Great comments and thanks for the discussion. It's hard to know where to comment because there's so much to say and there's a 10K-word limit! This is one of those conversations that would be better over coffee than the Internet.

I'll try a subject-based approach. First I'll try to clarify what I was saying about meaninglessness and atheism. If we go with the evolutionary naturalism model, there was a singularity that exploded, who knows why, into matter and energy. Through a series of random, purposeless (since without a governing plan or person there can't be purpose) and meaningless (ditto) sequences, planets (etc.) were formed. Just chemicals, blind physical forces and fortuitous (for life) sequences. At least one planet was potentially conducive to life, and luck would have it, a lightning strike in the right pool at the right time started the process. Through a series of random (unguided, blind, impersonal, nonpurposeful) mutations, life began and progressed according to natural selection (also blind, and misnamed because it implies purposeful activity). And so we have life as we see it today. My problem in all of this is there is no and can be no purpose in life, or processes if this is all that's true. Everything is random. It's like an iPod on "shuffle." It will never and can never act with purpose, or give me a meaningful playlist. It's always random because that's the only game in town. And then, I have to question my process of thinking. If everything's random, are my thoughts also? If that's the only game in town, then I can't trust my thoughts to be reasonable or true, and so reason is always questionable, which means it doesn't exist. And if there's no purpose and no reason, then nothing has ANY meaning. It doesn't matter if I or anybody else lives or dies. We're no different than a star out there that is born or explodes. We're all just matter + time + chance, *and nothing else*. People don't have any significance; we're no different than an asteroid. Good works don't matter; I'm no different than a blade of grass that can be fertilized, pulled out, or cut to length. What difference does it make? And it makes no whit of difference if I act as if people have value and perform altruistic acts to make me feel better. Ultimately, tossing a rock over a cliff is no different than tossing a child. The only way humans have purpose, reason, and meaning is if there is a personal, moral, intelligent source for our personal-ness, sense of goodness and right, and reasoning power. It's not possible for an atheist; actually, it's contradictory to put those things in a system that doesn't allow for them, unless they are totally contrived and absolutely fictional. It's only truly possible if there is a God. Otherwise, you're just playing make-believe, and you're self-deceived.

You want to use whatever valuable information comes across your path, but the only information that comes across your path is part of a random sequence and cannot be counted as trustworthy and certainly can't be reasonably evaluated as valuable. It's information no different from a random and meaningless sequence of numbers, or a snowstorm of flakes that are all different. They carry information, but not to an end. There can be no purpose or end, because they are all always and only randomly generated by physical laws. We have no evidence from science that meaningful informational data can come from anything but a meaningful informational source.

You say life is extremely precious. On what basis other than a made-up foundation? Is it because we're an agglomeration of raw chemicals that came together fortuitously—does that make life precious? If so, then acid is just as precious. Is it because we have consciousness? But even consciousness can't be explained if the source is impersonal, unconscious, chemical, and the result of blind mutation. If it's because we sense purpose, meaning, significance, goodness, reason, and personality, those are all borrowed from theism and are self-defeating for the atheist.

You say you're doing things because they're the right thing to do. How do you define right? If there is no standard, it's just the standard that you set or the definition you give it. In other words, right is what you define it to be, or that society "agrees" it to be. But I have a real problem with that, because it justifies Hitler's actions. His society defined right as they wished and agreed together. He cannot be blamed, only disagreed with.

> So basically, if Jesus had come down and been a complete fuckass you all would still be worshiping him just because he was the incarnation of god? ... I mean, what if god sucked? Or sucks?

This is a self-contradictory statement. So you're asking, "What if God wasn't God? Would you still be worshipping him? And what if Jesus was completely other? Could he still be what he was?" God can't be non-God, and Jesus can't be completely other. It's like me asking, "What if you weren't you? Would you still be you?" It's nonsensical and can't be answered. If Jesus were as you speculate, he's be non-Jesus, and A can't equal non-A. It's the law of identity and contradiction, and so it's twaddle. Jesus was a good guy because A=A. There aren't any other choices.

> So far I can't find a single concrete source with proof that Jesus was a real flesh and blood human being. There are documents...

If you reject documents (including inscriptions), you reject about 90% or greater of what we know of history. No wonder you don't believe in Jesus. You don't believe in George Washington either. all we have is documents and a few paintings, which could easily have been made up. What is your standard of historicity if you reject documentation?

> First of all, I can't (and won't) vouch for your cousin, and whether her faith is real or fake, hypocritical or honest. No comment, because I don't have enough information to comment, so I'll just respond to you.

Oh, I don't want to make her sound all that bad. I don't want to judge her so harshly. I am sure she is genuine in believing in Christ, and I'm sure she genuinely believes she is doing her god's will. It's just when she complains about having her tax money going to helping care for poor elderly people (happened recently), I sometimes question wtf she is doing with her life. But I suppose I wonder that about myself all the time.

> What strikes me as odd is that you are atheist, but you live as if Christianity is true. If there really is no god, then life is the result of random processes, and meaning and morality are only things we make up to help us survive. But essentially both of those are just to make us feel good or, as I said, to aid in survival. But really, then, easing the suffering of another is meaningless, too. We're just an agglomeration of chemicals put together by lucky processes, and we're no different than a tree or a rock. ... There is no human dignity, worth, or value, except what we make up and pretend we have. Suffering is meaningless, as is good. Forgiveness doesn't matter, because we're not meaningful humans whose lives matter. Charity, judging others—none of it means diddly. You are acting as if humans have some kind of worth, but if you're an atheist, they don't.

I'd say that's a pretty black-and-white way to look at it. I don't live like Christianity is true - I live like the Christianity has value in its teachings. Just like I believe there is value in knowing your ABC's and 123's, it is good to learn about the teachings of Jesus because of a lot it is valuable information to know and a good way to promote a healthy lifestyle, just like The Buddha. I don't believe in The Buddha as a real person, but I believe that there is a lot of wisdom to the teachings. In my mind, it is not just one way or the other. And - in my opinion - our value as people isn't about whether we were created from dirt and ribs by a tyrannical old testament god or if we evolved from primordial ooze. Our value as people is the relationships we forge through our fleeting lives. Our experiences, our emotions, an our stewardship to the planet. There is plenty of value in that, and therefore there is value in protecting that and being "good" to that. Morals are a human invention, in my opinion, and are somewhat subjective depending on the situation, but god is not always the best example of excellent morals IMHO. I grew up Jewish, so god was a pretty tyrannical bastard from what I learned. The Christian god is a lot nicer. So, whether morals are invented because they make life easier or if you're "moral" just because god told you to and you're frightened of him doesn't make much of a difference to me. Being a good person is good regardless of why. And what if people DON'T have value? Maybe we are only as valuable as the people around us think we are. That is a sad reality for many many people.

> As Richard Dawkins so truthfully said: "In a world of blind physical forces, some people are going to get hurt just as some are going to get lucky, and there is no rhyme or reason in it, nor any injustice. There is no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Existentialist Jean Paul Sartre agreed that it's unfair to assume Christian values if we admit an atheistic world.

And I kind of feel like I should be allowed to use whatever valuable information comes along my path, whether it's from a science book or a bible. Richard Dawkins can have his opinions, which I think that quote was taken out of context. Whatever gives people hope has value. Whatever makes people happy with each other and love each other has value. If the teachings promote peace that has value. Whether or not it connected to some kind of dogma just doesn't matter to me.

> Stephen Jay Gould describes humans as a cosmic accident. I've had atheists tell me, when they were being honest, that there's no difference between feeding a baby and killing it.

Uh... I don't know what kind of "atheists" you hang out with. The atheists I know think life is extremely precious because once you're gone you're gone and honestly I wouldn't want anyone who thinks that way around my toddler. I definitely do not equate feeding my child to killing my child. No clue what that logic is. Like, what? Because she's going to die eventually anyways? Yea, sure, but in the meantime she might develop a cure for cancer, so uh... no.

> There's a deep inconsistency in your rejection of God but your acceptance of all things godly. If we're just chemicals, then we're just chemicals.

I don't accept all things godly. I accept that some of the teachings are valid and worth living by.

> Secondly, what Jesus said hardly matters. It's who he is and what he did that matters. Even if Jesus never spoke a single word, but was God incarnate on the earth who lived a sinless life and died in our place, the work would have been accomplished. In other words, Jesus is not defined by his teachings, but by his identity.

And I guess that's where I get lost. So basically, if Jesus had come down and been a complete fuckass you all would still be worshiping him just because he was the incarnation of god? I guess it's a good thing he was supposedly such a good guy if you guys would've been down with anything!

> There is no real thing as goodness—it's an illusion.

It could be. When I told my mother I wanted to work in charity she told me to look up "altruism" - really interesting stuff. According to the wikipedia page, there is no true altruism because humans are wired to self-serve. Any selfless act we commit is in a way a selfish act because we did it to feel better about ourselves. Really interesting stuff.

> Empathy toward others and charity work prolongs a meaningless existence that is going nowhere but to the grave, and without ever any purpose.

I don't think this is a position anyone who has ever needed help would say. If you are stranded on a roof top in a rising flood and you need help, you don't sit there and say "Well, I guess I'm going to die anyways and since I don't believe in god, f*** it, might as well not get any help." People who don't believe in god also need help and their lives do have value and meaning because they are able to impact those around them. And you can find purpose in life instead of focusing on waiting for death and hoping you go to a better place.

> Third, the historicity of Jesus is as substantial as the historicity of any individual from ancient times. It's not realistic to wonder whether the person of Jesus ever really existed. That's been established.

If it's been established there are billions of people who disagree with that. So far I can't find a single concrete source with proof that Jesus was a real flesh and blood human being. There are documents, but there are also documents of norse gods in Norway... So, yea, is it likely that Jesus was a real person? Sure. Is it possible within the realms of physics that he ascended from the cross and that that somehow erased the concept of sin from everyones hearts, is pretty freaking farfetched, but hey, what do I know about god? I read the old testament in Hebrew when I was little and that's about it.

> "What is more vital to being Christian? Believing in Christ or living a Christlike life?" The answer is unequivocally believing in Christ, the true belief of which will ALWAYS also result in a Christlike life. This choice is the only option, because the latter (living a Christlike life without any of the foundation) is just a fabrication and a deception.

That's an interesting way to put it. Another person said a very similar thing. That it's not about what Jesus taught it was about who he was and all I can say is, I guess you guys are lucky Jesus was a good guy and not evil because otherwise you guys would be pretty fucked if you're willing to follow anyone as long as they are the incarnate of god, regardless of how shitty that god might be. I mean, what if god sucked? Or sucks? I'm just throwing that out there. I don't mean to offend, but it seems a bit ridiculous to say that who he was is more important than what he did, but then, I guess I just don't understand any of this. In my experience, a person's actions define who they are, not who their parents are.

Thanks for your honest letter. I'll do my best to respond, and would love a continuing conversation.

First of all, I can't (and won't) vouch for your cousin, and whether her faith is real or fake, hypocritical or honest. No comment, because I don't have enough information to comment, so I'll just respond to you.

What strikes me as odd is that you are atheist, but you live as if Christianity is true. If there really is no god, then life is the result of random processes, and meaning and morality are only things we make up to help us survive. But essentially both of those are just to make us feel good or, as I said, to aid in survival. But really, then, easing the suffering of another is meaningless, too. We're just an agglomeration of chemicals put together by lucky processes, and we're no different than a tree or a rock. There is no human dignity, worth, or value, except what we make up and pretend we have. Suffering is meaningless, as is good. Forgiveness doesn't matter, because we're not meaningful humans whose lives matter. Charity, judging others—none of it means diddly. You are acting as if humans have some kind of worth, but if you're an atheist, they don't. As Richard Dawkins so truthfully said: "In a world of blind physical forces, some people are going to get hurt just as some are going to get lucky, and there is no rhyme or reason in it, nor any injustice. There is no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Existentialist Jean Paul Sartre agreed that it's unfair to assume Christian values if we admit an atheistic world. Stephen Jay Gould describes humans as a cosmic accident. I've had atheists tell me, when they were being honest, that there's no difference between feeding a baby and killing it. There's a deep inconsistency in your rejection of God but your acceptance of all things godly. If we're just chemicals, then we're just chemicals.

Secondly, what Jesus said hardly matters. It's who he is and what he did that matters. Even if Jesus never spoke a single word, but was God incarnate on the earth who lived a sinless life and died in our place, the work would have been accomplished. In other words, Jesus is not defined by his teachings, but by his identity. We follow Jesus because of who he is, not because of what he said. As such, believing in his teachings is just believing that the presuppositions of Christianity and theism should have decidedly positive and beneficial repercussions in life. But without the foundation of theism and the presuppositions of Christianity, as I said previously, these "positive and beneficial repercussion" are a meaningless (and almost cruel) ruse. There is no real thing as goodness—it's an illusion. Empathy toward others and charity work prolongs a meaningless existence that is going nowhere but to the grave, and without ever any purpose.

Third, the historicity of Jesus is as substantial as the historicity of any individual from ancient times. It's not realistic to wonder whether the person of Jesus ever really existed. That's been established.

"What is more vital to being Christian? Believing in Christ or living a Christlike life?" The answer is unequivocally believing in Christ, the true belief of which will ALWAYS also result in a Christlike life. This choice is the only option, because the latter (living a Christlike life without any of the foundation) is just a fabrication and a deception.

What if I believe in the teachings of Jesus and living a Christ-like life, but I don't believe in Jesus or God as a real thing that exists or existed?

I became atheist somewhere in my early 20s and decided to dedicate my life to charity. I figured that if I wasn't going to heaven or hell and I have just this one life, I want to spend it helping people. One of the most direct paths to bettering humankind is through the teachings of Jesus Christ. I also enjoy the teachings of Buddha and the I-Ching. I believe in stewardship to the planet and humankind and raising children who are empathetic to others and the planet. I believe that greatness is best achieved by easing the suffering of others. I believe in acceptance, forgiveness, not judging people by their situations and/or status. I don't gamble, I actively work in charity, I actually volunteered on a leper colony at one point (tbh, to kind of stick it to my born-again cousin who married a youth minister and told me there's no way for me to have a moral compass if I don't believe in god.) and I try to live - in my own way - a Christlike life. That said, I don't believe in Jesus Christ or god. I don't know whether or not Jesus was a real person and since I don't believe in god I don't believe at all that he was the reincarnation of god, but that doesn't mean his teachings aren't worth listening to.

I guess, what I'm saying is what is more vital to being Christian? Believing in Christ or living a Christlike life? Because my cousin here lives basically in a huge evangelistic church with thousands of members. She spends loads of money on her appearance. If she has ever volunteered for anything charitable it is through her church and because it was expected of her, she is extremely judgmental of anyone who isn't Christian, believes Muslims are subhuman and Jews are sad for rejecting Christ. She believes in corporal punishment for those who have abortions or are reduced to prostitution. She has zero empathy for anyone who isn't on her specific path and I just have a hard time believing that she would be favored in the eyes of "god" simply because she believes in god whereas I - who have actually attempted to lead a Christlike life - would be cast off because I don't. She claims that all my efforts are sad because without accepting Jesus as my lord and savior they mean nothing in the eyes of god and all I have to say is that, if that is true, your god is a narcissist asshole who doesn't give one shit about humanity unless it's revolving around worshiping and giving him attention. I don't believe in god, but if I did, I'd imagine an all powerful god would have more self esteem than that.