressure from society-at-large and from
specific individuals about what is meaningful or which goals should be pursued, individuals can
ultimately decide for themselves how they can find meaning in life and what they should strive
for. Rather than saying meaning is simply what God or a religious tradition declares or desires,
the atheist can determine his or her own meaning and live life accordingly.

A common question I get is What if youre wrong about God? What if you die and go to Heaven
to see God only to be denied eternal paradise. What would you say? I would respond similarly
to the philosopher Bertrand Russell and say, Not enough evidence God, not enough evidence.
Should I be punished for eternity or denied an eternal paradise simply because I lacked belief in
a god, using the brain that I was born with to arrive at a conclusion that I found no good reason
to hold religious belief? Could an all-loving being really punish someone for being thoughtful
and honest? I just havent found good reasons to believe God exists.
With that, Id like to move on to a new topic that I was asked to address the question of Does
God exist? As I mentioned, an atheist is simply one who lacks belief in any gods. I am an atheist
because I find no good reason to believe any gods exist. I have not been persuaded by arguments
put forth by religious believers. In fact, I find the arguments to be severely lacking many of
them not even pointing to a specific god or leading one to a specific religious tradition. It is a
wide gap, for instance, between the assertion that the universe was created by a supernatural
being to Jesus died on the cross for our sins; God disapproves of same-sex marriage; and God is
both the father, son, and holy spirit who is an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good being who
is a disembodied mind outside of space and time who created the universe just for us.
I find that many reasons people give for believing in gods are based on a lack of understanding
about the world that people often, rather than simply saying I do not know, jump from this
seems complex and I do not understand it to God must be responsible what philosopher Dr.
David Kyle Johnson calls the mystery therefore magic fallacy. Indeed, there are many things
about this world we do not fully understand.
Just because we dont understand something or have an answer to why or how something works
does not mean that we should jump to the conclusion that God exists. After all, throughout
human history, there were many phenomena we did not understand including earthquakes,
diseases, lightning, and mental illnesses. While there are still gaps in our understanding, we now
understand much more about the world than we did in past generations we no longer believe
that earthquakes, for instance, are punishments from God. We have understanding about tectonic
plates and can predict when earthquakes are likely to occur through using machines and making
observations there is simply no need to invoke god to explain this.
Perhaps in time we will know much more about phenomena which currently puzzle us such as
the nature of consciousness, the origin of the universe, and quantum events and later have
answers to questions which currently lead some to believe God exists. As human knowledge
increases, though, it seems that gods are often only present in the gaps of understanding; over
time explanations involving god fall by the wayside. Rather than assuming God is responsible in
the gaps of our knowledge, I find the more fitting explanation to be I dont know. Simply
because one has no explanation for something does not mean that one is justified in believing
God exists.
Concerning the creation or existence of the universe, religious individuals argue that since
everything we know exists has a cause, the universe itself must have a cause. This line of
argumentation usually appears in cosmological arguments or arguments from contingency. They
say that this cause must be an uncaused cause - a personal god outside of time and space lest

there be an infinite chain of causation which religious individuals would also argue is impossible.
Religious individuals will point to buildings, human inventions, and much more to give
examples of that which we know has and needs a cause.
The problem with this reasoning, though, is that while we have experience with buildings having
builders and can understand the process by which buildings are built, we dont have experience
with the process of the universe beginning to exist or coming into existence. We cant justly
reason from one area of life in which we have experience and understand to another area of life
in which we dont have experience and dont understand. Perhaps the principles we apply to our
everyday lives here on earth simply dont apply to the realms of the really, really large
universes and the really, really small quantum events. Perhaps the universe itself doesnt have a
cause in the same way we see a building needing a cause or explanation for its existence.
Personally, if asked questions about the universe and areas in which I dont understand, Ill say I
dont know rather than assuming a god caused the universe to exist. Either way, even if the
universe has a cause or was created, I dont find this to point to any specific god or creator.
Some religious believers will pose what they call fine-tuning arguments pointing to certain
constants in the universe such as gravity, expansion of the universe, and electromagnetic forces
arguing that if certain rates or constants were changed ever so slightly life as we know it would
not exist. Such fine-tuning, they say, points to intelligent design and more precisely a creator
god. This argument, though, fails to properly account for randomness and understand probability.
Sure, one particular assortment of particles in the universe that allows for life to exist is
extraordinarily rare considering all possible configurations. However, given enough time and
chances of situations which can be life-permitting, life existing somewhere in the universe at
some time given how big the universe is doesnt seem so rare at all.
Its possible too that life can exist in other states than that which we intimately know. Surely our
carbon-based life and physical constants here on this side of this galaxy cant be the only
possible life-permitting configuration. How can we possibly definitively say its the only
possible one? Chance, rather than God, is a better explanation for why the universe is the way it
is. Another problem with the fine-tuning argument, too, like cosmological and contingency
arguments, is that it doesnt lead to a specific creator. Its a big jump from the universe is finely
tuned for existence to The Christian god is responsible.
Next, some religious individuals will appeal to religious experiences as a means to justify their
religious belief because some seemingly extraordinary circumstances happened in their lives
they believe God exists. For instance, a mother may say that her son was diagnosed with a
terminal illness and was given six months to live, but because her son lived past the six months
God must have intervened and performed a miracle. Maybe a person attributes divine
intervention to her recovery from alcohol or drug abuse. Maybe a person claims to have received
a vision in which God appeared and offered some advice.
One problem with such stories about religious experiences is that people around the world of
different religious traditions tell similar stories yet come to different conclusions about religious
beliefs. The Christian and the Hindu, of course, cant both be right in that Jesus and Shiva
intervened to save them from death, but they could both be wrong. Additionally, religious

experiences can very often be better explained by other means which do not include supernatural
explanations. Diseases go into remission. Doctors can be mistaken about diagnoses. People
recover from drug abuse through a good deal of personal effort, changing behaviors, counseling,
and social support. Even if we lack an explanation, as I explained previously, we should not
jump to conclusions about God existing and instead should more humbly say I dont know.
I find that the most powerful objection to belief in God lies in what is known as the problem of
evil or the problem of natural suffering. The evidence of such an egregious amount of suffering
in nature is incompatible with the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good god.
This is introduced quite well in dialogue from the movie The Masque of the Red Death
starring actor Vincent Price who says, Can you look around this world and believe in the
goodness of a god who rules it? Famine, pestilence, war, disease, and death they rule this
world. If a god of love and life ever did exist he is long since dead. The ancient philosopher
Epicurus also said, Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he
able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from where did
evil come? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Should we expect so much suffering which occurs through natural causes if a god or love and life
created the universe? Would we expect a predatory food chain in which animals are devoured by
other animals as a means of sustenance? Would we expect stillbirths, infants dying shortly after
birth due to particular diseases, people being born with chronic illnesses which make life
incredibly difficult? Would we expect tsunamis which ravage humans and devastate populations
of animals?
In response to the problem of natural suffering, religious individuals have offered several
responses which I find incredibly inadequate. Perhaps God didnt intend suffering, some say, but
because of human disobedience or sin the world is of a fallen nature. I find it difficult to believe
that God would change the laws of physics and the structure of the earth so that natural disasters
and diseases would exist would such a loving being allow or introduce calamity in the world
because of human action? Punish future generations of people because of the actions of few?
Introduce a predatory food chain in nature because of human behavior?
Perhaps God has some unknown mysterious reasons for allowing such natural suffering? Maybe
God has some sort of cosmic plan in which he allows suffering for a higher purpose we just cant
understand? For all we know, the religious can say, the 2010 earthquake in Haiti which killed
about 100,000 people can seem horrible to us, but its actually not so bad because its part of
Gods plan and since God is good, there must be some really good reason for allowing such
devastation but we just dont understand the mind of God. I would think, though, that an allpowerful and all-knowing God can achieve some significant ends to a cosmic plan without such
grievous suffering here on Earth.
If a human had the ability to end gratuitous natural suffering by putting an end to a deadly
disease or preventing a natural disaster and could do so with ease yet she opted to just stand by
and do nothing, we would rightly be outraged and would not accept a response from the person
such as, Well, I could stop this, but Im not going to or There may be good reasons for
suffering to continue, but you just cant understand the reasons I have for letting it continue. We

would start to question the moral character of this person and rightly come to the conclusion that
she was not good-hearted even if we had previous assumptions that she was morally upstanding.
Why, then, if we would consider the person in this scenario to be of problematic moral character
would we not think the same about a supposed God? Shouldnt we, instead of saying God may
have a reason for permitting natural suffering, reconsider the all-knowing, all-powerful, and allloving nature of God? Shouldnt we have higher standards for God expecting more of such a
being, expecting not to live in a world with so much natural calamity which could easily be done
away with by an all-powerful and all-knowing being?
Some argue that without hardship and challenge humans wouldnt feel compassion, grow, or live
a fulfilled life. Humans, though, can face hardship and challenge without such grievous suffering
in life we dont need earthquakes, deadly diseases, and the like to be fulfilled individuals. In
fact, such natural suffering takes life away from individuals who otherwise could use their time
here on earth to help others.
Thanks for your attention. Id like to move on to the question and answer period.