Radio Debate: James White vs. Brian Lynch

With us here in the studio are Brian Lynch, who represents the American Atheist Center, which is located in Austin, Texas, and Jim White, who's been with us many times before from Alpha and Omega Ministries here in town, and I want to welcome both of you to the program today.

It's good to be here.

Hi, Tom.

I wanted to talk a little bit, as we get rolling here, about your position, Jim, that atheism is a religion. Now, I'm an atheist myself, but I'm not going to take sides in this debate. You and I have gone at it before.

Yes.

Well, we haven't really gone at it too much on this topic.

Not this one. Someday, I'm sure we will.

Yes.

But I've heard this argument before from callers and other atheists who've debated. Tell us why you think atheism is a religion.

Okay, I'll give you a chance to catch your breath there, Tom.

Thank you.

Atheism as a Worldview and Competing Religion

Basically, when I, for example, have made the statement that I believe atheism is a religion, I am defining religion in terminology that is given to me, for example, by Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, which I have a photocopy from here.

One of the meanings of religion is given as any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy, as the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion, etc.

Loosely, any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc., resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system, such as humanism, is his religion. And that is the example given in Webster's. And so basically what I'm talking about when I talk about atheism being a religion is, I'm not saying that atheism teaches that there is a god, per se, because obviously atheism would be very upset if I said such a thing.

But basically what I'm saying is atheism represents a worldview that includes within it beliefs, such as materialism, rationalism, things like that. It includes within it, in the worldview, a certain set form.

It has, over the years, developed similarities to, quote-unquote, religions in the theistic realm. When I say theistic, I'm talking about God. And atheism basically is a competing philosophy with, for example, Christianity, or Buddhism, or Islam.

And what we see today is an attempt to have theism as a religion removed from, shall we say, secular education from the public schools. And yet we want to have complete freedom to have atheism in its place.

And I believe both are worldviews.

Wait, wait, they're teaching atheism in schools now? Is that what's happening?

Well, when I say atheism, I'm talking about a removal from the public school system of any type of system where theism is acknowledged. And yes, atheism is the call of the day.

Well, this is interesting then. What you're saying is then that religion is being taught in schools.

Excuse me?

Are you saying religion is being taught in schools?

A certain kind of religion, yes. Atheism.

My goodness.

Not to my knowledge. I went to public schools and we never learned atheism. You're absolutely so totally wrong in your definition of religion and your understanding of atheism that it's incredible.

Okay.

Atheism is not a religion because religion is, by definition, something that attempts to relate man and human beings to some sort of a super entity through prayers, beliefs, rituals, and so on and so forth.

Atheists have no belief systems. This is one thing that characterizes atheism and that characterizes no religion. There is no such thing as an atheist ritual. There is no such thing as an atheist practice.

There's no such thing as an atheist belief system. In other words, I don't say I am an atheist because I believe there is no God. I say there is no evidence to support a belief in God. Therefore, the belief in God is irrational, foolish, and useless.

Now, wait a second. There's another thing.

Sure.

Religion actually comes from a Latin verb, which is religare, which means to bind back, to tie down, or to fasten. And this is essentially what religion has done to the human race. It has bound it, it has tied it, it has held it back, and it has continually tried to assert itself in society, and the effect has always been detrimental.

Throughout the entire history of the human race, there have been people who have posited various gods, various ritual practices, various worship forms, and various activities that people should engage in because somebody has said it's good for them.

Now, what the atheists do is they say this is worthless, this is foolish, there is no reason to engage in all of these religious practices. We want to make sure that the people who do want to do this separate themselves from society and go off and play with their little toys, go off and play their games, go off and live in their fantasy world, and don't bother the rest of us.

We are not imposing anything on society. We are simply saying we don't care to live under your religious stricture system.

Okay, I'd like to respond by that. First of all, in reference to religion, yes, if you define religion specifically as something that involves a deity or a supreme power, a supernatural power, then obviously by definition you are saying atheism is not religion.

I read to you the definition that I was following. It is a looser definition. I'm the first one to admit that. But even in, for example, here in the aims and purposes of the American Atheist, you recognize this of course, this is from your own organization.

That's our publication list, right.

Publication list in the back under the aims and purposes. It directly says that atheism is a, well it doesn't use the word belief, but it says that they believe or accept materialism, which declares that the cosmos is devoid of imminent conscious purpose, that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws, and so on and so forth.

And in fact, to become a member of the organization, one must check off what he is. An atheist, a free thinker, a humanist, a rationalist, an objectivist, a unitarian, so on and so forth. But one must agree to this aims and purposes, this, well for lack of a better word, a creed, if you want to use the term.

No, no, no, you're wrong. Because, now wait a second. No, you're throwing around terms loosely and you're not using them properly. A belief in something is accepting something without evidence. We deliberately don't use the word belief, because we only accept that for which there is evidence.

We do not say we believe in science. We do not say we believe in materialism. We do not say we believe in anything. We accept these things because they can be demonstrated to be factual and useful. And this is a very important distinction, which you are deliberately trying to blur, and which all religious people deliberately try to blur.

Well, let me respond by mentioning two things.

This is nothing but an attempt by you to dissemble the listeners.

Please, sir. I have no desire to do that at all. I'm just mentioning the fact that, for example, Webster's Dictionary defines atheism as the belief that there is no God,.

And as an atheist is one who believes that there is no God. No, no, no, an atheist is not someone who believes there is no God. An atheist is one who maintains that there is no evidence that warrants a belief in God, as I've just told you.

Now, shut up and listen to me.

Brian, I did not come here to argue with you.

Yes, you did.

I was invited here to discuss this.

No, no, no, you were not invited here. You pushed your way onto this station.

I am not.

You were not invited here.

I was.

You were the one who screamed and yelled like a little brat, and said, you have to put me on this show with this atheist.

I cannot believe that this is being said, Tom.

Well, that's the way it was presented to me.

It's interesting, Tom. This is the seventh time I've been on KFYI. I am a fairly regular guest here, and it's amazing that Mr. Lynch would say that because it's completely untrue, but I refuse to respond to you in the same manner you respond to me, and that's just the difference between us.

But from a book entitled What on Earth is an Atheist? by Madeleine Murray O 'Hare, she says we atheists try to find some basis of rational thinking on which we can base our actions and our beliefs, and we have it.

She doesn't use the word belief. I have copies of that book which I'll be happy to send you.

We accept the technical philosophy of materialism. It is valid philosophy which cannot be discredited. Essentially, materialism's philosophy holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. Materialism is a philosophy of life and living according to rational processes with intellectual and other capabilities of the individual to be developed to the highest degree in a social system where this may be possible.

There are no supernatural forces, no supernatural entities such as gods or heavens or hells or life after death. There are no supernatural forces, nor can there be. We atheists believe that nature simply exists.

Matter is, material is. Pages 40 -43.

It doesn't say believe.

Now basically what I'm saying is that if a person says, I believe in materialism, I accept materialism, that is in itself a belief. Now if we want to get into a discussion of what Mr. Lynch has brought up in reference to whether a belief in theism is rational or atheism is rational, then that's fine.

But I just want to make sure to lay the foundation that both of us are representing a worldview. One accepts materialism, another accepts theism. But those are still two competing worldviews and they need to be treated as such.

Yes, they are two competing worldviews and I think that the reason that you people feel so threatened by us atheists is because when we say there is no God, what that immediately means is that there is no rational basis or need for religion and there is absolutely no reason why the church or religion in any form should have a voice in how our society is structured and run.

That's where you're really coming from. When you get right down to the central core of this issue is that there is really no room or no need for you to be here.

Well, actually the root core of the reason that a theist such as myself would take the time to enter into a discussion such as this is due to the fact that I do believe that there is a rational reason to believe in theism and that there are many instances where theism is misrepresented in regards to what it teaches and what it believes.

And I think when a public forum is opened up such as we have here on KFYI and I'm glad that FYI at least is brave enough to tackle subjects like this. There are other stations that won't talk about things like this.

We know that.

Yes.

That both viewpoints can be represented and presented to the audience and we can discuss it in that way and I would hope that that is what we'll be able to do.

We're going to take a break here and we're going to come back. We're talking with Brian Lynch of the American Atheist Center and Jim White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. We're going to continue our hot talk with you and Tom Likas on FYI Radio 910.

Get into the conversation. Call 258-KFYI. That's 258 -5394. Once again, here's Tom. 424-FYI Radio 910. I'm Tom Likas here every afternoon from 3 until 7 o 'clock. FYI Radio is your weather station and meteorologist Sam Vincent is calling for some evening clouds otherwise fair and a low in the upper 60s.

Tomorrow and Wednesday, variable, mainly high clouds. Little temperature change. High both days in the mid 90s. Low Wednesday morning in the upper 60s. Right now, 17 humidity. Partly cloudy skies. 95 degrees at FYI Radio 910.

258 -5394 is our telephone number. The phone is starting to light up and we'll get to everybody as we progress here. 258 -5394. I just had an argument with an operator on the phone. One day we'll do a show on this, okay?

So mountain bell operators, beware. It's coming later this week. I'm going to describe my attempts to make phone calls.

Unreal.

Why Christians Try to Convert Atheists

Jim, I wanted to ask you this one question. And again, I'm only asking from my own perspective and I'm trying not to get involved in this debate here. I'm going to leave it to you two guys. It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that folks who fervently believe in religion are troubled by atheists to the point where they, if not feel threatened by atheists, certainly want to make every effort they can to turn an atheist into something he or she is not.

Would that be accurate?

Well, I think what you're describing is the fact that, normally you're talking reference to Christians when you're talking about a religious person. I don't think I've ever heard you talking about a Koran thumper before.

I've never heard that. Have you ever heard of a Koran?

Well, the Koran is not thumped on this show too often.

Well, I just thought...

There are Koran thumpers out there.

Oh, I'm sure there are.

They're not in the United States for the most part.

I'm aware, but Tom...

I have had the Baha 'i faith after me, though, I want to tell you.

Okay. But in reference to your question, I think that, yes, it is true that people who would take the Christian viewpoint, obviously, as you have undoubtedly heard before, the Bible commands Christians to share their faith.

I don't see that atheism itself has a huge flock of Christians following it around, at least the Christians that I know. There are obviously certain people, but I don't see it as being the largest subject on the chopping block.

And so, actually, many atheists will tell you that they are in a vast minority, and they do not receive as much attention as I actually feel that they probably should, because they bring up many interesting facets, many interesting things that I feel that, especially a Christian, should be prepared to deal with, should think through on their own grounds, should examine the information that's brought forward and take a look at it.

And, unfortunately, that's normally not done a whole lot. So, in answer to your question, yeah, there are a lot. I don't think it's really because of fear, as you would describe it. It certainly isn't in my case.

Mine is more in an evangelical, interesting way. Okay? It's an interest of mine.

Why is it that Christians not only seem to exhibit some sort of uneasiness around atheists, but also go to the point of trying to convert them?

Well, like I said, a Christian will try to convert anybody. It's sort of built in with the system.

It comes with the territory, huh?

It comes with the territory, and I'm the first one to admit that. When you say uneasy, actually, to be perfectly honest with you, Tom, if the first 20 minutes of this program were indication, I'm not uneasy.

I don't have to worry about this situation.

Well, you've been around me before. You know me, Jim. You don't have to worry about it.

Well, that's true. But, Tom, you can't make yourself representative of almost anything.

I mean, look at the calls we get here on the air. People call here virtually every day of the week. I get letters threatening me with the lake of fire and telling me I'm going to die and telling me that God's going to get me.

I mean, why don't they give up? One woman called up and said that if I don't cleanse myself in a shower immediately and start repenting, I'm going to be in big trouble. Why is this? What is this all about?

Well, I think that what it is, Tom, is that somewhere along the line, every person does not believe that there is a God. Every person is an atheist when they're born. They're born without religion, and religion is something which is laid on them as they grow up.

And I think that everyone goes through the stage that I went through and that every atheist I know went through when they started to ask questions and found that the answers really weren't very satisfactory.

You know, they said, well, wait a second. Here's a contradiction, I think. If God created the world in six days, why are these scientists saying that the world wasn't created? It was formed over a period of millions of years, and these people seem to have their data.

These people seem to have their facts. How can the religious people and the scientists be right? I think that people try praying and find it doesn't work, and then they say, well, why should I continue to follow this system of saying prayers since the prayers aren't efficacious?

Why should I continue to go to church since all they seem to do is ask for money and they build huge buildings with it? And I think that at some point, everybody comes to a position where they say, religion is all make-believe.

I don't feel any God. I don't sense that there's any great spirit. I don't sense that the Bible is the only source of ethics. I don't sense that the Koran is a good ethical guide or whatever they use.

And I think that for fear of being ostracized, they jump back into the belief system and they never really bother to explore their doubts or to find answers to their question. They just say, oh, well, everybody else around me seems to believe this.

Therefore, I better shut up and go along with this even though deep down inside I'm not really satisfied. And I think that atheists walking around personify these people's doubts and are living actual proof that the gods posited by religion are not real since we walk around, we don't get cast into lakes of fire unless some religious person decides to throw us into one.

We don't have horns sticking out of our heads. We don't go around doing terrible things to people or ourselves. And we are perfectly well-adjusted, normal, everyday people. And everything that people are taught that they need religion to accomplish seems to be accomplished by atheists who have none.

I would respond to that by saying that basically I would take a position about 180 degrees opposite of that.

Oh, well.

Which, of course, obviously is to be expected in reference to the discussion that is at hand. I do not, of course, agree that a religious person is a person who has jumped back into a faith system that is simply a blind faith.

My faith is not a blind faith. My faith is grounded in and rests upon solid historical fact and evidence. And I do study what I believe and what other people say about what I believe. And so I do not believe that, since I'm speaking as a Christian, the Christian faith is a blind faith that is something that just simply is a crutch for mankind.

I believe that when a person will look at what the world has to offer, look at what materialism has to offer, look at what atheism has to offer, what is the meaning of myself, what is the meaning of my life, my relationships with other people, that they will come to the conclusion that this is a pretty dreary place and there's got to be something beyond what I've experienced so far.

And when one looks at the world around him, when one looks at the complexity of the world, I believe it is very rational to look for something beyond myself. And there is something beyond myself. I do not, by doing that, say that I, in my humanity, am simply a speck of dirt or something like that.

But I realize that I have a higher being and a higher purpose than just simply an animal that's walking around the earth that might get squashed by a Phoenix Transit bus on the way home and that's it.

There's nothing more accomplished than that. And so I would take an opposite viewpoint at that juncture.

This is what's so intrinsically sick about religion, is that it teaches people to hate life, to hate the world, and to hate experiences as it presents themselves, and to seek their solace and to seek some kind of state of mind salvation in a fantasy world that doesn't exist, that is totally made up and totally outside of reality, that has no relationship really to the world that people live in.

And this is so sick, it's incredible. This is why I maintain that the only really effective way to deal with religion is to absolutely root it out of society altogether and just throw it into the rubbish can of history along with all the other bad ideas that have come up.

Well, notice, Tom, that I've heard you many times talking about the biasedness of religious people, the fact that we are unwilling to allow any other viewpoint to exist, and yet I think it has been very well demonstrated by Mr. Lynch, and I thank him for bringing it up, that the atheistic viewpoint goes, I believe, far beyond even the Christian viewpoint in reference to the fact that atheism cannot exist along with theism.

No, it's not that it can't exist along with theism. What I'm saying is that just as racism is a bad idea, just as sexism is a bad idea, just as the idea of slavery is a bad idea, and just as the idea that we shouldn't help the poor is a bad idea, there have been many ideas which have been pushed by the ruling classes in various societies which have been extremely harmful to the human race, and religion is certainly one of those ideas, and the problem with religion is that it works very subtly in our culture, attempting to seize each rising generation and indoctrinate it with the same irrational beliefs that have been around harming the human race for several thousand years.

Most of the religious ideas found in Christianity actually have their origin five to fifteen thousand years ago, as far back as we can trace cultures. The idea of a savior god, the idea of sacrifice, the idea that there's a spirit world, the idea that there's a life after death, all of these ideas are found extant in cultures from the Middle East, from India, especially in India, the idea that there are rites that people can indulge in, the idea that there are certain sacred or holy days, the idea that there are certain sacred or holy places, the idea that there are certain books which have to be read because they're sacred and inspired, these are all very, very primitive ideas that were invented and thought up when people were really just emerging from the ape stage in the period of human evolution.

Let me respond to that by saying the first section concerning the role of religion in society, what you just said is nearly a quotation, very, very close to the teachings of Hegel and Marx, and we see the result of that in the Soviet Union and other nations today.

And then in reference to the fact that there are elements within Christianity that you would identify as having been borrowed from non-Christian sources, yes, there is in man the innate understanding, the innate need for a relationship with his creator that does not in any way invalidate God's revelation of himself in Christianity.

That obviously, I think there's a real logical flaw in attempting to say because other religious systems have certain elements in them that any religious system that has those elements in them is therefore necessarily false.

I don't think that logically follows from the argument.

Well, that's not quite what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that these ideas were thought up in a primitive age by the ruling elites in a society to control the population, to keep them at a subservient level and to deliver them to future generations of a ruling class in a state of mind that would allow them to be controlled, governed, and told what to do, and to ensure that there would be a permanent kind of underclass in society.

And I think we see this over and over and over again when we look at the teachings in religion and especially the teachings in Judeo-Christianity. There's an awful lot of admonition to obey authority, to simply sit in church and listen to what a preacher tells you.

You aren't taught in religion to think independently. You're not taught to go out and question things. You're not taught to challenge and investigate things. You're just taught to accept things on faith, which means accept things either without evidence or in spite of contrary evidence.

That's totally false in the fact that Christianity does not teach a person to not think. It does not teach a person not to examine one's faith and to represent it in that way is simply to misrepresent the New Testament teaching concerning that.

I have examined my faith. I am open to examination of my faith as a Christian. If you talk to anyone who has been in any seminars that I've done, any teaching that I've done, they will tell you that that is a big thing that I harp on, is that Christians should examine their faith, should examine why it is true.

Faith in Christianity is not a denial of truth. Faith is an acceptance of the truth that God has revealed, the truth that we see in the world around us, and it goes beyond simply the truth to provide a framework upon which we can live our lives.

See, this is the whole thing, is that Christianity is basically a lie. There is no historical evidence that Jesus ever existed. There's no historical evidence that the New Testament is anything but a set of extant writings that were around from about, oh, maybe 100 or 150 years before the alleged time of Jesus that were simply gathered up later and became the basis for the Roman Catholic theology in 325 A .D.

Let me mention something to you, especially at that point. What I wanted to bring out was this common atheistic claim that Jesus never existed. And the reason I wanted to bring it up, aside from discussing the historical evidence that he did, since there is a vast amount of it, this sort of is a religious belief, it really is, because anyone who has examined the historical documents has to come to the conclusion that there's a large amount of evidence that Jesus did exist and so forth.

As many atheists as I have heard say this, to believe this, it's almost like it's become a cult belief amongst atheists that Jesus never existed. And this is in spite of the vast amount of evidence that he did.

And this is the kind of situation where you have a belief system overriding the critical examination of historical facts. And this is where you have a similarity, at least in a way, to how some religious systems operate.

And that's interesting to me that this would come up, and I expected it did. In reference, Brian, if you'd like to expand on what you said concerning that, if you'd like to say something more about that, I'd like to before I get to the evidence in reference to that.

Okay, the criteria for evidence is something which is really not subject to dispute. In other words, do you have artifacts that were actually written by Jesus? Do you have an artifact like a body, for example, that you can say, well, this is Jesus' tomb, or this is Jesus' body, or this is Jesus' remains?

The other criteria would be human experience and things which can be validated and corroborated, and none of this applies to Jesus.

Okay, I'd like to respond to that by saying that if what you said is true, that that is indisputable, then we do not know that Julius Caesar, Plato, Socrates, or anyone up until about 25 years ago ever existed.

No, that's totally false.

Because we do have material evidence that these people left.

Such as what, sir?

We have their tombs. We have the evidence that was left from what they did with their soldiers. In the case of the Caesars, we have the writings of Plato. They are absolutely, definitely attributed to these people.

However, there is not one piece of paper that we can attribute to Jesus. There is nothing that Jesus ever wrote. There is nothing that anybody can demonstrate was actually taken down by even a scrivener who knew Jesus.

Well, that's obviously untrue. Let me mention a number of the facts, aside from the New Testament. I'll get to that in a moment. For example, Tacitus, who died in 117, mentions Jesus Christ. Suetonius mentioned rebellion in Rome in AD 49, which he attributed to Christ, even though, obviously, Christ was not alive at that time.

A pagan philosopher by the name of Mara, I was reading his letter just yesterday, in fact, in AD 74, discussed Jesus Christ. It's interesting that there are references to Christ in, for example, Pliny's writings and things like that, because these events took place in what was a fairly insignificant corner of the Roman Empire.

For them to actually gain mention by Roman historians, by philosophers writing at the time, and those manuscripts be extant still today, is very interesting that that could happen.

Yes, but let's look at the actual content of those manuscripts. What they really talk about is they talk about cults of believers. They talk about people who have a faith in a great leader, and in some cases, I'm not sure if it was Mara or if it was Suetonius, they mention the followers of the teachers of righteousness, and that man was a man who lived about 100 to 150 years before the alleged time of Christ, and he was the leader of the cult known as the Essenes, which were a strange proselytizing sect of Jews.

Yes, so Brian is making reference to the teacher of righteousness found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essene community at Qumran. Of course, that is not what Mara had in reference whatsoever.

No, no, no, what he's talking about is a body of believers.

Did you read the letter, Brian?

I don't know if I've read the specific letter you're referring to, but I have read some of his writings, and I know for a fact that they are not referring to an actual living, breathing person named Jesus.

There is the writings of Josephus, which are often cited. These are known to be an interpolation and a forgery. Josephus never wrote them.

Let me mention something, Brian.

And this is something that we see over and over again in Christian scholarship, is that it is all based on fabrication. It is based on misrepresentation. It is based on deliberately taking things out of context and trying to piece them together to establish something which is false.

Again, let me point out that I've read the letter. I have the letter. You can look at it yourself, and you'll see that Brian's wrong. You don't have to take my word for it. I don't want anyone to take my word for it.

Check it out yourself. Don't take Brian's word for anything. Don't take my word for anything.

No, don't take my word for anything. Check these things out, and you will find that there is no evidence for Jesus.

Okay, then we go on from the fact that he is mentioned by numerous writers, such as these Roman historians and philosophers that I was mentioning, and you can check them out for yourself, to the existence of the New Testament.

Now, Brian had made the charge that the New Testament was nothing more than a compilation of documents that might have been written. I hope I misunderstood you. You said possibly 100 years before Christ?

Many of them were written 100 to 150 years before Christ, and some of them were written as late as 150 to 200 years after Christ.

Now, let me ask you, Brian, do you know anything about the subject of textual criticism?

Yes.

Do you know anything about the Byzantine manuscript tradition, Alexandrian, anything like that?

Yeah, let me go on with something here, because I think we're on to something important. No, no, you're wasting time. You're wasting valuable air time asking me a bunch of useless rhetorical questions.

What we're talking about here is we're talking about sets of documents that were used by bodies of believers who believed that they were the inspired word of a deity, and it was common in those days for these believers to think that, well, every word, every letter, every sentence, everything was inspired by a deity.

Therefore, it must be correct to take these and recombine them in any form to establish any proposition. This was something that was common in all of these little cults of believers. They were known as the Christiani, the Christus cults, or whatever, throughout the Roman Empire.

And it was very common for them to take a piece of this document, a piece of that document, and simply invent their own gospel or their own book of acts, their own letters, whatever you want to call them.

And these were gathered up in about, what, 250 A .D. by Eusebius, who decided to pronounce certain of these the absolute true word of the deity. And his proclamation created a lot of tension, a lot of bitterness, a lot of hatred, a lot of animosity in the early church.

And finally, in 325 A .D., Constantine saw it would be politically useful to him as a ruler to gather all these leaders together and say, well, let's all agree that we're going to have certain books that we're going to use in our theology and certain things that we're going to teach these people.

And that's basically what the Council of Nicaea was all about. Finally, over periods of hundreds of years, various books were voted in and out of the Bible. And the King James Bible, which most Protestants in this country are familiar with, or the Douay version, which many Catholics are familiar with, were not actually declared canonical until about the 1600s.