Is Atheism Just Another Belief?

Library: Modern: Temy R. Beal: Is Atheism Just Another Belief? (1996)

Read more about atheism here.

[This speech was originally delivered before the Alabama Freethought Association
at Lake Hypatia, Talladega, AL on September 8, 1996.]
Let me tell you a story. When I was 17 years old, one night I went into my room
and went to bed. Shortly, there appeared from out of nowhere, just a few steps
from my bed, a feminine, angelic being. Though I couldn't make out any specific
facial features, I simply "knew" she was female. She hovered about a foot off
the floor and her whole body radiated a soft white glow, as though she were a GE
soft white light bulb. She wore long white gossamer robes which had the same
glow, and which fluttered as though a stiff breeze were blowing. I was a bit
startled but my surprise and curiosity overcame any fear. She told me to come
over to her and I got out of bed and walked over to where she was hovering. When
I turned around and faced the bed I was alarmed to see my body still lying
there, and yet I was over here too and had another body. She assured me it was
all right and I was not to worry, so I didn't worry any more about it. She said
she wanted to show me something and took my hand in hers. Her hand was small and
soft but strong. She said I was to come with her and she began slowly ascending
toward the ceiling. I balked at that thinking I couldn't go through a ceiling.
She continued and I looked down at my feet and was amazed to see that they were
no longer touching the floor.
She smiled and I felt the smile in my mind. It suddenly occurred to me that she
had never actually spoken in the usual way, but she was communicating with me
telepathically. When she wanted to say something to me, she simply thought it
and I heard the words, not with my ears, but inside my head. It's difficult to
describe, but I also realized that I could know her intent or emotion in the
same way, even without the words. When I balked at going through the ceiling and
she smiled, I felt a warmth radiate through my body and I understood that her
smile at my naivet� created the warm feeling in me. I also realized that I was
communicating my thoughts to her via telepathy without even trying, because I
had no idea how to try.
I agreed to go with her but I still ducked my head as it approached the ceiling.
Then, to my amazement, I found myself passing effortlessly through the plywood.
I was surprised when many years later I saw the movie "GHOST" with Demi Moore
and Patrick Swayze. The depiction of Swayze passing through doors was exactly
like my experience of passing through the ceiling. There was the musty smell of
the attic, then we passed through the tin roof. There was a sort of crunching
sound when we went through the plywood ceiling, but passing through the tin roof
had a ringing sound.
When we cleared the house and rose to about treetop level, I suddenly realized I
was cold. It was the middle of a late autumn night in northwest Georgia and I
was wearing only my pajamas. The moment I realized I was cold, I was enveloped
in what seemed to be a small cloud of warm air. She assured me I could move
around as I wanted but cautioned me to stay close to her. She let go of me and I
found myself floating 50 feet or so off the ground with no support at all. I
wondered what would happen if I went up further and instantly the earth receded
from me at blinding speed, though I had no sensation of movement. It was just as
though I had remained still and the earth had suddenly sped away. I was a bit
startled but found that she was right with me and we were now so far out that we
could see the earth and moon together. I wanted to immediately go everywhere and
see everything. I found myself zipping along through the galaxy, with my guide,
zigzagging between solar systems as easily as a downhill skier negotiating
slalom poles. Time and distance were not relevant.
I wondered if I could see what a sun was like inside and was assured it was
okay. I dove into a huge yellow one to check it out. I was completely engulfed
in an incredible amount of light, though I felt no heat and the light didn't
hurt my eyes. There was a roar like a thousand freight trains speeding all
around me, and the sound and light actually seemed to be a part of one, but
there was no discomfort.
I saw worlds of every possible description. Some were tiny, airless and barren;
others were huge and had no more solidity than a cloud. They appeared to be a
collection of jewels of every color, strewn along a black carpet. Occasionally I
would sense living things on one. Once I tried to descend to one to look at it
up close but was told that it was forbidden. I was disappointed but accepted
that and continued on with her. Eventually, she returned me to my house, back
down through the roof and ceiling. She gave me that warming smile again and said
I should remember this. I felt the cold linoleum under my feet. Then I walked
over and lay back down into my body. She said good-bye, ascended through the
ceiling and was gone. The next memory I have is of waking up with the sun
shining in my face. The first thing I did was look over to see if she was there.
No one was there. I was pretty sure it was a dream but I got up and went over
and stood in the spot where I had been in the dream. I raised my finger and
poked at the plywood ceiling hoping, willing it to pass through, but it did not.
I really did have this dream. It was the best dream I ever had and I remember
every detail of it as clearly now as I did the morning afterward. I know that it
was a dream. But there are many people who would insist that it was not. What
would be your reaction if someone told you this story and adamantly insisted
that it was not merely a dream, but that they actually had an out of body
experience? Maybe some of you would say they were insane. Others might think
that, but might be more charitable in talking to them about it. Some of you may
actually agree with them that maybe it really was an out of body experience. How
could anyone else really know?
I would tell them that they are simply mistaken or misguided, that such things
are simply not possible in objective reality. I certainly would not argue
against anyone's subjective experience, but I would insist it was just that,
subjective, meaning that whatever they may have experienced, it occurred
entirely within the confines of their skull, as opposed to something happening
outside the body. If another person had been watching at the time, they would
not have seen the angelic being through the ceiling. Knowing just a bit about
the laws of nature, I would assure them that, while virtually anything can occur
within a dream or hallucination, it has been shown millions of times over that
no solid object, such as a human body, can pass effortlessly through another
solid object, such as a piece of plywood or tin. And if it did pass through,
there would be damage to the body and a definite hole in the wood or tin.
Ah, they might argue, it was not my physical body which passed through, but my
astral body, or soul or spirit. And since both spirits and angels are
immaterial, an observer would not have seen it happen. I would then ask, if
spirits and angels are immaterial, and presumably invisible, how is it that they
saw the being or their own alleged astral body? And I would probably tell them
McKown's maxim, which states that the invisible and the nonexistent look very
much alike. Their response would likely be something along the lines of, "Well,
you see such things with spiritual eyes, not the physical," as though it were
established that either spirits, angels, or "spiritual eyes" existed.
There seems to be two basic categories of philosophy and their respective
adherents. In one, which I'll call category A, you would find such things as
metaphysics, idealism, and theism. In the other, category B, you would find such
things as materialism, naturalism, realism and atheism. You might think these
two groups are pretty much mutually exclusive, but there are many people who
seem to pick and choose from them as though they were buffets. To save some time
I've listed these, along with a brief definition and some comments, in an
addendum to this little speech. [1] It may be cheating a bit but it will save
some wear and tear on my voice and your butts.
I included atheism in category B and theism in category A, because they seem
entirely compatible with the other philosophies therein. This, it seems to me,
is the fundamental difference between categories A and B: The things in category
A are beliefs and must remain so since they are not based upon objective
evidence, but on an unfounded assumption that, not only is mind separable from
and independent of matter, but preceded matter. The things in category B are
based upon objective evidence and are verifiable either directly (empirically),
or indirectly (logically), which makes them, not merely beliefs or doctrines
but, pieces of knowledge.
It is for this reason that I reject the definition of atheism as merely a
belief, and refer to myself as a gnostic atheist evangelist. [2] I mean by that,
that I know, not merely believe, that there is no God and I preach that gospel.
[3] Since I don't have the time now to go into great detail about this, I refer
you to a paper by Paul Keller called "GNOSTIC ATHEISM" [4] for more detailed
argumentation on that. Now, let me explain or qualify, what I mean by "knowing"
as opposed to "believing."
Socrates is credited with saying, "I know only that I know nothing." I think if
you will examine that closely you will find it to be a self-contradictory
statement. Any statement which contradicts itself is, by definition, a false
statement. One cannot both know nothing and know something simultaneously. If
you think one can never know anything then, to be consistent, you should never
again use the phrase "I know." Perhaps my intent will be clearer if I draw a
distinction between "knowing" in the purely intellectual sense, and "knowing" in
the practical, everyday sense.
I will agree that one cannot know a thing with 100% certainty in the
philosophical sense. For example, can anyone truthfully say they know with 100%
certainty that the earth is a sphere rather than a disk or cube? One might
argue, and some do, [5] that despite all the empirical proofs of and logical
arguments for a spherical earth, we are all actually victims of an elaborate
hoax perpetrated by the "religion" of science, and of faulty reasoning and
experimentation. There is no statement anyone could make which could not be
argued against, if it is stipulated that such an argument need not be based upon
empirical evidence, or even be logically consistent. But I submit that, if the
word "know" is to have any meaning at all, we cannot accept such a stipulation.
The dictionary defines the word "know" as: "to have the facts and be sure they
are true; have true information about." Do we have any facts or true information
about God and other alleged non-material beings? Yes. God, with a capital "G,"
is consistently defined by most theistic religions as an immaterial being which
is not only sentient, but which possesses the qualities of omniscience,
omnipresence, and omnipotence, among others. Since these qualities are both
self-contradictory and contradict each other, they are not logically possible,
therefore, no being with these qualities is logically possible. And the term
"immaterial being" is the epitome of an oxymoron. Therefore, to the extent that
it is possible for anyone to know anything, we can know, not merely believe,
that no such being as described above can exist. It is not merely improbable,
but flatly impossible. The same is true for any other posited "immaterial" or
nonexistent beings.
Many of you may be surprised as I was to learn there is so much cross over
between the two categories. I always assumed, since I became an atheist about 6
or 7 years ago, that an atheist would also eschew belief in other supernatural
things. I have found that to be wrong. I also though, perhaps naively, that
virtually everyone would think of themselves, and wish to be seen by others, as
rational, reasonable people. Apparently I was wrong on that too, since I have
had people accuse me of being obsessed with reason, and several people, some of
them atheists, have said they do not consider reason the final arbiter of truth,
or even, necessarily, the best. Others have told me there are "other ways of
knowing," and they seem to mean by that, such things as intuition or maybe
psychic abilities. A few atheist friends have recently informed me very strongly
that they do believe in reincarnation, and that I'm simply being obnoxious to
insist that such a thing is not possible. Their contention is that, as one
fellow put it, "no one has successfully reduced mind to matter."
This argument insists that it is not correct to equate brain and mind. I agree,
and make the point for one thing to be dependent on another just doesn't
necessarily mean the one equals the other. I use the analogy of an engine. Mind
is the functioning of the brain, just as "running" is the functioning of an
organ. "Running" is not the engine, but what the engine does. Mind is not the
brain, but what the brain does. It makes no more sense to say that mind somehow
exists apart from a brain than to say that "running" somehow exists apart from
an engine. Just as "running" is solely dependent on some degree of functioning
of the engine, so the mind is solely dependent on some degree of functioning of
the brain. Dead engine, no running. Dead brain, no mind. This seems to me,
self-evident. Not once has anyone demonstrated that mind can exist apart from
matter, therefore, it is illogical or unreasonable to believe that it can. As
Professor McKown correctly told us, "Although one may lose one's mind while
keeping one's head, one cannot be beheaded and retain one's mind." [6]
It is unfortunately true that, generally speaking, the more vociferous one is
about expounding his views to others, the more likely he is to be incorrect and
the less likely he is to respond favorably to contrary arguments, however
logical they may be. I point to Pat Buchanan and the host of TV evangelists as
examples. Still, it is not being vociferous which makes them incorrect. Nor is
it, to me at least, being either vociferous or incorrect which makes them
obnoxious. It is rather, the dogmatic holding to a particular position despite
evidence to the contrary. I have been painted with this brush even by fellow
atheists because of my assertion that I know rather than merely believe, that
atheism, materialism, etc., are true. I think this charge is unwarranted since,
even though I do know these things to be true, I do not hold them dogmatically,
that is, I am not unwilling to change my mind. All it would take for me to
change my mind is evidence, or even a logically consistent argument, that I am
wrong. But mere assertions based entirely on subjective feelings or experiences
will not do it.
To illustrate further what I mean by knowing, as opposed to merely believing, I
believe, but do not know, that if I go over and flip the light switch, the light
will go out. Based on past experience and some knowledge of electricity, it is
very likely the light would go out, but there are things, such as the failure of
the switch to work properly to disconnect the current, which make it possible
that the light would remain on. But I know, not merely believe that flipping the
light switch would not instantly turn this building into an automobile. That
would violate all sorts of natural laws and I know that cannot happen. Yet, if a
genuine miracle should occur (by definition, a violation of natural law), and I
instantly found myself crammed into an automobile with all of you, if I were
still alive, my knowing would be out the door, which is where I would be
desperately trying to get! Likewise, my knowing there is no God or mind apart
from matter would vanish should anyone produce either of these things.
It should be understood that when I say I know these things, I am basing that
knowledge on the current knowledge of the laws of nature. Naturally, if the laws
of nature should suddenly cease to be as they are, much, if not all, scientific
knowledge would become obsolete.
So what, you may say. Let everyone believe whatever makes them happy. Why not?
Because it can be dangerous. It seems to me the category A philosophies, and
other related ideologies, are by far the most prevalent in today's society. Pat
Buchanan said at the 1992 Republican Convention, "there is a cultural war going
on for the soul of this nation." Maybe he was right, but I would revise his
intent of Christians against non-Christians to the broader categories I've
mentioned. If so, those of us who are category B people are outnumbered at least
by 8 or 9 to 1, and are desperately in danger. Because people who really are
"true believers" tend to act on those beliefs, sometimes violently, as did Paul
Hill and John Salvi.
It is not my intent to be an alarmist, a Chicken Little, running about screaming
the sky is falling. And I do not mean to imply that anyone who may hold firm
convictions with which I disagree is likely to go on some murderous rampage. But
neither do I intend to be the proverbial ostrich with his head buried in the
sand, smug in his naive belief that he is perfectly safe because he can see no
danger. You may have heard of the Flat Earthers. Most of us would probably smile
and sake our heads in amazement that anyone in 1996 could actually believe the
earth is flat. In any case, they are only a handful of fringe loonies and
certainly no real threat to anyone. But consider the following from Carl Sagan's
book The Demon-Haunted World:
"If you accept the literal truth of every word of the Bible, then the earth
must be flat. The same is true for the Qu'ran. Pronouncing the earth round
then means you're an atheist. In 1993, the supreme religious authority of
Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued an edict, or fatwa, declaring
that the world is flat. Anyone of the round persuasion does not believe in God
and should be punished." [7]
Can't happen here, you say? Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson both claim to believe
in the literal truth of every word of the Bible. And didn't they both run for
president? They both lost. This time. But suppose they or someone who thinks as
they do should win? Would America become a theocracy along the lines of that
depicted in the movie, "ESCAPE FROM LA?" When George Bush was president he said
that he did not believe atheists should be considered citizens. Bill Clinton
said he does not believe anyone has a right to freedom from religion. I agree
that it is unlikely that such a person as Buchanan or Robertson could take
control of the nation, but I would remind you that, unlikely as it may be, it is
not impossible.
Perhaps the scholars and other residents of ancient Alexandria thought it
unlikely they would be set upon by religious extremists. But they were and the
place was burned to the ground. Perhaps the ordinary citizens of Germany in the
mid 1920s did not think the Nazi Party would come to dominate the nation, and
certainly very few envisioned the horrors that lay just ahead. But when Hitler
seized control of the country in 1933, and began systematically eliminating both
his opposition and the freedoms that citizens has enjoyed, it was too late. A
reminder for those who might look to laws for protection, that laws may be
rendered nonexistent or meaningless at the stroke of a pen or the point of a
gun.
I submit that the lack of laws, or economic hardship, or evil people per se,
while no doubt contributing factors, were not the causes of these tragedies, nor
would they be of the next one, should it occur. Rather, the root cause is a
system of thought which embraces mysticism, superstition and the supernatural,
while rejecting the methodology of science, rationality and the very idea of
objective reality. It has always been a heresy in Christianity to assert that
there are things which can be imagined which are nonetheless flatly impossible
in objective reality. All things are possible we are told. But I say unto you,
all things are not possible. Is it within the realm of possibility that the
earth is actually a giant corn muffin?
It would be easy to say of category A people that they are just crazy or stupid.
They might say the same of us. But aside from being insulting and unproductive,
it's just not true. Indeed, I have found that most category A people are just as
intelligent, educated, witty, charming, and generally nice people, as those in
category B. So what is the determining factor as to which side of this fence one
is on? I don't know. I suspect many factors are involved. I think emotional
expression is generally stronger in category A people. Obviously we all have
emotions, and we all express them to some degree in different ways. And we all
use reason to one degree or another. What truly baffles me is why some people
seem to think reason is just fine for some things, such as choosing surgery for
a medical problem rather than relying solely on a miraculous cure from a deity,
yet drop it like a hot potato when logic begins to tell them there probably is
no such deity, and resort to faith instead.
It seems to me, if one is going to consider faith an acceptable determinant of
whether a deity exists, it should be equally acceptable to have faith that a
deity would miraculously heal you, rather than resort to the reasonable, but
mundane, surgery. Or, if one thinks it unreasonable to forego surgery in favor
of faith for a healing, it should be equally unreasonable to accept faith over
reason to determine whether a deity exists. I think category A people tend to
filter logic and reason through emotion, and category B people tend to filter
emotion through logic and reason.
I have heard the statement that "people believe what they choose to believe"
from people of all beliefs. I don't believe that is true. For myself, I find it
impossible. If anyone can explain to me how this is done, I would like to know.
I am not an atheist because I chose to be. I am an atheist because a rational
and logical examination of the available facts of the question, rather than
uncritical emotional acceptance of the teachings of authority, leave me no
choice. Are you an atheist merely because you choose to be? If so, could you not
as easily choose to believe in Christianity or some other more popular belief,
and thus spare yourself the inherent risks involved in being an atheist? I think
it wise to remember that authorities, whether they be Holy Books, religions,
governments, or even our own subjective emotional desires, can be very dangerous
to all of us if left unchecked by reason. Falsehoods and superstition cannot
withstand the scrutiny of reason. As Sagan put it,
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, psuedoscience and
superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason
more sonorous and attractive. ... when we agonize about our diminished cosmic
place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us -- then, habits
of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame
gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin
to stir." [8]
There are at least 12 million people in this country alone who belong to an
organization known as Jehovah's Witnesses. Their literature tells them in print
to "avoid independent thinking [and] questioning the counsel that is provided by
God's visible organization," and that they are to "fight against independent
thinking." [9]
Millions of Christians are told essentially the same thing in congregations
across the country and the world on any given Sunday. "Put aside your natural
mind," a preacher will say, "and seek God with your spiritual mind." I translate
that as "Shut down your intellect and use your imagination, because it is
superior to reason." I do believe this is very dangerous. As Sagan puts it,
"We have arranged ... arranged things so that almost no one understands
science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away
with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance
and power is going to blow up in our faces." [10]
In closing, I want to emphasize that I do not present myself, as a gnostic
atheist evangelist, as some noble or superior individual who is beyond error. I
simply accept and acknowledge such a thing as objective reality and I know of no
more honest and trustworthy a way to search for and find truths, large and
small, than to use reason. I am thoroughly convinced that gnostic atheism is
true; knowledge, rather than just another belief. I say so at every opportunity,
and I encourage you all to do likewise. I am equally convinced that anyone else
who has all the known facts, if they do not permit emotion to override reason,
will reach the same conclusion. And I am convinced that a society which embraces
materialism, naturalism, and atheism will be safer, stronger, and more
productive than one which embraces metaphysics and idealism. For all who agree
or mildly disagree, I invite comments, criticisms, and love offerings at the
following address. For all those who are outraged, I request that all mail bombs
be placed in self-addressed stamped envelopes. Thank you.
[Temy R. Beal, PO Box 447, Ariton, AL 36311-0447.]
Notes
[1] See addendum.
[2] A gnostic atheist evangelist is one who knows there is no God and preaches
that message. This may be taken slightly tongue-in-cheek if you prefer.
[3] "Gospel" means "glad tidings," and I certainly consider it good news that
the horrific being described in the Bible as God does not exist. It also means
"anything earnestly believed as a guide for action." If more people knew, or
even "earnestly believed" no such being existed, they might be guided by that
knowledge to take positive action, rather than continue to utter meaningless
"prayers."
[4] You may request a copy of the paper from the author at his address or from
me. His address is: Paul Keller, 538 West Cedar Ave., Fergus Falls, MN 56537. My
address is: Temy R. Beal, PO Box 447, Ariton, AL 36311-0447.
[5] Such as members of the Flat Earth Society of Covenant Peoples Church,
Charles K. Johnson, President, PO Box 2533, Lancaster, CA 93539, Phone: (805)
727-1635.
[6] In his speech, "Sermon On the Mount," given to the Alabama Freethought
Association at Mt. Cheaha State Park on July 7, 1996.
[7] From the book THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by
Carl Sagan, Random House, New York, 1995, p. 325.
[8] Ibid., pp. 26-27.
[9] From The Watchtower, January 15, 1983, pp. 22, 27, as cited in the book
BLOOD ON THE ALTAR: Confessions of a Jehovah's Witness Minister, by David A.
Reed, Prometheus Books, 1996, p. 189.
[10] See note #8, p. 26.

Addendum
There seems to be two basic categories of philosophy and their respective
adherents. For convenience I will label them category A and category B. A
contains such things as metaphysics, idealism, and theism. B contains such
things as materialism, naturalism, realism, and atheism. Let me briefly define
these, [1] beginning with category A and metaphysics.
Metaphysics is "a branch of philosophy that seeks to understand reality, beyond
what we know from our sense perceptions." Obviously there is an underlying
assumption there that, not only is there some reality beyond what we know from
our sense perceptions, but also, that we have some "way of knowing" beyond our
five physical senses. Many people seem to think "intuition" is an example of an
alleged "sixth sense," but actually, intuitions are based on one's memories of
past experiences and impressions. A believer in metaphysics might think that
various alleged psychic abilities such as telepathy or telekinesis exist.
Idealism is "a doctrine that considers mind or spirit as the basis of the
universe," and which asserts that "things do not exist outside the mind, but
only as the mind knows them." An idealist philosopher might tell us that, not
only do we not exist, but indeed, all of what we might call objective reality
does not exist, but are merely manifestations of a Cosmic Mind, or God.
Theism is "a belief that God exists as a distinct Being, and works through and
in the world." I have three basic conclusions about all three of these "isms":
A) To the extent that claims such as telepathy and telekinesis are amenable to
empirical testing, they have consistently failed such tests miserably. B) No
evidence has been forthcoming to support the underlying assumption that there
exists some reality beyond the physical or that we have some mysterious "way of
knowing" about such an alleged reality. C) Therefore, I reject all of them as
invalid and logically untenable positions.
Now to category B, to which I assigned materialism, naturalism, realism, and
atheism.
Materialism is "a doctrine that all things are basically material." My first
reaction to that is, "Duh!" To me, materialism is not a doctrine but a
self-evident truth. As I understand it, materialism asserts that all things
which exist are, by definition, material, i.e., composed of matter/energy, and
to be immaterial, such as spirits, souls, angels, demons, and materialist and
God are alleged to be, is to be nonexistent. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. He
believed in a God. But he was also a materialist and rejected all things
supernatural. In a letter to John Adams shortly before his death he said, "It is
not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a
Materialist." Jefferson stated further, "On the basis of sensation we may erect
the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need. I can conceive thought to
be an action of matter... When once we quit the basis of sensation, all is in
the wind. To talk of immaterial existences, is to talk of nothings. To say that
the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or
that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise. But I
believe that I am supported in my creed of Materialism by the Lockes, the
Tracys, and the Stewarts." [2]
Naturalism is "a theory that everything comes from nature and there is nothing
beyond nature. A follower of naturalism rejects the supernatural and believes
that all things are subject to scientific laws." I see three problems with that
definition: A) I do not see naturalism as a theory but, like materialism, a
self-evident truth. B) I object to the term "follower," since it sounds like
just another religious ideology. C) It is incorrect to say a naturalist, in this
sense, "believes that all things are subject to scientific laws." It is more
correct to say all things are subject to natural laws. Scientific laws and
natural laws are not all the same, since scientific laws are simply "rules of
thumb" which scientists use as guides. They can be and often are broken, and
thus have to be discarded or revised as new information warrants. A natural law,
on the other hand, simply cannot be broken. Period. One may certainly be injured
or killed attempting to break a law of nature, such as jumping from a high
window in an attempt to "defy" gravity, but there are no penalties for breaking
any natural law. It simply cannot be broken.
Realism is "a doctrine that things exist in and of themselves, independent of
the mind that knows them." Though I dislike the term "doctrine," I accept this
definition for myself. This is another of what I see as self-evident truths. The
difference between, say, an idealist and a realist might be in how they view
that old saw about whether or not a tree falling in a forest without someone to
hear it, makes a noise. The idealist will seriously consider this and likely
conclude that it does not make a noise, and may also conclude that the tree
itself, and indeed the whole forest, doesn't exist without a mind to know it. He
might suffer an attack of insight which tells him that is not logical, at which
time he might conclude that it is time once again to invoke that Cosmic Mind or
God, so that a human mind is not required to know of the falling or the sound in
order for it to exist. The realist of course will say that trees do exist and,
if one falls a sound will be made, regardless of whether the sound waves created
reach an eardrum.
Atheism is "the belief that God does not exist." [3]
I included atheism in category B and theism in category A, because they seem
entirely compatible with the other philosophies therein. This, it seems to me,
is the fundamental difference between categories A and B: The things in category
A are beliefs and must remain so since they are not based upon objective
evidence, but on an unfounded assumption that, not only is mind separable from
and independent of matter, but preceded matter. The things in category B are
based upon objective evidence and are verifiable either directly (empirically),
or indirectly (logically), which makes them, not merely beliefs or doctrines
but, pieces of knowledge.
Notes
[1] Except where noted, all definitions of words in bold type are from The World
Book Encyclopedia, 1984, Vol. P, p. 345.
[2] From the book Six Historic Americans, by John E. Remsburg, The Truth Seeker
Company, New York, pp. 75-76.
[3] From The World Book Encyclopedia, 1984, Vol. A. p. 817.
In one of the amateur publications I write for, a Jewish woman who has recently
converted to Christianity said the following:
"I'm not sure that Jesus dying for our sins is comprehensible in any way I, at
least, could explain. I understand it emotionally, not logically, it really
doesn't make any sense, which in no way stops me from believing it. ... Most
humans would not willingly lay their lives down to save hundreds of thousands of
people they hadn't even met, so from a human standpoint, this action is
completely irrational, but Jesus was divine, and possessed of divine love, which
puts an entirely different spin on things, at least to my mind. There are 633
prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament, all of which Jesus fulfilled
-- the odds against this happening by accident are astronomical, so that was
something else that persuaded me. But mostly, as with any religion, it's a
matter of faith, emotion, and what one believes to be the truth."
This is one of the most intelligent, witty, and charming people I have met. An
exceptionally good writer (this piece notwithstanding). We have a lot of work to
do.

Flat Earth Society International

known as
THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY
of Covenant Peoples Church Gen. 9:16
AIM: To carefully observe, think freely, rediscover forgotten facts and oppose
theoretical dogmatic assumptions; To help establish the United States... of the
World on this Flat Earth; Replace the Science Religion... with Sanity.
Charles K. Johnson, President
Marjory Waugh Johnson, Sec.
Telephone: (805) 727-1635
P.O. Box 2533, Lancaster, CA
93539
The International Flat Earth Society is the oldest continuous Society existing
on the world today. It began with the Creation of the Creation. First the
water... the face of the deep... without form or limits... just water. Then the
land sitting in and on the Water, the Water then as now being flat and level, as
is the very Nature of Water. There are, of course, mountains and valleys on the
Land but since most of the World is Water, we say, "The World Is Flat."
Historical accounts and spoken history tell us the Land part may have been
square, all in one mass at one time, then as now, the magnetic north being the
Center. Vast cataclysmic events and shakings no doubt broke the land apart,
divided the Land to be our present continents or islands as they exist today.
One thing we know for sure about this world... the known inhabited world is
Flat, Level, a Plane World.
We maintain that what is called 'Science' today and 'scientists' consist of the
same old gang of witch doctors, sorcerers, tellers of tales, the
'Priests-Entertainers' for the common people. 'Science' consists of a weird,
way-out occult concoction of jibberish theory-theology... unrelated to the real
world of acts, technology and inventions, tall buildings and fast cars,
airplanes and other Real and Good things in life; technology is not in any way
related to the web of idiotic scientific theory. ALL inventions have been
anti-science. The Wright brothers said, "Science theory held us up for years.
When we threw out all science, started from experiment and experience, then we
invented the airplane." By the way, airplanes all fly level on this Plane earth.
Our Society of Zetetics have existed for at least 6,000 years, the extent of
recorded history. Extensive writing from 1492 B.C. We have been and are the Few,
the Elite; the Elect, who use Logic Reason are Rational. Summed up, we are Sane
and/or have Common Sense as contrasted to the "hard: who is unthinking and
uncaring. We have absorbed the Universal Zetectic Society of America and Great
Britain, ZION U.S.A., the work of Alexander Dowie 1888, Wilber Glen Voliva 1942,
Samuel Shenton, Lillian J. Shenton of England 1971. Zetetic: from Zeto, to seek
and search out; Prove, as contrasted to theoretic which means to guess, to hope,
to suppose, but NOT to 'prove.' Science 'proves' earth a 'ball' by 'scripture'
words. We PROVE earth Flat by experiment, demonstrated and demonstrable. Earth
Flat is a Fact, not a 'theory!'
Our aim is not to 'disturb the herd' or wreck the Government, but rather to be
an aid to the Elite Human Being in coming to KNOW earth flat... to then FREE his
or her mind from such blind unreasoning 'theory-superstition' and go so on 'to
carefully observe... think freely... rediscover forgotten Facts and oppose
theoretical dogmatic assumptions.' As Sir Fields, owner of newspapers in
England, has said about us, "They are the Last pocket of individual Thinkers in
English speaking world."
I sometime call myself the Last Iconoclast. Science is a false religion, the
opium of the masses. I myself count it as a beginning of Sanity to confess 'the
creation proves there was a Creator' so a God or Creator... Exists. From a
life-time of study, of seeking out and proving things, from the study of 6,000
years of recorded history, from observation, from experience, from Common Sense
Observation, have concluded the Ten Commandments are in fact good Laws of Living
and Behavior for oneself and all in contact with you... truly 'Laws of Physics
for Living' That is my opinion. The Fact the Earth is Flat is not my opinion, it
is a Proven Fact. Also demonstrated Sun and Moon are about 3,000 miles away and
are both 32 miles across. The Planets are 'tiny.' Sun and Moon do move, earth
does NOT move, whirl, spin, or gyrate. Australians do NOT hang by their feet
under the world... this is a FACT, not a theory! Also a Fact the Spinning,
Whirling, Gyrating Ball World Planet, Globe Idea is entirely 100 percent now and
at all times in the past, a RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE... a Blind Dogmatic Article of
Faith in the Religion for the Blind unreasoning beasts of prey. No earthly
reason for a Sane, Upright Member of the Elite Elect Humans to subscribe to it.
Also, a Fact, today the Elite of Earth ALL live on the Flat World. Only the
illogical, unreasoning 'herd' ... prefers the way-out occult weird theology of
the Old Greek superstition earth a spinning ball! Both Copernicus and Newton,
the inventors of the "modern" superstitions (400 year OLD modern) have said, "It
is not possible for a Sane reasonable person to ever really believe these
theories." Thus sayeth Newton-Copernicus. What sayeth THOU?
Associate Membership contribution of $15.00 a year, includes four (4) issues of
FLAT EARTH NEWS and Membership Card. An 8 x 12 Color Certificate of Membership
is $5.00 extra. Sustaining Member $25.00 a year; Patron $100.00 and up. One year
of the quarterly (4 issues) FLAT EARTH NEWS and Membership Card and Certificate.
$5.00 single copy. Each issue contains further proofs of the fact -- earth IS
flat. People of goodwill who seek the truth also known as the Facts are Welcome!
We do not want members who are stupid, mindless, brute beasts with two feet
whose only aim is to scoff or in some way 'harm' our work -- Facts, Logic,
Reason, Sanity also known as common sense, is our aim.
In 30 AD JC said... seek and find the Truth and it will set you free. Free from
the Pathological Liars... the great pretenders who mislead all flesh and blood.
Money problem? Send any contribution you can, will be acceptable.
Age______________ RACE ___________________ Sex_________________
Occupation ___________________________________________
Are you a teacher of any kind in the education system?___________ Minister?
Priest? Rabbi? _____
I hereby affirm my aim in joining is not to harm, degrade, or defame this
Society
signed ____________________ date ________________________
How did you hear of us? ________________________________________________
SPECIAL FLAT EARTH MAP (as featured in Newsweek, 7/2/84) $10.00 postpaid;
Membership, Certificate, and Map $15.00

Atheism Books | Existence of God Forum | GODEXIST Mailing List | More Articles |
Atheism Web
Search | Bookstore | What's new? | Send Feedback | Disclaimer | Support
the Secular Web

Copyright �Internet Infidels 1995-1999. All rights reserved.