I was invited to be apart of an "Inter-Faith" Panel discussion to be held on October 26, 2004 and October 27, 2004 by Professor Shabnam Tobaccowala of Ramapo College of New Jersey. This annual panel meets for an informal discussion for the benefit of undergraduate students attending a course in "Social Issues". The Inter-Faith panel consisted of, Father Ron whom was representing the Roman Catholic Ministry, Rabbi Ely Allen (Director of Campus Youth Services and Teen Connections) represented Judaism, Dennis (not sure of last name) was present and represented the Lutheran Church, Barbara (not sure of last name) represented the Episcopalian Ministry, Habeebullah was present on October 26th and represented Islam, The "Imam" was present on October 27th to represnt Islam, and lastly I, (Jason S. Yeldell) was invited to represent Rational Atheism.

On October 26, 2004 I arrived at Ramapo College of New Jersey and found my way to the classroom. The class had not yet started so a few of the other speakers and I chatted outside for a few minutes. The order of the speakers was being discussed and I, (being the philosophically-diametrically-opposed speaker opted to go last).

The discussion began on October 26th 2004 with each panel member giving a brief "5 minute" description of their philosophy or faith. I say "5 minute" with quotation marks because these "brief descriptions" went on average about 10-15 minutes.

Father Ron gave his description of the Roman Catholic Ministry which basically consisted of a delving into biblical history as well as socio-political history of the Roman Catholic Church. Father Ron also immediately stated that "just as humans are flawed, the church is flawed, and has to be open to reform" (this appeared to be an obvious addition to a well rehearsed speech to account for contemporary problems within the Catholic church). It is also extremely important to note that Father Ron "assumed?" the role of the moderator of the discussion and first asked the students of the class to state their name and what religion they were (if they were "comfortable" stating so). The students visibly were hesitant but proceeded to do so. In my personal opinion, I feel this was detrimental because those students who may not have been apart of a particular faith or belief followed by the majority, or even those that were Agnostic/Atheistic, would now be placed into a realm of peer acceptance/discomfort. (Would an 18 to 21 year old "closet" Atheist or Agnostic feel comfortable letting his or her classmates and or roomate(s) know they are Atheistic or Agnostic, especially if the previous 20 students professed their belief in a particular god??)

Next, Rabbi Ely Allen gave a description of Judaism. One notable comment from Rabbi Ely's opening statement was that the Biblical reference toward "an eye for an eye" is interpreted in modern judaism as justice being served through "financial compensation". After Rabbi Ely spoke on Judaism, Barbara spoke on the Episcopalian Ministry of Christianity and after Barbara came Dennis with a brief description of The Lutheran Church. It is important to know that the Lutherans believe that the Bible is inerrant. In other words it is to be interpreted literally and as a factual account of historical and prophetic occurences. When it was time for Habeebullah to speak on Islam he did so. It is notable how Habeebullah stressed how there is only one "true" god according to Islam and that Islam is the wolds's most "rational" religion.

Lastly, it was time for me to speak on behalf of Rational Atheism. With my limited time I basically stressed how Atheism is the most misrepresented and misunderstood philosophy one could have on life. Atheism is and has been grossly misrepresented in modern history simply because most who ever speak of the "Atheist", never in life have had a "real" conversation with someone who is Atheistic. With my limited time I focussed on the fact that before we can have any meaningful discussions on God and Religion, we first must address the very issue of the alleged existence of a "god" or "goddess". I made sure to point out that belief in a god is taught to us (not something that is inate in human life), it is taught to us normally from parent to child, and if you are born in certain parts of the world you are taught a different religion or different belief system.

I then went on to discuss the 3 different types of Atheists (Psychological, Implicit and the Rational Atheist). I lastly then explained briefly that the Rational Atheist believes that the belief in a supernatural realm and "supernatural daddy" is nothing but a perpetuated self delusional fantasy on the religionist's part that provides a feeling of "comfort" by mimicking the childhood comfort of parental care (but this time around with a supernatural "father')

After my opening statement, I could visibly see that many of the students were itching with questions to ask me (and rightfully so!)

The Question and Answer Period of the Discussion

The question and answer period immediately began after my opening statement/description.

One of the first questions I received was from a student asking, "So you dont believe in anything?". I answered this question by further explaining that the rational atheistic viewpoint on life relies heavily on an objective evaluation of all of the current evidence. The evidence that we have in the world all points to the non existence of a supernatural realm, thus the rational atheist is "forced" to follow whatever the evidence dictates. That would mean that I do not believe in a God, Goddess, boogieman, devil, ghosts, goblins, prayer and miracles.

Next, I received a question from a fellow panel member, Rabbi Ely Allen, whom to my surpirse had "done his homework" on me, me writings and this very website (he had printouts of my writings on his desk). His question was a great one. He quoted me as stating that "The Rational Atheist is not inherantly "close minded". All Rational Atheists are "open" to the idea of the existence of a God and a supernatural realm. The rational atheist would gladly accept a theistic worldview if............" Thus his question to me was to clarify the difference between the Agnostic (who is not sure that there is or isnt a god) compared to the Rational Athiest who in my words, is "open to the idea of a god and would gladly accept it under certain conditions". This was a minute but critical detail that I knew the class would benefit from hearing an answer to. My explaination to him was that the Agnostic is basically undecided and sitting on the fence (a middle ground between theism and atheism), as opposed to the rational atheist who has formed a conclusion based on the current evidence! The rational atheist is not "agnostic" by admitting he or she is open to the idea of a god or supernatural realm, it simply shows that the rational atheist is indeed "Rational" and willing to admit that he or she will follow whatever the evidence dictates! If the evidence was to dictate that there is a supernatural realm or god, the rational atheist would gladly accept this worldview! This is the very definition of rational thought (being led by the evidence), not to be confused with "walking the middle road".

The next question I received was from a student who had a question about my upbringing, she was curious how I ended up being Atheistic. I answered this by explaining that I too was once a theist/believer of a god. I grew up believing in a god (as most chidren do due to the parental teaching of this concept), I even sang in the church choir! I explained that ever since I was a young child, I had a sincere fascination for nature and the world's creatures. This fascination with nature and science (if it is sincere and wholehearted) normally leads an individual to settle for nothing less than accurate depictions of the reality of the world we live in. (what good is a belief in the supernatural and miracles when admiring and analyzing the trilobite or studying the evolution of flightless birds?) When one has a sincere fascination of nature and the sciences, they are compelled to view life as rationally as possible and not through a lens of superstition and unverified claims of the supernatural.

At this point, some of the other panel members began responding to questions being asked to them about Jesus and the significance of the crucifix, etc. ( again, it is interesting to note that Father Ron had "moderator" status for this discussion and thus controlled the tempo and flow of the questioning!) It is for this reason sad to say that I found my "time" consistently and "conveniently?" being "cut short" when responding to students!

Being that the questions (as of the last 20 minutes or so after my last answer) dealt with "Jesus", I decided to bring up the point to the rest of the panel members that "what gives one the right to give more weight to Jesus as opposed to any other alleged god-man of antiquity, such as Thor, Hercules, Zues and Osirus?" There is no historical evidence to prove that Jesus ever actually physically existed! So why are we "putting the cart before the horse" so to speak. This comment of mine visibly "rattled" some of the other panel members (in particular Barbara and Father Ron) who both then claimed that there is indeed evidence that Jesus Christ was a real physical historical entity. I asked for an example of this evidence and was told to look no further than the Gospels and the writings of Josephus. I also was asked why and how do I know that George Washington was a real being!

I wanted to respond to this but due to time constraints I conveniently could not. It is interesting to note that the Gospels are not "evidence" for the existence of Jesus as a historical, physical person, due to the fact that neither Matthew, Mark, Luke or John were eyewitnesses to any aspect of the alleged life of "Jesus", but were written/compiled years after the death of the alleged "son of god"! In addition, the writings of Josephus do not qualify as "evidence" for the historical existence of "Yeshua Ben Nazareth" being that Josephus was not an eyewitness and was born years after the alleged death of Jesus! Josephus was merely commenting on a religious/mystical movement that was already in place by the time he came of age! And as for George Washington, we all know he was a real historical man because we have evidence of him! Aside from historical/archeological evidence from that time period a few hundred years ago, we also have writings from eyewitnesses and possess physical relics of that era. Credence is given to eyewitness accounts only when they have the ability to be substantiated with other writings of the time period! George Washington fits this bill, Jesus does not.

As time was winding down (the class was only 1 hour and 50 minutes in length), I received a question from another student. The question was basically, "if you do not believe in the supernatural, then how do you explain the building of the pyramids?" I explained to the student that the building of the pyramids presents no problem to modern science and consequently rational thought and atheism. The way in which the pyramids were constructed is indeed known by modern science and required no supernatural help a few millenia ago. The student then followed up with another question to the effect of, "Religions and belief in a god have been around for so long and so many people believe in God, thus they cant be wrong!" I answered by explaining the fallacy in this train of thought and explained the nature of evidence and "proof". Simply because something has been around for a long time or followed by a large group of people never makes it "true" or "right". Truth value is given to claims based on their demonstrated merit and validity. Majority does not automatically equate with "correctness" and legitimacy.

The last question posed to the panel on October 26th was the issue of homosexuality. Each panel member was to be given a few minutes to explain their philosphical view on homosexuality. Father Ron, explained the view on homosexuality from the point of view of the Roman Catholic. He stated that he is for the extension of rights to homosexuals but never clearly stated whether or not homosexuality is considered "wrong" theologically and philosophically according to the Roman Catholic Church. Habeeballah explained that according to Islam, man is supposed to be with woman and vice versa. Thus, it is strictly against homosexuality. This sentiment was echoed from the Lutheran and Episcopalian philosophies. Rabbi Ely was unable to comment being that he had to leave early. I responded to this question by basically explaining that the rational atheist does not seperate himself from nature or any other form of life. When one looks at nature, it is clear that homosexuality is a normal and natural occurence. (homosexuality is visible in almost every major animal group). Due to the fact that homosexuality is not uniquely a "human thing" it is irrational and arrogant to condemn or criticize one's behavior or sexual tendencies. The rational atheist has no problem or qualms with homosexuality and fights for extension of all rights to homosexual individuals.

This concluded the panel discussion for October 26, 2004. After the class was over, I was able to get into some really great discussions with students who hung around in addition to Habeeballah. Our now informal-up close and personal discussions focused on intelligent design, creationism, faith and the divine plan. I would of loved to bring these concepts up during the class, but due to time constraints I could not, and would not bring them up ( as it would raise more questions than could be answered in 1 or 2 minutes).

October 27th, 2004 Panel Discussion

The panel for October 27th consisted of the same players as yesterday (Father Ron, Rabbi Ely, Dennis, Barbara, Myself) but representing Islam this day, was "The Imam". The "Imam" according to definition is: "A male spiritual and temporal leader regarded by Shiites as a descendant of Muhammad divinely appointed to guide humans". Being that the Imam was present, I looked forward to an entertaining discussion.

The panel (just as yesterday) introduced themself to the students and offered a brief description of their philosophical stance and or belief system. Just as yesterday, Father Ron again asked the students in the class to state their name and belief system........The class of about 40 students appeared to be approximately 99% Catholic according to the responses.

Father Ron then began with his description of Catholocism, Rabbi Ely gave his Description of Judaism, Dennis gave his descriptipn of Lutheranism, Barbara gave her description of the Episcopalian Ministry and then the Imam spoke on behalf of Islam. During his description of Islam. the Imam stressed that Islam is the Worlds most "Rational" Religion and that those who clam that there is no god are irrational! He then went on to state that "we all know that Atheism must be wrong and irrational because look at what happened to Hitler and the communists!"

Lastly, I spoke on behalf of Rational Atheism and as opposed to yesterday, I made sure to speak for as long as possible (due to the fact that I knew time could be cut short later on). I once again stressed how Atheism is the most misrepresented and misunderstood philosophy one could have on life. Atheism is and has been grossly misrepresented in modern history simply because most who ever speak of the "Atheist", never in life have had a "real" conversation with someone who is Atheistic. With my limited time I focussed on the fact that before we can have any meaningful discussions on God and Religion, we first must address the very issue of the alleged existence of a "god" or "goddess". I made sure to point out that belief in a god is taught to us (not something that is inate in human life), it is taught to us normally from parent to child, and if you are born in certain parts of the world you are taught a different religion or different belief system.

I then went on to discuss the 3 different types of Atheists (Psychological, Implicit and the Rational Atheist). I lastly then explained briefly that the Rational Atheist believes that the belief in a supernatural realm and "supernatural daddy" is nothing but a perpetuated self delusional fantasy on the religionist's part that provides a feeling of "comfort" by mimicking the childhood comfort of parental care (but this time around with a supernatural "father')

After my explanation of Rational Atheism, it was once again time for student and panel questions. Again, I could notice that the students were itching to ask me questions.

One student asked me, "how do I obtain a sense of morals and right from wrong without belief in a god?"

I answered this question by explaining what exactly "morality" is. Morality is nothing but feelings about actions, thoughts and behaviors that are tied into our evolutionary history as a species, but explained culturally. Meaning that, what we humans define as "morality" is simply an aid to the survival and reproduction of our species! Throughout the course of human evolution, certain thoughts, actions and behaviors were found to not be socially advantageous and so in turn over time have become ingrained as taboo or "immoral" For example, the act of stealing from a fellow member is not "socially advantageous" for the species because it possibly made family units weaker and susceptible to predation. Similarly, what we would call "philanthropy" or "helping fellow humans" is socialy advantageous because it streghthens bonds between individuals and ultimately strengthens a social group on a whole. Thus, being cooperative and helping out fellow man over time has yielded more benefit than detriment and thus became seen as what we would call "good", "right" or "moral". Basically, morality has nothing to do with a supernatural realm or "God", one can be what we consider "moral" irrespective of their philosophical views on life!

What I wanted to stress to the students is that most of the "moral" concepts in oraginzed religion are really nothing but "naturalistic priciples". Do not kill, do not skill and do not lie all have great survival value for a social creature living in a cold indifferent world. These concepts have nothing to do with a supernatural creator or judge, but rather the survival of our species as dictated by our evolutionary history.

I then recieved a question from another student asking, "what does the rational athesit do when faced with a sad or bad situation? How do you pray to for help?"

I answered this question by explaining that the rational atheist does not live life with the cmforting security blanket of an all powerful father figure. So when faced with a sad situation or hard life challenge, the rational atheist faces the situation in reality and then strives to take corrective action to end the situation or prevent future occurences. If the situation is one which is worthy of grief, then grief is what it will elicit. However, at no time does the rational atheist ak for "help" from an alleged deity. The rational atheist learns to live life for what it is and face all situations in reality. Comforting security blankets involving "god" are delusions.

The next question I received from a student was asking, "What does the rational atheist think about situations that there are no explanations for?"

I answered this question by explaining that the rational atheist is obligated to believe whatever the evidence dictates. If something is unexplainable today, it does not mean in any way that this is evidence for the supernatural! The unexplained phenomenon simply gets put into the "unexplained category". The rational atheist has learned to live with th elow level of anxiety associated with "not having all the answers". Normally, the human comfort level in "not knowing" something is very low, thus religion alleviates this discomfort with belief in a god and supernatural realm that can account for the mysteries of the world.

Later on in the discusssion, the IMAM voiced to the students that the rational atheistic viewpoint on life and our existence is irrational and illogical simply because it thinks that everything is the result of luck and chance. The Imam, then went on to proclaim that it cant be luck that we are here and it cant be luck that our Earth has a Sun and Moon and the ability to support life! He then went on to state/ask, why werent we (the planet Earth) destroyed in some celestial collision?

I answered this statement/question by explaining that it is actually all based on luck and chance! Earth was "lucky" to end up being a certain distance away form the star we call the Sun. Earth was lucky to end up having a moon to help stabalize our orbit and rotation. It is all based on chance and luck. The fact that Earth, is the only planet in our Solar Syatem that appears to be able to support life is evidence of this "luck", not evidence of a supernatural creator.

At this point in the discussion, Rabbi Ely addressed the professor of the class with a chance to have a few minutes of time to ask me a question to answer for the students and panel. The students had no qualms as did the professor and it commenced!

Question: Pascals Wager: "Isn't it more rational to believe in the existence of a supernatural creator/God, due to the fact that the consequences of disbelief may be very high!"

Pascals Wager is a long running question posed to many who are Atheistic. The proposition basically appeals to the notion of "insurance and the concept of preventative maintanence". I answered this question by explaining that the rational atheist finds it totally irrational to "believe" in a God or supernatural realm simply because the alleged consequences of this disbelief may be very high (eternal damnation). To believe in a god and supernatural realm because you are afraid of the punishment is not rational. The rational atheist can not suspend common sense and rational thought simply because of the theological threat of damnation, let alone if the very concept of this theological damnation is irrational to begin with!

The discussion ended as did the day before's with a question to the panel about homosexuality. Every panel member answered this question exactly the way in which they did one day prior.

After the discussion ended, it is important to note the the Imam approached me and attempted to convince me that Islam is the true way! The Imam resorted to trying to convince me that "I must not of truly studied Islam, because If I did, I would realize hor "rational" it is and I wouldnt be atheistic!". H ethen went on to state how there are things in the Koran, that must be divinely inspired because they accurately explain things that occur to this day. I asked for some examples, and he promptly walked away......