Below is the long awaited final statement from Leo Pardus of de-conversion. When began this debate asking what the practical implication of believing in God are for society. Now we ask why believe or why not believe. Here is Leo’s response:

Why do you believe that your position (atheism/theism) best reflects reality?

Because it seems to make the most sense in the face of the evidence I have access to. I’ll reference some of my thoughts and evidence in a moment but first I want to say that I did not come to my position lightly or even very willingly. Leaving the faith I fervently believed for 25 years wasn’t easy and it didn’t happen quickly or without a fight. But it had to happen when continued “faith” would have required deliberate cognitive dissonance on my part. (And for your readers, that does NOT mean that belief on their part requires deliberate cognitive dissonance.)

Now to the reasons I could no longer hold to the faith I would like to provide some links to articles I put on the de-converion.com blog site. This is in lieu of retyping them here or trying to shorten them too much.

Reasons why I can no longer believe: 3 – Unchanged lives

http://de-conversion.com/2007/11/11/reasons-why-i-can-no-longer-believe-3-unchanged-lives/

Reasons why I can no longer believe: 2 – God as a ‘no show’

http://de-conversion.com/2007/11/08/reasons-why-i-can-no-longer-believe-2-god-as-a-no-show/

Reasons why I can no longer believe: 1 – God is “we know not what”

http://de-conversion.com/2007/11/05/reasons-why-i-can-no-longer-believe-1-god-is-we-know-not-what/

Would you hold to it even if you couldn’t find any pragmatic reasons to do so?

Certainly not. A maxim I’ve long held is, “I don’t care what the truth turns out to be. I just want to find out what the truth is and get on the right side of it.”  If a belief/position doesn’t have support, make sense, stand up to scrutiny, and so on, it belongs on the rubbish pile.

Brian: Welcome to the second round of our ‘God in Society’ debate here at PoliticalInquirer.com. We apologize for the delay between rounds but one of our participants had a crisis that he had to attend to before he was able to resume. Now we can pick up where we left off a few weeks ago.

The first question in round two will be presented first to “M” of the group blog Atheism is Dead representing Theism and that will be followed by a rejoinder from Leo who is from the group blog de-conversion and who will be representing Atheism.

“M”, the first question is this, “Is Atheism more likely to be beneficial or detrimental to a society?” This is a question about the pragmatics of belief and is the other side of the coin from the question asked in round one.

M: I believe that the increasing number of individuals who begin to adopt Atheism may continue to live as they did before only due to the fact that they have been conditioned by the Theistic society before them. Under this sort of conditioning, absolute morals and objective values still play a large role within people’s lives. However, I do believe that as time goes by the essential foundation for those beliefs will soon dissolve in people’s minds and society will slowly dwindle.
Brian: Leo, your response?

Atheism is not a proscribed set of beliefs, and atheists are not a monolithic group of people. It’s rather like most religions in that way. We have tens of thousands of Christian denominations, Buddhist sects, Islamic sects. Even within each denomination or sect, individuals have differing beliefs or doctrines from one another and/or from the leaders of their church, synagogue, or what have you. In the same way there are numerous schools of atheistic thought, and any individual atheist will likely have his/her own particular views about gods, society, and morality. 

So to get anything like an answer to the question, “Is atheism beneficial or dangerous or to society?” we cannot look at atheism as a whole, since there is no cohesive whole to look at. We must try to break atheism up into types of atheism (or types of atheists) and consider them separately. Even with this approach we will have the problem of artificially demarcating groups that aren’t really homogenous.

Some general groups into which I think we can divide atheism are:
Militant (or evangelical) atheism
Antitheism
Laissez-faire atheism
Strong atheism
Weak atheism
Religious atheism
Default atheism
Practical atheism  

Of course others may propose different groups, and the ones I’ve used overlap and don’t have clear line of demarcation. But then any time you try to shoehorn people into groups it comes out a mess.

The first three groups are essentially classified by the actions of their members. 

Militant (evangelical) atheismis composed of atheists who actively try to spread atheism and to “de-convert” theists. Militant atheists tend to write books, harass evangelists, call talk shows, and so on. They have the mindset of, “We’re right. They’re wrong. And we need to set them straight.”

This type of atheism can be dangerous for a few reasons. Militant atheists often insult theists and regard them as being dupes. Militant atheists are often arrogant and they tend to upset people unnecessarily. All of this tends to foster ill will, misunderstandings, and closed minds (on both sides of the debate). I can’t see how any of this is beneficial, and it’s the sort of thing that wouldn’t have to try too hard to lead to fistfights or worse. 

Antitheismis basically militant atheism on steroids; complete with the bad temper. Antitheists regard all religions as evil, and dangerous. Many antitheists would even be happy to pass laws against religions. It doesn’t take a lot of deep, reflective thinking to see that such an extreme position is dangerous. No theist is going to put up with being called evil, or with being outlawed. Thankfully antitheists are a rather small minority.

Laissez-faire atheism takes the position of, “I’ll be an atheist. You believe whatever you like.” They don’t tend to evangelize, and if you evangelize them, they may just say they aren’t interested, or they may engage the conversation just to see where it goes. But they’re not apt to get very worked up over debates and such. 

This position surely isn’t dangerous, and it might just be beneficial.  I’m of the opinion that when people discuss differences of belief in a manner of polite interest and are willing to allow others to believe as they please, it fosters understanding and goodwill. And frankly, if you do want to convince someone to adopt your beliefs, bonhomie will usually take you further than vehemence.

The next two types of atheism are more philosophical classes. 

Strong atheismpositively asserts that there is/are no God/gods, whether of the supreme, monotheistic type, or lesser, polytheistic types. Strong atheists are generally antisupernaturalists too. Strong atheists are the sorts who are more likely to be militant or antitheist, with the attendant dangers I mentioned before. But there are certainly strong, laissez-faire atheists.

Weak atheismencompasses agnosticism. Its adherents are of the opinion that there is/are no God/gods, but they don’t hold the position dogmatically. Some may even think that some sort of great being or force exists, but that it does not interact with humanity in any discernable way. Weak atheists tend to have laissez-faire attitudes toward theists. But there certainly are evangelical, weak atheists. Generally speaking though, the laissez-faire attitudes of weak atheists tend, to make them pretty peaceable; which I think is a good thing. 

Now I come to the last three classes, which don’t really group together, but hey, I already said grouping people always comes out a mess.

Religious atheism is not an oxymoron. There are a number of religions that don’t include deities. Jainism, Buddhism, and Confucianism all fit in this category, though there are subsects that have incorporated various deities. I’ll not try to assess the benefits or dangers of those religions since that’s a whole ‘nother essay or three.

Default atheism is the position of those who don’t really think much about religious or philosophical matters, but for all intents and purposes don’t believe in any deity. You find these people quite commonly. They don’t get into religious discussions much, and they really just want to get on with their lives for the most part. Default atheists by and large tend to do their jobs, take care of their families, enjoy their weekends, and don’t do much to rock any proverbial boats. They are pretty harmless, and are generally beneficial in that they are steady workers and such. 

Practical atheism is my own term for those who, regardless of what they may claim to believe, live unaffected by any belief. Practical atheists may claim to believe almost anything, and you can find them occupying church pews all over the world. They are certainly a hard to identify group, but they do have one unifying characteristic. No matter what they claim to believe, they live like there is/are no God/gods. Should their religion tell them to be honest, or hard working, or to tithe, it matters not a whit. They are only in it for lip service, socializing, and appearance. There is of course a more common word for practical atheists… hypocrites. 

Are practical atheists beneficial? Well they do have jobs and they do spend money, so that’s dandy for the economy. Are practical atheists harmful? Somehow hypocrisy always seems to have a negative impact. It seems to give rise to fraud, church and business abuses, rebellious children, power grabs, and a host of other social ills. On balance I have to think of practical atheists as more dangerous than beneficial.

So what’s the tally now?

Militant atheism – can be dangerous
Antitheism – likely to be dangerous
Laissez-faire atheism – perhaps beneficial
Strong atheism – possibly dangerous
Weak atheism – likely beneficial on balance
Religious atheism – no judgment
Default atheism – probably beneficial or at least neutral
Practical atheism –on balance, dangerous  

That’s beneficial three, dangerous four. But you know, I’m gonna take a point off the dangerous side because it belongs not to a group of open atheists, but rather to a group composed in large part of religious hypocrites.

By this far-from-scientific analysis, atheism comes out kinda neutral. And frankly, given that atheists are a minority in most countries, they can’t really have too much influence anyway. (Unless you believe in the “Great, world-wide, atheist conspiracy”.) 

But there is one “atheist” subgroup that does worry me a bit. Practical atheists (read that ‘hypocrites’) are plentiful, and they make any group associated with them look bad. I give them my strongest condemnation. Hey! Didn’t some guy in the Bible take a similar view of them? (I think his initials were J.C.)

Brian: The next question is, “Do Atheist tend to be more progressive thinkers that Theist? For instance, are they more likely to uphold modern concepts like the seperation of church and state? Are they more likely to support causes like embryo stem cell research because ideas like a “soul” are less likely to interfere. Leo?

Leo: I would have to answer yes to this. Surveys, exit polls, and the like consistently show that atheists and agnostics are quite dedicated to separation of church and state, sometimes to a rather fanatical degree. They are also more likely to be in the progressive or liberal camp on ideas such as embryonic stem cell research, abortion, et cetra.

There seem to be various reasons for this tendency. First, certainly the idea of the “soul” is not likely to enter the thinking of most atheists, though some do believe in the “soul”. Second, Atheists who were formerly of the fundamentalist stripe generally tend to polarize away from everything they formerly believed. Thus they tend to end up becoming politically liberal. Finally, since there is a tendency toward the left among atheists and agnostics (for whatever reasons), an atheist would have to run counter to his/her peer group to be conservative. Most people just don’t do that. (And believe me, as a rather conservative individual, I know how strongly my fellow atheists/agnostics react to conservative ideology.)

Brian: M?

M: I don’t think Atheists are progressive at all in their thinking because there ultimately is nothing to be progressive about. Within a materialist and even more detailed evolutionary paradigm, there is nothing progressive or absolutists about anyone’s morality. I believe that Atheists do tend to uphold such modern concepts as embryo cell research, but whether this is good or not depends on a standard from which to progress.

I believe that Atheists tend to fall in line with a quote by G.K. Chesterton:

“Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision.”

Brian: As “M” lets that answer hang in the air we will move on to the next question. M, you are first this time. The question is this, “If the United States became a predominetly Atheistic nation in the next twenty-years would this help or hurt foreign relations?”

M: I think it would hurt foreign relations since most countries are not Atheistic. In fact, even Europe is becoming less and less Atheistic as Theists (primarily Muslims) are starting to move in. I don’t believe Atheists really have a good grasp, much less a good argument as to why they should be having foreign relations to begin with. They cannot connect with religious persons on the same level because one rejects the essential foundations that the other upholds.

Brian: Leo?

Leo:  I’d say probably not, though it could happen. Again basing this on examples from nations that have already gone down this path:

(1) England, Denmark, France, Holland, Sweden, to name just a few, are all countries with a substantial atheist/agnostic percentage in their population. Yet they do not suffer from terrible foreign relations. (OK. Insert jokes about France here…..)

(2) The former Soviet Union was avowedly atheist and had truly terrible foreign relations.

(3) China, with a somewhat atheistic leadership, has had lousy foreign relations, but is now slowly improving.

(4) Much of the Middle East has lousy foreign relations though they are quite theistic.

I don’t really think that atheism, or theism, is the critical issue in foreign relations. I think a nation needs to base its foreign relations in a desire to seek mutual advantages, to seek to maintain peace, and in a desire for mutual understanding. Such bases need not depend on religion, and in fact some religions could be detrimental to such goals.

Brian: Leo, “Does Atheism eventually lead to a more or less tolerant society?” And on that note, “How important is it to practice tolerance?”

Leo: To the first question I can again say with confidence, “yes/no/maybe/that depends”. I’ve seen atheists who are quite tolerant. But I’ve also seen atheists who are thoroughly intolerant, e.g. the ‘antitheists’ mentioned earlier. I don’t think it’s the particular position one takes relative to religion that makes one tolerant or intolerant. Personal arrogance seems to be the greatest wellspring of intolerance, and there’s certainly no shortage of that on either side of the theistic fence.

How important is tolerance? That varies from issue to issue. There’s certainly no room for intolerance of people based on their race or sex. By contrast, we can all be justly intolerant of incompetence. So tolerance must be applied in varying degrees according to the domain of interest. Generally I prefer generous tolerance to be practiced over a wide range of domains, while intolerance is reserved for those domains where it is truly necessary. I wish there were clear guidelines to establish those domains, but alas there are not. 

Brian: “M”, same question.

M: That’s difficult to answer because it would appear that Atheism leads to less tolerance if we look at the 20^th century data pragmatically. Now, many Atheists may say that Atheism is not the cause of something because it is merely a rejection of something else, but if there are natural consequences to rejecting that something else then we could positively conclude that this question holds some relevance.

I think it does.

We’ve never seen a purely Atheistic world, so it’s difficult to determine if there would be more or less tolerance. I’m trying to be a little careful with this assertion since we only have data from the last century. We could say Communism was the real issue or other such totalitarian states, but we have yet to see a Communists state NOT influenced by Atheists or a totalitarian regime that did as much damage as those under Atheists influence.

Does this suggest that Atheists are bad people? Of course not. It just suggests that there appears to be a massive change in perspective towards human value and life in general when Atheists are in power. Whether this is “good” or “bad” is determined by your worldview.

I think it is extremely important to practice tolerance for the sake of truth and for the value of human life.

Brian: The following will be our last and final question for round two. Round three will merely be closing statements from our two debaters. Since the last round included the question, “What would our nation look like if Theism faded away a century from now?”, we must ask the same question about Atheism.

With that we ask, “What would our nation look like if Atheism faded away in the same time span and an official state religion took over as well–whether Christianity, Islam, or so forth?” “M” first; Leo, final word.

M: I don’t think we’d see much difference than what we see today. Atheists and their Atheism aren’t the balancing factor in the world today. They are a blip on the radar.

Leo: Once again I can only try to conjecture from examples found in history and in the world today.

Societies with strong theistic groundings have often been problematic at best. Cromwell’s Puritan England is something most of us would have hated to live in. The days of powerful Catholic rule in many parts of Europe were hardly any more fun. The Hindu kingdom of Nepal vigorously, sometimes viciously, suppresses religious freedom and is rather isolationist. And of course we’re all hearing almost daily about the ugliness of fundamentalist Islam in Iraq, Iran, etc.

On the other side of the coin though, Muslim Spain, in the early part of the second millennium, was a bastion of academia, free trade, and even religious freedom. The early US colony of Pennsylvania, though founded and lead mostly by Quakers, enjoyed much religious freedom and was one of the early centers of anti slavery sentiment.

So a US guided by, “a particular theistic understanding” could go many ways. I’d be loathe to have the US run by fundamentalism of any stripe. By the same token, I don’t think I’d like the country being run by liberal Anglicans (or Orthodox, or Lutherans, or whatever), I rather like the US with its current pluralism of religion, ideology, race, etc.  I can’t say just what the US would be like as a theistic state, but I fear that it might not be the “land of the free”.

Brian: Thank you Leo. And thank you “M”. Readers, this is your chance to participate. Let the commenting begin. The next time we hear from Leo and “M” will be their final statements.

ROUND ONE. RESPONSE ONE. FIVE QUESTIONS
Brian: Yesterday, we here at the Political Inquirer began a debate between “M” of the group blog Atheism is Dead and Leo Pardus of the group blog de-conversion. “M” is representing Theism in general, even though he currently is a professing Christian from the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Leo is representing Atheism. The first post (which you can read here) introduced our two debaters. Today we launch into our first round of questions.

There is something very important about the nature of this debate that must be taken into consideration: we are not asking our debaters to defend the “truth” of their position, but the pragmatics of it. For some this may be irrelevant, but since this is a politics and society blog we believe that it is the best fit for what we are trying to do here at the Political Inquirer. Readers, if you would like to push our debaters to discuss topics not related to the main debate feel free to leave a comment. Let us begin the first round:

Question one is this: “Can you please explain why you believe that Theism is beneficial or detrimental/dangerous to society in general? Leo, since “M” when first last time, you can begin today. Give us your summary.

LEO: I am quite convinced that Theism, in its myriad forms, has been a benefit and a detriment to human society. Let me provide a few examples on both sides:
Benefits
1. Oberlin, Harvard, and Princeton are just a few of the top schools founded, funded, and headed by Christians, and with Christian ideals.
2. Churches have funded and founded many health care establishments.
3. Many churches are truly marvelous at caring for their members.
4. The Christian faith has inspired beautiful works of art, classics of literature, glorious music, and majestic prodigies of architecture.

Detriments
1. Religion has been the caused of many wars, pogroms. et cetra.
2. Religious leaders have been known to justify murder of the grounds of blasphemy.
3. There have been plenty of instances of ill people ceasing to take medication prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result. Some Theist have died because they refused blood transfusions on religious grounds.
4. Religious believers have been known to ostracize, and in some cases even murder, their children rather than allow them to become atheist or marry someone from a different religion.
5. Religious motivations have been behind the destruction of many works of art, book, and so forth.

Let’s face it: Theism is just too big and too varied to condemn or venerate en masse. Even narrowed down to Christianity, Islam, et cetra. It’s just too big for blanket praise or condemnation.

For me, I can only look at individuals, and sometimes tightly described circumscribed groups, and assess them based on principles of basic, human decency. Principles like: Do they help people in need? Do they follow the maxim of, “first do no harm”? Do they try to live the “Golden Rule”? Can they allow others to believe something different without condemning or attacking them (i.e. Evangelism is fine; sword-point evangelism is not). Any Theist or Theistic group that lives by such principles is probably beneficial. Any Theist or Theistic group that does not, we can all probably do without.

BRIAN: Thank you for your response. “M”, same question.

“M”: I believe that Theism–the belief that there is a personal, transcendent, omni-characteristic Deity–is ultimately a benefit for society. I believe that this concept allows human beings to construct foundational truths about morality, rationality, government, human nature, and it also gives people objective purpose and motivation. I do not believe that Theism is a detriment to society; rather I believe that willful ignorance is a detriment to society, in so much as those that display this sort of character only wish to follow their own desires and warp certain beliefs to those desires. I do not believe that beliefs have control over people–somewhat like the concept of a parasite “meme”–rather, that many people choose what they wish to believe based on the desires that they have (whether good or bad).

And while I may believe that people are subjective about what they consider to be true, I do not believe that truth is subjective. I do believe that there are objective methods to finding truth and that there are such things as objective good and evil. Simply put: human beings will do with themselves as they will.

BRIAN: Thank you “M”. “M” here is the second question, “Is it possible for someone from a Theistic worldview to pragmatically uphold the concept of the separation of religion and state?”

“M”: Yes, it is possible. Some specific forms of Theism even argue for the separation of religion from government. For instance, early Christians during the medieval synthesis of Greek thought and Christianity, known as the period of Scholasticism, began the very concept of tolerantia (now known as tolerance, obviously) during a time when Church and State were not separate, which may shock some people to know.

Even Muslim theologians later took on this concept when interpreting the Qu’ran and develop their nations by it. Do I believe that religion should be entirely excluded from the State, and vice-versa? No. I also believe that theocratic governments can be just as tolerant and non-theocratic governments and that both can be equally tyrannical.

A society can have a theocratic system without having to impose all its regulations on non-believing citizens. There is also a point where a society need not be tolerant of all sorts of actions: child sacrifice and cannibalism are two examples of foreign cultural practices that need not be adopted.

BRIAN: Leo, your turn.

LEO: Yes, it is. Of course, whether any given Theist would do well at this depends upon their particular theology and upon their interpretation of “separation of religion and state”. A Theist who thinks the country ought to be run by “Bible/Qu’ran/Dialects/Et Cetra” is certainly not going to do a good job of upholding separation, nor would someone who insists that “separation of religion and state” is not a constitutional concept.

On the other hand, a Theist who looks to his faith as a guide to decency and morality, and who recognizes plurality and religious freedom as good and necessary, could do a fine job balancing personal faith and public services.

BRIAN: Leo, on the same note, “Is it necessary in a society like the United States, which is both religious in nature and pluralistic in practice, for a politician to reflect these values? OR put another way: do Theist make better political representatives in America because they best represent the views of the American public?”

LEO: I don’t know that it is necessary, but it is a nice benefit if a politician can at least acknowledge and value plurality and the place of religion in a country. And it is necessary for political bodies (e.g. Congress) to reflect the society they represent. Failure of representation is the sort of thing that leads to civil unrest and even rebellion.

As regards who makes better representatives, I don’t think any individual can be a really good representative of a pluralistic society. The best an individual can do in that vein is to safeguard freedom and plurality of religion, opinion, et cetra. But in the larger picture, many representatives, of varying religions, can represent a pluralistic society. So I am all in favor of Theist in Congress. And I wouldn’t mind seeing a few Atheist/Agnostics in there as well. A pluralistic society needs a pluralistic government.

BRIAN: Well put, Leo. “M”, your response?

“M”: I think it is necessary for two reasons: (1) Theist are better politicians in this scenario because they understand and represent the majority that they help guide and rule. (2) Theist have a better understanding of “absolutes” and the foundation for laws.

 Now, many may ask me why I believe that an Atheist is not as good in this position. Though it may appear that I am contradicting myself, I believe that an Atheist can make just-as-good a politician as any Theist as regards to moral quality as well as how one leads the country. Why do I not consider this to be a contradiction? Because I believe that an Atheist can only do so if they have been raised in a Theistic society where they have been culturally conditioned with such beliefs to begin with, such as absolute moral laws, objective purpose, et cetra. I do not believe that a purely Atheistic society, which has never been influences by Theism, can provide these foundational benefits.

BRIAN:Thank you “M”. That was very Vox Day-ish. Our fourth question is this, “Does Theism eventually lead to good or bad foreign policy? Does the common bond of belief in a god or gods make foreign policy better or worse? Or is Theism dangerous to foreign policy because it could cause conflict between, for example, a predominately Christian country and a predominately Islamic country?” Back to you “M”.

“M”: I think that Theism, in general, is no problem at all. I believe that people who share common ground can certainly find solutions at a faster rate, if not an easier one. As I stated before, I think people and their willful ignorance are the true dangers to the world.

Brian: Leo?

Leo: An understanding of the beliefs in other lands is indispensable to good foreign policy. So if one’s faith fosters a respect and an appreciation for the beliefs and practices of others, that should be a good thing for international relations. Conversely, if one’s personal theology is superior-istic, or condescending toward other faiths, and that faith largely informs one’s foreign policy, then that foreign policy is going to have nothing but headaches and fire fights.

BRIAN: Final question:Let me present a hypothetical situation: Let us say that one-hundred years fron now the idea of god has faded away regarding the thinking and practice of the American people. What does this society look like? Does it reflect progress, digress, chaos, or something else? Give me your picture of a post-god American society. Leo, you go first.

Leo: This is really tough; such futuristic scenarios are usually the purview of science fiction writers.

I think the only way to even approach this is to look at other societies that have already gone a ways down that road. France, Denmark, Holland, and Sweden all have long, full, “Christian” pasts, and all of them now have very low church attendance and a low percentage of believers (according to surveys). How do they look?

France, Denmark, and Sweden have a substantial welfare system and centralized health care. Personal health measures are generally good in all four above-mentioned countries. Life expectancy, personal wealth, and home ownership are high in all four. Denmark and Sweden have quite low crime rates. Holland and France have slightly higher, though still low, crime rates. Teenage sexual activity is variously reported, but seems to run no higher than the United States. The number of teenage abortions per 1000 is low in all four countries and lower than the US.

To be sure, there are many parameters to look at in attempting to assess other countries and compare them to the US. But it’s really not possible to make the case that the more “godless” countries are in a moral freefall or otherwise descending into chaos.

I don’t really know what a “post-Christian” US would look like. No one does. But based on the history of other modern nations that appear to be a good deal further down the “post-Christian” road, I am quite comfortable that the visions of dystopia held out by some are not likely at all to come to pass. By the same token, the visions of utopia held out by others are equally unrealistic.

BRIAN: Very well-said. Thank you Leo for your participation and we look forward to hearing more from you in round two as well as in the comments section below if you do decide to participate there. “M”, final word.

“M”: This is a very heavy question that requires a very heavy answer. I will try to summarize it here: I believe that a godless society, with no prior influence of Theism, and no acceptance of the idea cannot survive. I believe that such a society reflects digress and ultimately chaos that will lead to self-destruction. Why do I believe this?

I believe this because a godless society cannot justify any of the foundational truths that Theism provides, nor can it leech from other Theisticsocieties (presuming there are not at the time) for those truths. We have never truly seen a godless society before, but we have seen what self-proclaimed Atheisticsocietieshave led to, such as the adoption of pseudo-religious dogmas and rituals for the sake of ordering the masses (SovietUnion). We have also seen what the total annihilation of religion can do to society, such as during portions of the French Revolution and many of the WWII and post-war Atheistic States.

BRIAN:That is all for round one. Thank you “M”, thank you again Leo. We will hear from both of you again next Thursday and Friday right here at PoliticalInquirer.com. Until next week, readers, please leave comments and let the discussion continue.

Round One. Response One: Introducing the Debaters
The Political Inquirer will be hosting a three round debate between “M” of the group blog ATHEISM IS DEAD and Leo Pardus of DE-CONVERSION. The “thesis questions” of this debate are these, “Is Atheism beneficial or dangerous to society?” and similarly, “Is Theism beneficial or dangerous to society?” The debate is moderated by Brian LePort, the editor of the forthcoming AZUSAREMIXED.COM and Political Inquirer contributor.

Today we will introduce the debaters, tomorrow the debate begins…

Brian: Can you please give us a brief biographical sketch of who you are so that our readers will be able to understand why you have been chosen as a participant in this debate and why you hold the position that you do?

M: I was raised Roman Catholic until my mother decided that she couldn’t put up with my rebellious attitude anymore, which was in full swing around early adolescence. During my teen years I considered myself as Agnostic and often wavered back and forth between that and Atheism. During this period, I was a devout martial artist who found “eastern” spirituality and philosophy utterly fascinating. I absorbed this sort of thinking for quite some time as I was pursuing a career as a professional fighter.

By age sixteen I was a full-fledged Atheist until my world became flooded with suffering and heartbreak. The first of my pains, my mother was diagnosed with a rare disease, which caused enough suffering for me because I had to watch as my own parent died slowly right before my eyes each day. She was later cured by way of a stem-cell transplant (thank God), but before then it was only a tragedy.

My dreams of becoming a professional fighter and going to the Olympic games were also shattered after a severe injury that I obtained right before try outs. This led to me being temporarily paralyzed for a few months and then I was later told by my doctor that I could not fight any longer if I wished to continue walking.

Afterwards, I developed a severe depression and started taking medications, which only made things worse to the point of having split personalities and attempting suicide. At this time I lost most of my friends, the love of my life, and the trust of my family all due to my horrid mood swings and violent behavior, which to this day I still take credit for no matter the condition that I was in.

I attempted to go to college to find something for myself, but I was doing poorly in classes and could never concentrate. All these events eventually led me into some run-ins with the law which landed me in jail, half-dead, screaming to the unknown as I suffered a complete emotional breakdown and physical injuries from my altercation with the authorities.

After being released, I was nursed back to health by my parents and my best friend. It was at this point that I started considering God again and questioning my pupose in life. I soon became an Evangelical Christian, and remained one for about two years, which I consider my “zealot phase”. I was also very fortunate to no longer be depressed and I was finally able to enjoy being in a mentally stable state.

Around the earlier part of my twentieth year I began to become more interested in Christian apologetics to the point that it became my greatest hobby and intellectual pursuit. During this period I went through many more hardships, which included the loss of my best friend, but I endured through faith and hope in God. For about three years now I have progressed from being an Evangelical, to more specifically a Baptist, to a Methodist, and I have finally ended up as Eastern Orthodox. My studies have led me to conclude that the early traditions of the Christian community were preserved in the Eastern church. I have been at this place ever since and I am currently doing a comparative study between my brand of Christianity and Islam. We will see what happens after that is complete.

I am also happy to announce that I am in my final year of undergraduate studies at the university I attend and I will soon be obtaining a Bachelors of Arts in Philosophy (with a respectable GPA, nonetheless). I hope to pursue my studies further in graduate school and develop some great ideas for the world.

Most people ask me, “Why are you not an Atheist after all these things that have happened to you?” There are many answers to that question. As regards emotions and the evils that were my life (and part of me), I can only say that God makes sense of the concept of good and evil. On the intellectual side, I have had my doubts about religious beliefs (as you can probably tell by my inter-faith conversions and even my more recent study of Islam). But I have never understood why people cease being Theist simply because they have doubts about one particular sect of religion. It never seemed rational to me (now reflecting on my younger years) to abandon all religion because one version is not intellectually satisfying. At the same time, I believe that there are many positive things that can be argued for the truth of Theism, not only in practicality, but also as an absolute.

Brian: Thank you, M. Can you quickly tell our readers why you use the alias “M”?

M:The reason for my online alias, “M”, is not for the sake of safety or mystery, but rather it is a practical way to get people to focus more on the messages I present and my thoughts than my identity. I justify this in some way by borrowing from Bertolt Brecht’s concept of theatre called Verfremdungseffekt or “the Distancing Effect”. I will allow the reader to look that up for themselves.

Brian: Let us now introduce Leo, who will be representing the atheistic worldview in this debate. Leo, same questions.

Leo: In my youth I was raised “churchian” (that is a term that refers to people who go the church because that is what ‘good folks do’). In my late teens though I got serious about my faith. I learned to study the Bible systematically, and studied apologetics quite a bit, and tried to live as a Christian ought.

Between the mid-90’s and early-2000’s a number of events in my life caused me to critically reexamine the evangelical/fundamentalist Protestant faith I had lived for years. This reflection and study led me and my life, like M, to discover the importance of ancient tradition, church hierarchy, and liturgical worship. In early 2004 I jointed the Eastern Orthodox church with my clan.

All seemed well then. We loved the EOC and its worship services. And we loved the neat people in our parish. So what happened to make it all fall apart? The story is a bit long, but in short, I simply couldn’t find anything to indicate any substantive reality behind the Faith. No differences in the lives of believers compared to those of non-believers. No miracles. No answered prayers. Zip, zilch, nada. Fortunately, once I accepted this new life, it was fairly easy to rebuild a life without an “invisible friend”.

Let me encapsulate the story: For a number of reasons, after twenty-five years of being a Christian, I found that certain questions and doubts had grown to the point of nigh overwhelming. As I set to seriously considering these doubts, I first began to carefully sift through twenty-five years of prayer–not just my prayers, but the prayers of others. And I realized that no prayer had ever been answered in a clear, unmistakable way as far as I was aware. No cripple ever walked. No blind person gained sight. No deaf person started hearing. Nothing. Oh sure, there were some folks who beat cancer and other things like that, but nothing outside the realm of medical probability. And there were other coincidences too, but nothing one could put a finger on and say, “There! That was outside the realm of the natural or possible.”

Being a scientist, I dug into the literature for any studies on the efficacy on prayer. Lo and behild, there were actual, controlled studies that had been done. The result? A few studies showed marginal benefits, a few showed marginal detriment, and most showed no efficacy at all. In other words, there was nothing measurable in any controlled way.

It became obvious to me that I was talking to the air. No answers. No response of any kind. Initially I read several books on prayer, the existence of God, on struggling with unbelief. None of them dared to go where I was; they all pulled up short and scurried off into comforting, if not unsatisfactory, answers.

Then I compared the lives of Christians to the rest of the world. I looked at things that could be distinctly measured: like comparisons amongst divorce rates, criminal activity, health, family feuds–you name it. No differance could be found between any group of Christians and any group of non-Christians. Wait. I tell a lie: Catholics did have a lower divorce rate. Not hugely lower, but significant. This is not surprising given their stance on divorce. I can’t think of any other differences that were notable.

So…there I was. I couldn’t find anything to indicate any substantive reality behind the Faith. No changes in the lives of believers compared with non-believers. No miracles. No answers to prayer. Nothing. So here I was, facing a mountain of evidence that I had accumulated. Then came the critical question for me: Would I accept what I now saw as the truth, or would I push it away? I couldn’t push it away, so I was stuck. In an ironic twist, I found myself in a version of Martin Luther’s position: “Here I stand, I can do not other”.

Over several weels I slowly let go of the Faith. I “prayed” a bit. Those “prayers” all said, one way or another, “God, if you are real, do something. Anything. You ought to have no trouble showing me something that will convince me beyond doubt. Heck, I’ll gladly toss my mountains of evidence, my doubts–all that stuff–if you’ll just do anything.”

I would still sort of like there to be a supreme being who will, in the end, take care of us and deal with all the things too big for us. There’s still a longing for something eternal, and of ultimate, universal significance. But since I am sure it’s not there to be had, I find joy where I am and I don’t think about what another day has in store.

I am now pretty firmly convinced that there is no God. Of course, I’d be happy is I am wrong. Should there be a God or god(s) somewhere out there, he/she/it is encouraged to call anytime, day or night. Any miracle, visitation, revelation, and so forth, will do. It shouldn’t be any trouble for an all-knowing, all-powerful being to come up with something that will convince an honest skeptic.

As regards more personal trivia, I have been married twenty years and I am still madly in love. I love my kids almost as much as my gorgeous wife. I am a biological scientist by training and profession. I have been a martial artist for over a quarter century. And somewhere along the line I picked up a liking for chess, even though I am not very good at it.

Brian:“M”, Leo, thank you both! We will resume tomorrow with the first round of questions for our debaters. Readers, feel free to interact with this more biographical section of the debate. We apologize for the length of it, but we also want you to know these debators as the debate continues on.