Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 12:25:24 -0700
From: Aaron <> (e-mail address posted with permission)

I was looking for a job when I stumbled onto your page, but I think my education is better employed here.  I love this topic and feel compelled to contribute.
First, there are a few things that I think need clarifying.  Now I have as much disdain for christianity as all Westerners who are not christians, but in my experience most of those who are athiests are still too wrapped up in religions to see beyond them.  Athiesm is a strong reaction against religion, and is closely linked to religion itself.  You say you are the "messiah" of Athiesm, and you then criticize religions (primarily christianity) for their pitfalls.  Using words like that to satirize religion can turn 180% in a heartbeat, making you another religious leader.  Be sure your christian heritage gone astray doesn't continue to control you in a reciprocal manner.
What exactly is the truth?  Is science finding it?  Here's the worlds best example of paradox:  the only truth that existss is that there is none.  Truth only exists in a practical sense, meaning that in an objective reality the majority of people believe it, and in a subjective reality the individual believes it.  Either way, belief is necessary for truth to exist.  I don't want to get into the whole "science contradicts itself too" argument, but talk to any astrophysicist, and you'll find that it does.  Science requires faith just like any religion, which is why I purport that science is the most complex religion devised yet, but a religion none-the-less.
Athiesm is reactionary.  It is a rebellion against a perceived threat.  It presumes that which it rebels against, giving religion itself more validity.  In your definition of atheism, you state that it is:  believing in nothing in order to keep the doors of perception open for new knowledge.  The word that describes that definition is not atheism, it's nihilism.  Nihilism is the state of being that tries to withhold beleif from ideologies in order to keep them at a safe distance.  It is a constant battle against human nature (one which is given to belief) in order to be able to study all ideologies with the least possible bias, while accepting the fact that bias is an unavoidable part of being human.  It orginally meant "believe in nothing save science" because it was born in 1862, but increasingly and more universally means: "question everything, believe nothing."  We must keep in mind that the natural world (ei. objective reality) does not reach out to us and tell us its secrets--we make them up as we empirically experience them. 
Regardless, I think that the anger in your rhetoric is misplaced.  You have chosen the human tendency towards belief as your villain, when it should be human greed assigned to that role.  All intitutions are necessarily flawed, but can be used for the improvement of life, or its degredation.  There have been wonderful christians, and there have been those who used their power selfishly, and have hurt others.  But if you think science is safe from the same accusation, think again.  Or Islam.  Or capitalism.  Or any human system.  We cannot save us from ourselves.
My advise to you and everyone is this:  Spend every day at work in the world exploring as many details of life as you can and believing none of them, then come home, kick back, and pray to a god you made up, or watch how subatomic particles react to light.  Children with a friend made of thin air, or adults who talk to Jesus don't need therapy  There's still room for the human imagination.
Yours Sincerely,
Underemployed and Overeducated