Atheist Revolution

I Am An Atheist Because...

2009-11-22T08:00:00.001-06:00

Why are you an atheist? When someone learns of your atheism for the first time, I think it makes sense to expect that the why question will soon follow. It is a fair question, especially for those of us who live in areas that are especially hostile to atheists. The thing is, this question can catch one off guard because providing a complete answer can be a lengthy exercise. I'll give you my answer below, and I'd be interested to hear yours too.

The brief version of my response would be something like the following:

I am an atheist because I find the existence of gods to be so implausible that it makes more sense to me to assume that no such beings exist.

In elaborating my response more fully, I would try to address the following points because it has been my experience that many people are confused about some of them:

Being an atheist simply means that I do not believe that any gods exist.
When I say I am an atheist, that does not mean that I am 100% certain that no gods could ever exist; it just means that I do not happen to believe that any do exist.
I am an atheist for the same reasons that you don't believe in other gods: there is no evidence that they exist, and you recognize that it would be nuts to believe in something so far-fetched without compelling evidence.

I recognize that it can be tiresome to constantly have to teach others about atheism. I suppose you can blame the religious for all the misconceptions and stereotypes, but that is not going to absolve any of us of the responsibility to inform others. Perhaps we should embrace a role as ambassadors of atheism.

How about you? How do you typically complete the "I am an atheist because" stem when it comes up?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

What's So Bad About Religion?

2009-11-12T05:35:00.001-06:00

I have never met an atheist who would claim that religion is the source of all evil in the world or that a post-religious world would necessarily be some sort of Utopian paradise. Many of us may still long for a post-religious world, but we are realistic about what it would involve. The far more common view, and the one to which I personally subscribe, is that religious belief (i.e., faith) facilitates evil in a way that few other organizations or belief systems are capable. As Steven Weinberg famously said,

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Again, the claim is not that religion is somehow the source of all evil but that it facilitates a particularly devastating form of evil.

When attempting to convince theists of the perils of faith, many atheists are tempted to start listing religious atrocities. This is an understandable impulse, as there is a nearly infinite number from which to choose, but this is probably a dead end. Historic examples will be disregarded as irrelevant for occurring in another age, and modern examples will be dismissed as being committed by false believers (e.g., denial that the perpetrators were "real Christians," etc.). No, the case must be made by examining the nature of faith itself and the manner in which it was (and still is) used to justify some of the most despicable acts imaginable.

Religion is Inherently Divisive

As Dawkins noted in The God Delusion, religion is inherently divisive. While it undeniably unites those who share a common belief, it does so by dividing them from all others. As Dawkins points out, religion divides us in ways that other types of human differences (e.g., nationality, politics, etc.) generally do not. Examples include labeling children as belonging to various faith traditions about which they may know little, segregating schools, and taboos about marrying out of the in-group. The effects of this divisiveness on assorted conflicts are well known and do not need repeating.

This divisiveness all by itself would be problematic but what makes it far more serious is the manner in which religion serves to dehumanize members of the out-group. We see what the Christian bible says about how nonbelievers are to be dealt with, and we are all familiar with Qur'an instructs when it comes to infidels and apostates. Not content to merely separate the out-group, religion makes the wholesale slaughter of out-group members permissible (and in some cases, almost mandatory).

Religiously-Based Systems of Morality are Deeply Flawed

Even children of a certain age typically recognize that engaging in good behavior and refraining from bad behavior solely because one anticipates reward and fears punishment are not exactly the pinnacle of moral behavior. I suppose I must admit being glad that those Christians who have claimed over the years that they would murder me but for their faith do in fact have their faith, but I have real difficulty seeing this as a moral system worth teaching.

When religious believers tell us that their preferred scripture is "holy," "divine," or the inerrant word of some god, we have little choice but to take them at their word. Unfortunately, this is a terrifying thought for those of us who are familiar with the contents of these texts and the many atrocities they sanction.

I do not deny for a second that religious systems of morality played an important historical role and that many modern institutions were influenced by them directly or indirectly. But this does not mean that we have not outgrown them or that morality has evolved beyond their scope. Moreover, I believe that the stubborn insistence that we cling to such antiquated ethical systems hinders progress in a number of important domains (e.g., human rights, gender equality, reproductive rights, slavery, stem cell research, etc.).

Some Elements of Religious Doctrine are Directly Harmful

Aside from the divisive and frequently dehumanizing effects of religion or problems associated with religious morality, some aspects of religious doctrine are directly harmful. In examining the Christian extremist plague that has been infecting the U.S. for some time now, we find a particularly striking example in the form of "end times" theology. I have previously described how this particular theology endangers us all, it can be effectively reduced to the realization that one will have little motivation to improve one's world if one is convinced that the end is coming during one's lifetime.

I describe this as "directly harmful" because the impact of this theology is direct, obvious, and needs no speculation about the pathway through which it might occur. If a politician is convinced that the end of the world is right around the corner, we cannot expect him or her to pursue policies in the long-term interest of our nation and the future generations which will inhabit it. We may even be forced to imagine the same politician attempting to hasten the end through deliberately provoking wars, foreign occupations, and the like.

Once again, nobody is claiming that religion is the source of all war. But how many other institutions or belief systems could lead one to bring about mass destruction to hasten an afterlife? How many other institutions or belief systems could so effectively motivate the sort of suicide bombings that have become so common in Iraq?

Summary

What is so bad about religion is that it divides people and demonizes the out-group to the point where virtually any fate inflicted on them can be justified as divinely sanctioned. What is so bad about religion is that it fosters a primitive form of morality that hinders progress in virtually any domain beneficial to our modern world. What is so bad about religion is that it facilitates the commission of atrocities by good people who are merely pursuing "the divine."

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Understanding Atheism and Agnosticism

2009-09-23T05:34:00.000-05:00

Image by Loz Flowers via Flickr

One of the more frequent points of confusion for those first beginning to explore the subject of atheism is the relationship of atheism to agnosticism. It is often thought that these represent two distinct positions on the question of god(s), but this is actually not the case. Atheism is indeed a response to the question of god(s), but agnosticism addresses the question of knowledge.

I recently ran across a great comment in reddit/atheism by a user called disturbd that provides a succinct yet accurate summary. I have edited it only for grammar.

Agnosticism deals with one's claim to knowledge on a subject; atheism describes one's lack of belief in deities. They are not mutually exclusive terms. If you don't claim to know whether or not gods exist, regardless of your belief or lack thereof, you are agnostic. Agnostic simply means "without knowledge." You can be an agnostic atheist (I don't know, but I don't believe in gods), or an agnostic theist (I don't know, but I do believe in god/s). A gnostic atheist/theist would claim to know their position is true. A gnostic theist holds the position, "I believe in god and I know he exists". A gnostic atheist is the opposite, "I know there is no god."

The author goes on to explain that he, just like me, is an agnostic atheist.

So to answer you question, I'm both. I'm an agnostic atheist. I just think the label "atheist" more closely describes my lack of belief. I find that many people that call themselves agnostic are actually atheists, but choose to label themselves agnostic to avoid the stigma associated with the word, and any consequential persecution from theists that may follow their "coming out." I look at it the other way. If I tell you I am an atheist, and you view me differently because of it, I would like to know that so I can move on with my life and pay you no mind.

For more on this subject, see:

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheism Does Not Require Certainty

2009-08-07T05:49:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

For a variety of reasons, some Christians erroneously insist that atheism entails absolute certainty that no gods exist. This reflects either a misconception about the meaning of atheism or another less innocent motive. In fact, atheism does not require any particular level of certainty. All it requires is the failure to affirm belief in some sort of god(s).

Consider each of the following two questions for a moment, and notice the important difference between them?

Do you believe in some sort of god or gods?
Are you absolutely certain of your answer to question #1 to the degree that you have no doubt whatsoever that your answer is correct?

Only one of these questions is relevant to atheism. I'll give you a hint: it isn't the second one. Okay, that is not really fair. Both are relevant, but only the first is necessary to classify someone into the mutually exclusive categories of theist and atheist.

By definition, a theist is someone who believes in some sort of god or gods. That is, one must answer question #1 in the affirmative in order to be a theist. And yes, anyone who affirms question #1 is a theist.

Similarly, an atheist is someone who does not believe in some sort of god or gods. One who fails to affirm question #1 is, by definition, an atheist. Question #2 is relevant in that it contributes information about one's level of confidence, but this is not necessary in order to classify someone as theist or atheist.

One is a theist if one answers "yes" to question #1, regardless of how one answers question #2. Some theists do profess quite a bit of certainty; others report considerable uncertainty. Doing so does not make them any more or less of a theist, although we might call a theist who is very low on certainty an "agnostic theist."

Likewise, those who do not answer "yes" to question #1 are atheists, regardless of how they answer question #2. That is, atheism does not require any particular level of certainty. An atheist reporting low certainty might be called an "agnostic atheist," but that does not make him or her any less of an atheist.

We would not say that a Christian who experiences some doubts about her faith is suddenly no longer a Christian because she does not claim to be 100% certain. In the same way, an atheist who is not 100% certain (or uncertain, if you prefer) does not magically stop being an atheist.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Misunderstanding Science in Some Unlikely Places

2009-08-02T07:35:00.000-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Misunderstanding science is a widespread problem, especially in the United States. Those of us who live here run into it again and again. Those of us tasked with teaching science often find it beyond frustrating, and yet, we persevere in the hope that we can make a difference. Thus, it is especially disheartening when we see influential freethinkers spreading misunderstandings about science.

John Shook, the Vice President and Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Inquiry Transnational, wrote a recent post in which he advocated for skepticism by spreading a common misconception about science that we are used to hearing from the faith-based community. Shook has a philosophy background rather than a scientific background, but I'd still hope such a prominent freethinker would be more careful.

Just what was Shook's error? After correctly highlighting the role of skepticism in the science, Shook writes,

There's too much loose talk about science proving theories. Actually, scientists spend most of their time trying to experimentally prove hypotheses false, especially their own hypotheses. Inability to prove one's hypotheses false after many kinds of trials against all available evidence, and getting confirmation of such trials by other researchers, is actually the path to reasonably establishing a hypothesis.

Actually, scientists spend most of their time testing hypotheses, not trying to prove or disprove anything. I understand what Shook is trying to accomplish here. By suggesting that scientists seek to prove their own hypotheses false, he is trying to dispel claims of bias. But this is not the most accurate way to explain the scientific method.

As scientists, we do not approach our work with grand designs about proving or disproving anything. "Proof" is a term one may encounter in philosophy or mathematics, but it is not one you will find scientists using much. We derive hypotheses carefully from the available scientific literature and test them, not solely though experimentation by with a host of research methods. We talk in terms of probabilities, significance levels, and effect sizes, not proof. When we find support for a hypothesis, we conduct more rigorous tests and publish the results to encourage others to do the same.

Now, this may seem like a minor quibble. Perhaps it is. The reason I raise it is that I see it feeding right into the constant tendency of the anti-science crowd to talk about proof. To the degree that "proof" plays any role in science, it would be way down the road at a point that most individual sciences would never see in their own research.

Another surprising error that has more to do with atheism than science:

With rival definitions of atheism now flourishing, I regard skepticism as the simplest broad category for including all disbelievers. You may prefer the label of "agnostic" while others are content with "atheist", but we are all skeptics towards the supernatural and paranormal.

Conflating atheism and skepticism is neither accurate nor helpful. One can be an atheist for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with skepticism. Atheism does not speak on the subject of the entire supernatural and paranormal. One can be an atheist while believing in UFOs, ghosts, alternative medicine, and a host of other absurdities. An atheist is someone who does not believe in gods. That's it.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Do You Believe in God(s)?

2009-06-12T06:15:00.000-05:00

Image by AFP/Getty Images via Daylife

The meaning of atheism is quite clear. At least, it should be to those of us genuinely interested in the subject. And yet, it is equally clear that the manner in which we ask the question greatly influences the answers we should expect to receive. During a recent visit to Pure Nothing, one of the recent additions to the Atheist Blogroll, I noticed a poll in the sidebar with some interesting responses.

Consider the question for a moment. Forget about ontology and metaphysics for a second. Take the question at face value and answer it for yourself. Do you believe in god(s)?

Note that this question is not synonymous with, "Does some sort of god(s) exist?" In asking directly about something's existence, we open the door to the secondary question of certainty. It is only natural to follow "Does some sort of god(s) exist?" with "How sure are you of that?"

Questions of the existence of god(s) are what we atheists usually address. The theistic belief claim (i.e., some sort of god or gods exists) is precisely the claim to which atheism reacts. The theist asserts this claim. The atheist seeks evidence and, finding none, does not accept the claim.

Agnosticism enters here - not as a meaningful alternative to theism or atheism - but as a statement on the secondary question of certainty. Thus, we can talk intelligently about gnostic and agnostic atheists if we so desire.

Return to the original question: "Do you believe in god(s)?" This question is not asking you whether gods exist. It is not asking you how certain you are that gods can or do exist. It is simply asking about what you believe.

What are we to make of the respondents who answered "I'm not sure" to this question? Does this mean that they are unsure what they believe about god(s)? I find this difficult to imagine.

When the question is framed as one of what one believes, there is little room for agnosticism. Suppose that "I'm not sure" mean something akin to "I've never really thought about it before." Someone who could honestly claim such a thing clearly does not believe in god(s), for he or she has not considered the matter enough to have any sort of belief.

Now suppose that "I'm not sure" means "I haven't decided yet." This reflects a misunderstanding of the question. Again, the question is about what one believes and not whether one thinks that various entities can or do exist.

I post this merely to make the point that how we ask the question will (and probably should) have an important influence on the sort of responses we consider meaningful.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheist Rocks and Other Absurdities

2009-06-11T05:37:00.000-05:00

Image by Martin LaBar (going on hiatus) via Flickr

I received a recent e-mail from someone engaged in a debate over the meaning of atheism. He said that his opponent referenced the definition I have repeatedly used here at Atheist Revolution but then claimed that this definition meant that "rocks and other inanimate objects were also atheists." I think I've heard this bizarre claim once before. I did not take it seriously, and I remember thinking that anyone making it is getting fairly desperate. After hearing it again, I figured the least I could do was address the matter.

When I said, "An atheist is one who does not accept the theistic claim," I assumed that "one" would be understood in the context of this statement as implying personhood. It seems that some people are now trying to remove the context and pretend that inanimate objects would count as atheists. When dealing with such concrete thinkers, I suggest phrasing the definition as follows:

An atheist is a person who does not accept the theistic belief claim.

Perhaps that will be clearer.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheism as Sex

2009-05-28T11:01:00.000-05:00

The following quote is from Crutch of the Weak and brought to my attention by Oz Atheist's Weblog. It is simply too good not to share:

If atheism and religion were sex …

Atheism would be like masturbation - you know you’re there by yourself, but hell, you’re having a good time!

Religion would be like masturbating with a happy face drawn on your hand - it’s still only you, but you like pretending that you’re not alone.

Ain't that the truth!

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Guest Post: Why I am an Atheist and Who Cares

2009-05-11T05:54:00.000-05:00

Image by freestone via Flickr

One of the things I would like to do more of here at Atheist Revolution is provide my fellow atheists who do not already have their own blogs with a forum to share their thoughts. By contributing a guest post, you get to reach an established reader base, and I get a nice little break from writing blog posts.

The guest post below was submitted by BrandonAtheist. He is a married 67 year-old U.S. Navy veteran with two grown daughters and three grandchildren. BrandonAtheist has worked as a public relations specialist, professional ad copywriter, and newspaper reporter and photographer. I am pleased to bring you his guest post.

Why am I an atheist and who cares?

What’s in a name? “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Shakespeare.

Atheist. Agnostic. Secular Humanist. Non-believer. All names that characterize and define someone who does not for whatever reason accept the traditional belief system in god, gods, goddesses, supernatural personages, good spirits, bad spirits, devils, angels, afterlife, before life, or mystical interventionist in human or other affairs.

What mankind has not been able to understand and explain has been attributed to some supernatural force. Greeks, Romans, fellow citizens, American Indians, East Indians, South Americans, Aleuts, Chinese, Japanese, Hebrews, people of the middle east, and far east, all with different belief systems. Far more erudite and learned men and women than I have pondered this age old question of religious belief systems, gods and goddesses. I have arrived at my on conclusions independently but with their input.

There is sufficient historical data in texts on comparative religions and the history and evolution of religion to ascertain that men with motive and resource have written, rewritten, manipulated and distorted belief systems for power and personal gain.

Some rulers were (are) nuts. They gave themselves the status of god or goddess as a justification for taxing and rule. Of course, the primarily ignorant masses, ill educated, obeyed without question.

There is historical evidence that John the Baptist existed. The Romans kept meticulous records. But there is no Jesus recorded for historical evidence. Was he a composite of other contemporary Jews?

Roman and Hebrew historical records indicate that indeed there was a reformation of Judaism, and the Romans had their hands full. Pilot remembers John but not Jesus. Strange. The only records are from learned scribes and Greeks like Luke or Romans like Paul. Paul was the single most influential figure to promote and spread Christianity. There are Roman records of his existence. He was citizen of Rome. It’s his ‘rasslin’ matches I question.

Paul and his troupe were instrumental in creating and manipulating the legend and figure of the Old Testament promise of a messiah. The Jesus figure was fabricated by the Pauline intellectual line of early church rulers and no doubt in collusion with the Roman leadership. Why? Create an opiate for the masses was the goal. It was successful then and remains so today.

Why did they back then, and believers of today, fight tooth and nail for the various religions to prosper? Is it for salvation, redemption and an after life? Naw. Follow the bucks and power, it has been and is for power, money, self aggrandizement, and rabid narcissism in what is now the most expanded and wealthy good ol’ boys club in the world: The classical and historical Christian churches. I opine this mentality and like motivation have spread like a cancer into the latter day Christian protestant churches of the world.

My question now is, “Where’s the beef?” There is no scientifically, independently documented proof of any supernatural beings or acts. We are asked to take it on faith. We’ve been told from proselytizers of “faith,” like Jim Jones, Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart and all the others, too many to name to take their word for god’s existence. Even when they are exposed for the frauds they are, they cry and plead to forgive them and remember to have faith—“because I told you to.” All practicing men of the cloth pound the message home at every meeting and opportunity. If asked for proof of god's existence and the story of Jesus, they by rote, regurgitate the word and tell us, “You must accept it on faith!”

Conversely, when you inquire as to why in this year 2009, that there is projected by the World Monetary Fund and World Health Organization that 300,000 plus children under age five are going to die of starvation alone, as broadcast on NPR, recently. But yet abortion or birth control is “against god’s will.” The world’s natural resources are being depleted. Worldwide the quality of life is deteriorating. Women’s rights in many Islamic countries are backsliding. Burkas are back big time. Clitoris removal is in vogue. Girls are thrown out of school, again. India and Pakistan can’t agree on anything and have more religious sects than there are politicians and lobbies in Washington.

What kind of world-god, or god of the 0T, Talmud (angry), or the New Testament (loving and forgiving), would sit on his or her throne and basically say, “Let them eat cake.”

Everyday, science is discovering more about the creation of the universe and life forms. Synthetic DNA has successfully been created and repeated in creation at a number of Universities and research centers.Genetic mapping and manipulation of genomes has been accomplished. Embryonic stem cell research is showing great promise to heal and help, from AP reports, Scientific American, etc. The brouhaha over the embryos’ use is from superstition. Besides, the fertilized embryos are about to be discarded anyway. This is hard science, not voodoo supernaturalism.

Hard scientific fact has stripped the hypocritical mantel of faith-based religion away and exposed it for what it is: Intelligently designed, superstitious manipulation of the masses for political and monetary gain (again, follow the bucks).

The sad thing is that most of the dupers are as innocent and blinded by social and psychological mind-myths as their flocks. They all have drunk the Kool Aide.

I found freedom in atheism once I came to the intellectual conclusion that religion, all of it, is a lie perpetuated by well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning--mostly men--with an agenda for job security, self-promotion, power, money and a few of the seven deadly sins.

I still believe the big ten are good rules for everyone to obey. It keeps us civilized. I also believe when we live in fear of our gods, when we are scolded and shamed for natural thoughts and instincts by pompous preachers, and when we hold ourselves in self-righteous indignation about how others look, believe, and think, that it simply says volumes about what we think of ourselves and our own guilt heaped upon our heads by religion and its toadies.

One might say a good dose of atheism is a catharsis for the constipated ideas of faith-based religion. Take a dose, you’ll like it.

I was a biology major with a minor in physical anthropology. I have also taught at the college level. I have been a professional copywriter and in the advertising agency and public relations business. I have been married to the same lady for 45 years, have two children and three grandchildren. I am a veteran of Viet Nam. I sleep good at night.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

What is Atheism?

2009-04-02T05:21:00.000-05:00

Image by metrognome0 via Flickr

I have considerably more patience with the task of explaining the meaning of atheism and correcting misconceptions with religious believers than I do with other atheists. I suppose that is because I expect those calling themselves atheists to know what the term means. Needless to say, such an expectation is an error on my part. There is a serious and common misconception about the meaning of atheism, held by theists and atheists alike. I recognize that the several posts I have previously written about this have not resolved the matter and that this one is unlikely to do so either. Thus, it probably won't be the last time I address this important topic.

Defining Atheism

In looking back over some of my previous posts on this subject, I daresay I said it fairly clearly the first time:

Simply put, atheism means the absence of theistic belief. That's it. It doesn't mean anything else. Atheism is not a religion, a philosophy, a worldview, or anything similar. It is not the conviction that there are no gods, ghosts, angels, etc. Rather, it is the absence of a belief that these things are real...Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Reasons why people become become atheists are varied and are useful for understanding atheists. Some are more common than others, but they are not particularly relevant for understanding the meaning of atheism. Again, an atheist is simply someone who responds with anything other than "yes" to the question of whether he or she believes that god(s) exist.

Still not clear? Allow me to draw upon another prior post:

Atheism comes from the Greek "a - theos," and since the "a" prefix means "without" or "the absence of," we must first make sure we understand theism. Theism refers to the belief that some sort of god or gods exist. A theist is one who accepts the theistic claim (i.e., some sort of god or gods exist). An atheist is one who does not accept the theistic claim. That is, atheism means "without theism" and refers to the absence or lack of theistic belief.

Now that we know what atheism is, it is time to examine what it is not. This brings us to the common misconception to which I previously referred.

What Atheism Is Not

Atheism does not require absolute certainty that god(s) do not or cannot exist. Some atheists may indeed claim such certainty. These individuals are sometimes described as "strong atheists." Nobody disputes the existence of such atheists. The point is that certainty is not a necessary condition of atheism. One who asserts that there "probably" is no god is still an atheist. In fact, one need not assert anything to be an atheist. One need only refuse to accept the theistic belief claim.

Why Should We Care?

Let us dispense with all the obvious reasons why accuracy is preferable to inaccuracy and why dictionaries are not necessarily above reproach. We can keep this brief: defining atheism accurately reduces epistemological confusion and reminds us where the burden of proof rests.

I am willing to cut theists, particularly evangelical Christians, considerable slack in misunderstanding atheism. I know all too well what they have been taught about atheism (and atheists) and why. To my atheist colleagues, this is where we should be expected to lead. Until we can accurately define ourselves, it is folly to expect anyone else to do the same.

I have written previously that I do not find distinctions like "strong atheist," "passive atheist," "agnostic atheist," and the like to be particularly useful. This needs clarification. I believe that such distinctions may eventually be meaningful as ways of describing within-group differences. However, I maintain that they are not useful at present because too much confusion remains over the meaning of atheism itself. Within-group distinctions are premature when the group itself is as fuzzy as we have allowed atheism to be.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

To What Degree Is Atheism Voluntary?

2009-03-29T08:47:00.001-05:00

Image by G a r r y via Flickr

Looking out my window, I see grass. It is mostly green and will become greener as spring deepens. Suppose someone were to try to convince me that this grass was not green at all but a bright royal blue. I am not sure any amount of argument, pleading, threats, favors, etc. could persuade me that the grass I see was blue. Under torture, I would certainly profess that I believed it to be blue, but it is difficult to imagine that I could actually convince myself that it was so. With sufficient rewards, I would certainly agree publicly that the grass was blue, but I would not really believe it. By learning about the science of vision, I could be convinced that the grass was not inherently green but reflected light in such a manner that I perceived it as green. Still, I would not be able to stop believing that I was perceiving it as green. In many respects, this is how the atheist experiences god belief.

I could no more convince myself that the Christian god was real than I could convince myself that my front yard was full of blue grass. It is observations like this which lead me to question the degree to which atheism is voluntary. Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming that atheism is an involuntary response or somehow predetermined. I am merely suggesting that atheism seems less voluntary than many other beliefs.

Sitting here today, knowing what I know, experiencing what I have experienced, living the life I have led, I am not sure that I could now convince myself to believe in the Christian god or associated dogma even if I desperately wanted to do so. It is as if I have passed a point of no return.

For years, I managed to convince myself that the Christian god about which I had heard so much was real. But I have never been one to take things on faith. I ask too many questions, and I seek genuine answers. Atheism, the gradual erosion of my willingness to accept the truth of the claim that gods exist, was the eventual result of such inquiry. My eyes are now open, and I seriously doubt that I could close them no matter how much I wanted to.

Perhaps uttering a magic incantation would instantly transport me to blissful mindlessness, but I doubt it. Besides, I'd much rather my eyes remain open.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Skeptical Attitude in Atheism

2009-03-17T06:39:00.000-05:00

Image by Colin Purrington via Flickr

This is the second post in a multi-part series. The first part was "The Skeptical Attitude in Science." If I was pushed to give only one reason why I am an atheist, the reason I would give would indeed reflect the skeptical attitude: There is insufficient evidence to support the theistic claim that god(s) exist. Believing such an extraordinary claim without sufficient evidence would be undeniably irrational. Thus, reasoned skepticism leads - at least in my case - to atheism.

As we saw in the first post, not all scientists are atheists. Some utilize compartmentalization so as not to apply skepticism to matters of religion. Others are willing to set aside their scientific training completely by doing something scientists are taught never to do. They begin by accepting the conclusion that god(s) must exist and then work backward to piece their case together. Of course, it would be erroneous to consider such a process scientific at all. Such an individual is no longer engaged in science but apologetics.

For the scientist and non-scientist alike, I believe that one who applies the skeptical attitude to matters of religion will likely end up arriving at the atheist position (i.e., no longer accepting the theistic belief claim). For atheists, there is no reason not to apply the skeptical attitude to matters of religion too. After all, it has proven so useful in every other application that it makes sense to evaluate religious claims in the same manner. The Christian bible claims that the earth is 6,000 years old. Science has conclusively proven otherwise. The biblical claim is rejected.

Please do not misunderstand what I referred to above as "the atheist position." Atheism is not a rejection of gods, a worldview of any sort, or a worship of science or humanity. It is nothing more than the realization that one does not accept the theistic claim that god(s) exist. That is all I mean here by "atheist position."

While atheism may be a logical result of applying the skeptical attitude to matters of religion, this by no means that atheists are necessarily willing to - or even particularly skilled at - applying skepticism in other spheres of life. Being an atheist may prevent one from being irrational in matters of religion, but it is certainly no assurance that one will not fall into irrationality in all sorts of other domains.

I have known more than a couple atheists who believed in ghosts at the same time they regarded theists as silly for believing in gods. I know atheists who buy all sorts of vitamin supplements making fantastic claims without a shred of support. I know atheists who routinely fail to critically evaluate claims made by their favorite Fox "News" personality. Skepticism may bring many to atheism, but atheism is certainly no guarantee of effective skepticism.

In the next post in this series, I will address some domains where the skeptical attitude is desperately needed but often overlooked.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Common Absurdities Atheists Hear From Christians

2009-01-06T05:27:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaIf you write your own atheist blog or even visit one on a semi-regular basis, you have undoubtedly been exposed to all sorts of ludicrous arguments from Christian trolls. At least, it may seem that way. With a little analysis, I believe you'll discover that most of the arguments bleed together into a fairly small number of common themes. In this post, I'll consider some of the most common and share some thoughts on how to handle them.

I intend the following to be a non-exhaustive list of the most common absurdities atheists hear from Christians:

You can't prove there's not a god.
Atheism takes as much faith as Christianity.
Atheism is a religion.
You aren't really an atheist; you're just mad at god.
Without god, people have no reason to be moral.

Proof

In my experience, statement #1 above is commonly heard from Christians who have not had the benefit of a college education. It also happens to be one of the most important if atheists and Christians are ever to have any sort of meaningful dialogue.

There are two critical points which both sides must understand here. First, the burden of proof always rests with the person asserting the claim. This is a fundamental principle of philosophical argument. Encountering a Christian who refuses to concede this point is like discovering someone who stubbornly denies gravity itself. Other than suggesting some basic educational resources, there is little point in proceeding to discuss anything at all with such an individual.

Second, the theist is the one making the proof claim. Some Christians will concede our previous point only to argue that the atheist has the burden because he or she is claiming that gods do not exist. But the atheist is not claiming anything whatsoever. The position of the atheist is that the theist has not successfully met his or her burden of proof. Remember, the burden of proof with regard to gods rests solely with the side claiming their existence.

To their credit, educated Christians tend to know how to think and rarely deny that the burden of proof is theirs. Unfortunately, many atheists do not have sufficient opportunity for meaningful discussion with educated Christians and instead find themselves fending off trolls and the like.

Faith, Religion, and Atheism

Admittedly, faith and religion are not synonymous. However, for our purposes, #2 and #3 can be considered together. The smart ass response, "Yeah, and bald is a hair color," may be fun but probably misses what the Christian is really claiming here.

When phrased to focus on faith, the claim typically centers on a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of atheism. Because they have erroneously convinced themselves that atheism means absolutely certainty that no gods exist, they reason that to be absolutely certain without proof is a form of faith. But atheism is not about certainty at all; it is about doubt. As we saw above, the atheistic position is that the theist has not successfully supported his or her claim. Intelligent Christians can sometimes be helped to realize this by being encouraged to consider their stance on other gods (e.g., Odin). They need not be certain; they need only to be unconvinced by the Odinists.

When phrased to focus instead on religion, the Christian is generally asserting that atheism is a religion because atheists act like religious people. They claim that we have our prophets (e.g., Darwin, Dawkins, etc.) and the texts they produce. They insist that we are not thinking critically either but simply conforming to some sort of atheist identity. I suppose this could be true of some atheists but such atheists are rather difficult to find. I'm not sure I've even encountered one. I tend to see this objection mostly as a desperate effort by the Christian to understand us using the only scripts available to them (i.e., religious ones). Atheists have no prophets, no doctrine, no dogma, no rituals, and really none of the essential components of any religion.

There Are No Atheists

I was hesitant to even include statement #4 because it is so silly as to make some think that I am writing this post to mock. And yet, I have encountered this very claim and close variants of it repeatedly. I see this as a form of denial (in the Freudian sense of the term) through which the Christian resorts to an extremely primitive defense mechanism to shield the conscious mind from painful realities. I tend to feel pity for the Christian who clings to such a claim.

One element sometimes attached to this claim does deserve consideration, however, and that is the idea that atheists are angry at some sort of god(s). Since an atheist is someone without belief in gods, it is not logically possible for them to hate or to be mad at what they do not believe. I think that some Christians experience confusion here because it is absolutely true that many atheists despise religion. Then again, religion exists.

No Morality Without (My) God

Statement #5 is probably the most common atheists can expect to encounter from Christians. Whenever I hear some variant of this claim, I am tempted to respond with, "I am sorry to hear that you are so morally depraved that the only thing that keeps you from running wild in the streets is your fear that some ghost might punish you." That wouldn't be nice though, and so I usually keep it to myself. You see, I don't believe in any sort of gods, heaven, hell, or the like, but I still manage to behave in a civil manner most of the time. Why?

In addition to benefiting from a long evolutionary history and entering the world with an excellent head start, I internalized what I was taught about right and wrong just like most of my neighbors. As a result, I feel guilty when I do something wrong such as hurting someone's feelings.

But how do I know what is right and what is wrong in any absolute sense? How, for example, can I determine that much of the behavior attributed to the Christian god in their bible is immoral? As Matt of [GBG] Atheist News says, "Morality is just another way of describing behaviour that is conducive with a productive and cohesive society."

And as Austin Cline reminds us,

So what's the point of being moral if God doesn't exist? It's the same "point" that people should acknowledge if God does exist: because the happiness and suffering of other human beings matter to us such that we should seek, whenever possible, to increase their happiness and decrease their suffering. It's also the "point" that morality is required for human social structures and human communities to survive at all. Neither the presence nor the absence of any gods can change this, and while religious theists may find that their beliefs impact their moral decisions, they cannot claim that their beliefs are prerequisites for making any moral decisions at all.

For those genuinely interested in learning something about this subject and not simply parroting back what someone at their church once told them, here are some carefully selected resources to consult:

In closing, I would like to take the lead of Michael Shermer and turn the question of morality around for the Christian to ponder.

What would you do if there were no God? Would you commit robbery, rape, and murder, or would you continue being a good and moral person? Either way the question is a debate stopper. If the answer is that you would soon turn to robbery, rape, or murder, then this is a moral indictment of your character, indicating you are not to be trusted because if, for any reason, you were to turn away from your belief in God, your true immoral nature would emerge…If the answer is that you would continue being good and moral, then apparently you can be good without God. QED. [Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil, pp. 154-155].

H/T to Debunking Christianity for the Shermer quote

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Psychologist Scolds Atheists, Shows Misunderstanding of Atheism

2008-10-29T05:17:00.000-05:00

Image via WikipediaBy presenting case after case of the most vile examples of Christian extremism, atheists are ignoring the greater good religion brings to most people. This is the claim of psychology professor David G. Myers. According to Dr. Myers, focusing on anecdotes while neglecting large scale data from the social sciences obscures the picture and deepens America's cultural divide. I think he may have a point, but I also think that his analysis is missing something of critical importance.

Here is the crux of Dr. Myers' argument in his own words:

But mocking religious "nut cases" is cheap and easy. By heaping scorn on the worst examples of anything, including medicine, law, politics, or even atheism, one can make it look evil. But the culture war of competing anecdotes becomes a standoff. One person counters religion-inspired 9/11 leader Mohammed Atta with religion-inspired Martin Luther King, Jr. Another counters the genocidal crusades with the genocidal atheists, Stalin and Mao. But as we social scientists like to say, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Perhaps we should call Dr. Myers out on his misunderstanding of what motivated Stalin, Mao, and others (hint: it wasn't atheism). After all, the difference between the anecdotes of religious extremists and atheists is that the former is fairly clear-cut and rarely disputed while the latter is based on ignorance and misinterpretation of facts. Fair enough, but let's set this aside for now.

What Dr. Myers is claiming is that while religious belief can be destructive in individual cases, it is a positive social force if we focus on group data. Perhaps we should take him to task for apparently forgetting that correlation does not equal causation. Nothing in his data can be interpreted as suggesting that religious belief causes charitable behavior. That someone who has authored reputable introductory psychology texts would forget this is suspicious to say the least. But let's also set this aside for now.

Instead, I want us to take Dr. Myers at his word that religious belief is positively correlated with "human happiness, health, and altruism." How does this cast any doubt on the claims of the so-called "new atheists" Myers seeks to scold? The atheistic objection to religion centers on two claims:

Religious belief is irrational.
The harm caused by religious belief outweighs the good that comes from religious belief.

The first claim is rarely disputed today, even by theists. I have addressed this extensively in countless posts and will thus present only a brief summary here. As Carl Sagan reminded us, the sort of evidence needed to verify a claim is proportional to the nature of the claim. Religious claims have nothing approaching the sort of evidence needed for verification. Theists know this and resort to faith instead. In fact, they make faith into a virtue and praise each other for their willingness to take the leap of faith necessary to believe religious claims. But believing things without evidence and on the basis of faith is the very definition of irrationality.

Unlike the first claim (i.e., religious belief is irrational), which enjoys wide acceptance among theists and atheists alike, the second is a source of great controversy. Unfortunately, this claim is precisely what Dr. Myers seems to have misunderstood, intentionally or otherwise. No atheist author I have encountered claims that no good whatsoever can come from religious belief. No atheist author Myers cites has claimed that in any of their books, and I have read them all. What they claim is that the bad outweighs the good. At no point is the good denied. Most atheists are fully aware of the data Dr. Myers presents. We just don't find it sufficiently compelling that we're willing to ignore the other side.

I've read enough of Dr. Myers' work to be familiar with his data on religion and happiness. There are many positive correlates of religious belief and religious practices. I've yet to meet an informed atheist who would deny this. The straw man Myers has constructed for this article is hollow indeed. By making precisely the sort of error of which he accuses the "new atheists," Myers reveals that he is motivated by something other than scientific understanding or healing the cultural divide.

Nevertheless, Myers must be commended for this admission:

These indications of the personal and social benefits of faith don't speak to its truth claims. And truth ultimately is what matters. (If religious claims were shown to be untrue, though comforting and adaptive, what honest person would choose to believe? And if religious claims were shown to be true, though discomfiting, what honest person would choose to disbelieve?)

If only he had stopped there. But he continues the preceding paragraph in such a way that his motives and misunderstanding of atheism are once again revealed:

But they do challenge the anecdote-based new atheist argument that religion is generally a force for evil. Moreover, they help point us toward a humble spirituality that worships God with open minds as well as open hearts, toward an alternative to purposeless scientism and dogmatic fundamentalism, toward a faith that helps make sense of the universe, gives meaning to life, opens us to the transcendent, connects us in supportive communities, provides a mandate for morality and selflessness, and offers hope in the face of adversity and death.

Again, the claim is not that "religion is generally a force for evil" but that the harm caused by religion outweighs the benefits. Science is anything but purposeless, and if Dr. Myers really feels this way, one can only wonder why he chose a scientific career. I had sincerely hoped that he would dig himself out of the hole of his own making, but I was disappointed in this regard.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Myth of Fundamentalist Atheism is Alive and Well

2008-10-24T05:37:00.000-05:00

Image via WikipediaThere is no such thing as "fundamentalist atheism." Those who use the label misunderstand the meaning of fundamentalism. It is not a synonym for close-mindedness, but a construct with meaning that renders it inapplicable to atheism. Unfortunately, the Institute for Humanist Studies does not appear to realize this. In a recent article by Doug Thomas, we see the myth of "fundamentalist atheism" being propagated yet again. As tiresome as this mistake is when it comes from the religious, it is far more discouraging to see it coming from within the secular community.

Once we understand what fundamentalism is, it becomes quite obvious that there can be no such thing as fundamentalist atheism. Simply put, there is no doctrine involved in atheism. We can certainly acknowledge that there can be close-minded atheists, atheist activists, and perhaps even atheist extremists. The meaning of fundamentalism, however, precludes application to atheists.

There are far too many misconceptions about atheism out there, and it takes quite a bit of effort to correct them. I would sincerely hope that the Institute for Humanist Studies would avoid spreading erroneous information about atheism.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Proof of Atheism

2008-09-24T05:27:00.001-05:00

Image by morgantj via Flickr Most atheists are well aware that the burden of proof on the god question rests with the theist. Still, I have seen more than a few atheists get sucked into the trap of a theist asking for proof of atheism. In this post, I will suggest that there are at least two reasons for not seriously entertaining requests for such proof.

Burden of Proof

Anyone who has taken even an introductory course in philosophy will tell you that the burden of proof always rests with the side making the claim. The theist claims that there is some sort of god; the atheist does not accept this claim. The burden of proof belongs to the theist. If you want us to believe that your god(s) exist, make your case.

Educated believers generally accept this burden but attempt to sidestep it through faith. Since they realize that there is insufficient evidence to support their god claim, they resort to faith. Some even try to turn faith (i.e., the acceptance of a claim without sufficient evidence) into a virtue.

Less educated believers may actually ask atheists to prove that no gods exist. In such cases, it may be necessary to teach them about the burden of proof and use examples with which they can relate. With patience, it is often possible to show them that their request was misplaced.

The Role of Proof in Evaluating Religious Claims

In addition to helping the theist understand their burden of proof, it is often helpful to consider that "proof" might not even be the correct standard here. I would argue that the problem with believing that some god(s) exists is not that the existence of such a being or beings cannot be proven; the problem is that there is insufficient evidence to justify the belief.

Not all atheists will agree with this, so let me be very clear about what I am saying here. I can accept the idea that someone could believe something without having absolute proof in the object of one's belief. As long as the evidence adequately justifies the claim, it need not rise to the level of total proof in all cases. Clearly, this means that the nature of the evidence needed will vary with the type of claim being made.

If I claim that I regularly walk to my mailbox to get the mail without wearing shoes, you may just take my word for it and require minimal evidence. On the other hand, you are right to ask for considerable evidence to support my claim that a supernatural being punishes sinners with hurricanes while rewarding homophobia with Republican votes.

The bottom line is that atheists need not entertain requests for proof of atheism from believers. It is they who have the burden of proof, and if not proof, then sufficient evidence to justify their claims. That they they have been unable to come close to meeting such a burden is all the "proof" atheism needs.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

You Might be a Militant Atheist if...

2008-08-20T05:23:00.001-05:00

The slur du jour aimed at atheists appears to be that of "militant atheism." While we in the atheist community know full well that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, the Christians who use this phrase remain willfully ignorant or are simply so used to distorting reality that it no longer bothers them. Make no mistake - this is a form of anti-atheist bigotry and should be treated as such. Atheists need to have a plan for responding to the charge of militancy. To do so, we must understand the accusation, why we are seeing it, and what it reveals about those making it.

Applications of the "Militant" Label

Richard Dawkins was greeted with accusations of "militant atheism" when he published The God Delusion. Based on the book's title, even many Christians who never read the book could assume that it was an attack on their god-belief. That was all it took. Dawkins dared to criticize their religious beliefs; this made him "militant." For those who did actually read the book, it was clear that Dawkins had committed an even worse offense than criticizing religion - he encouraged others to do so. Yep, he was militant alright. Militant for writing a book.

And now we have PZ Myers, widely accused of "militant atheism" for mocking Catholicism in the Crackergate incident. What exactly was Myers' offense? He criticized religion on his blog, encouraged others to do the same, spoke out against religion in various interviews, and destroyed a wafer obtained from a Communion ritual. This makes him militant? Really?

These may have been two of the most prominent examples, but there have been countless others accused of "militant atheism." The pattern which emerges is quite clear: a militant atheist is an atheist who does not keep his or her feelings about religion hidden. That is, you might be a militant atheist if you express yourself on the subject of religion. Exercising your freedom of speech makes you militant.

The Myth of Militant Atheism

In a previous post on the subject of militant atheism, I wrote,

Since atheism refers to the lack of theistic belief, militant atheism must be something like an aggressive or impassioned lack of theism. Confused yet? Yeah, me too. Once we understand what atheism is, it becomes evident that "militant atheism" is meaningless, at least in this context.

In all other contexts in which the word "militant" is applied, it refers to behavior rather than one's viewpoint. Moreover, the "militant" descriptor is typically reserved for violent behavior. According to State of Protest, "Real militant atheism is literally taking up a weapon and fighting those who support religion, and in some cases those who merely don’t support real militant atheism." For example, when The Uncredible Hallq searched Google for "militant Christian" and "militant Muslim," he found that they were used to depict persons or groups committing acts of violence. Catholics issuing death threats to PZ Myers seems to fit the bill; criticizing religion does not.

So what is really going on when a Christian uses the "militant atheism" accusation? According to Russell Cole of the Midwest Populist Party,

Consequentially, the terminology, militant atheists, should be understood not as an expression that refers to the elements in society who possess the intellectual tenacity to hold to scrutiny the mythology that continues to dominant the worldviews possessed by the religious; the flocks of mindless followers. To the contrary, the unfortunate phrase is best understood as the projection upon the reasoned and rational, by those who lack such lucid deliberations, of the very shortcomings that impede the intellectual maturation of the faithful.

Rather than acknowledging that those trying to improve society might have legitimate reasons to seeking change, it is easier for those in power to demonize them. We saw this with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, and we are seeing it now as atheists seek equality.

Future posts will explain how accusations of "militant atheism" are a form of anti-atheist bigotry and will explore how atheists should respond to such accusations. For now, I highly recommend this video. If you have written on these subjects, please feel free to leave links to your content in the comments.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Stops Along the Journey From Christian to Atheist

2008-07-26T06:10:00.000-05:00

Poodles has an interesting post over at Poodles Place about coming out as an atheist. The question asked is whether atheists go through common stages as part of the coming out process. That is, do atheists who were formerly Christian transition smoothly from Christianity to atheism, or are there intermediate stops along the way? It is an interesting question that has not received much attention because most of the writing on coming out atheist deals instead with the sort of reactions one can expect from friends and family.

Poodles writes,

Some of us went through phases. I know I personally tried on several different religions. I even tried wiccan (sic) on for size as a final attempt to hold on to something society would recognize as delusional belief.

I did something similar but in a bit of a different order. I went from Christianity to sort of an indifferent agnosticism, to atheism, then played with Buddhism briefly, then back to atheism where I've been ever since. Now that i think about it, my dabbling in Buddhism had very little to do with fitting in or clinging to delusion - it was really little more than some college experimentation.

Poodles is correct to note,

Being godless in America isn’t easy, as I am sure most of us know. People here like to see delusions in others, it gives them comfort in their own. And once you realize the truth about religion and god it can be a hard thing to admit to yourself and others. It comes with a stigma, but it cannot be denied once you reach that epiphany. If you choose to come out to anyone you have to be prepared to deal with the reactions when they come.

Does this awareness lead people to make various stops on their ride to atheism?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Secular Humanism

2008-07-05T06:56:00.000-05:00

Secular humanism is much broader than atheism and entails many things that atheism does not. This will be easy to understand if you remember that atheism refers to nothing more than the lack of belief in any sort of gods. So what is secular humanism?

We begin with humanism. According to Paul Kurtz, "Humanism is an ethical, scientific, and philosophical outlook" which can be traced "back to the philosophers and poets of ancient Greece and Rome, Confucian China, and the Charvaka movement in classical India." Humanism is an optimistic stance, entailing "confidence in the power of human beings to solve their own problems and conquer uncharted frontiers." Humanists believe that reason, science, and technology can benefit humanity and seek to promote their growth.

Adding the "secular" modifier in front of humanism stresses scientific naturalism. That is, secular humanists are those who reject the existence spiritual/supernatural entities because there is no evidence for any such entities. in this way, secular humanists go much farther than atheists, rejecting not just the notion of god(s) but of anything supernatural. Secular humanists maintain that reason and empiricism are the paths to knowledge.

The secular humanist understands that religious faith has nothing to do with knowledge. It is not a different way of knowing because it is not a way of knowing at all - it has no bearing on knowledge whatsoever.

Ethically, secular humanism has something important to offer. Secular humanists believe that ethics are derived from reason rather than superstition. Some of the core ethical precepts (e.g., the "Golden Rule") predate Christianity. This poses no problem for secular humanists.

In the political realm, secular humanists are proponents of democracy, valuing human rights and their application to all humans. Thus, secular humanists are committed to humanity and less likely to be infected with the idiocy of patriotism. The humanist strives to promote human dignity and respect, discarding inherently divisive religious dogma.

This post is an abbreviated version of a previous post on Atheist Revolution titled "Secular Humanist First, Atheist Second."

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Militant Atheism

2008-06-21T05:57:00.000-05:00

Since the media began to popularize "the new atheism," the subject of atheism is cropping up everywhere. Reports of declining church attendance and increases in the number of people indicating that they are not affiliated with any religious tradition, many commentators have found themselves faced with reporting on a poorly understood group of people describing themselves as "atheists," "freethinkers," and "secular humanists." In this post, we will explore the meaning of "militant atheism" and try to help the reader understand how it is commonly misused.

Before addressing militant atheism, we need to review the meaning of atheism and correct one of the most common misconceptions about what atheists believe. Failure to do so will prevent us from understanding militant atheism.

What is atheism?

Atheism comes from the Greek "a - theos," and since the "a" prefix means "without" or "the absence of," we must first make sure we understand theism. Theism refers to the belief that some sort of god or gods exist. A theist is one who accepts the theistic claim (i.e., some sort of god or gods exist). An atheist is one who does not accept the theistic claim. That is, atheism means "without theism" and refers to the absence or lack of theistic belief.

What do atheists believe?

This question brings us to the central misconception many uninformed theists have about atheists. You see, the atheist differs from the theist in only one crucial way: The atheist does not accept the theistic claim. Some atheists actively deny the existence of god(s); others do not. Many atheists simply do not accept the theistic claim. No active denial, rejection, or criticism is required.

This has two important implications. First, theists making statements about how atheists "deny the existence of god(s)," they are distorting the meaning of atheism (see a typical example here). Some atheists do actively deny the existence of god(s), but this is not what atheism means. Remember, atheists are simply those without theistic belief. In a nutshell, an atheist is someone who answers with anything other than "yes" to the question of whether he or she believes in god(s).

The second implication reminds us about the burden of proof in discussions of the existence of god(s). The theist is making a positive claim in that he or she is claiming that something, namely god(s), exists. The atheist is not necessarily making any claim whatsoever, although it should be recognized that some do. Typically, the atheist is saying little more than that he or she does not accept the theist's claim. The burden of proof rests solely with the theist.

In fact, knowing that someone is an atheist tells you precious little about what that person believes. It simply tells you that he or she does not accept the theist's claim that god(s) exist.

Militant atheism

Now that we've clarified the meaning of atheism and it is clear what it means and what it does not mean, we can examine militant atheism. Since atheism refers to the lack of theistic belief, militant atheism must be something like an aggressive or impassioned lack of theism. Confused yet? Yeah, me too. Once we understand what atheism is, it becomes evident that "militant atheism" is meaningless, at least in this context.

Most theists seem to use the phrase "militant atheism" when describing a broad worldview that includes atheism, Greek materialism (i.e., nothing exists outside the natural world), skepticism, and at least a moderate degree of anti-theism (i.e., hostile attitudes toward theism). That last ingredient, a certain amount of anti-theism, is usually what leads theists to attach the "militant" label.

It is beyond the scope of this post to consider whether "militant" is warranted in cases of anti-theism, however, I hope that it is clear to the reader that atheism is not synonymous with anti-theism. There simply is no such thing as militant atheism unless one adds many ingredients which take us well beyond the definition of atheism.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheists Do Not Worship Humanity

2008-06-09T05:15:00.002-05:00

Many Christians seem so hung up on the idea of worship that they cannot comprehend how anyone could not worship something. We atheists are routinely accused of worshiping Darwin, science, humanity, and even ourselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. We do not worship anything, and it baffles me why this is so difficult for some Christians to understand.

Worshiping makes no sense to me, and I'm not sure it ever has. Even as a Christian, it bothered me that the sort of god who demanded worship could be deserving of it. I dealt with this gnawing doubt the same way many Christians do - by trying not to think about it.

Among famous deceased figures from history, Charles Darwin is probably the one atheists are most likely to be accused of worshiping. And yet, the very notion of worshiping a long dead person is absurd. Darwin was certainly worthy of respect, admiration, and praise for his many contributions. But worship? I think not.

So how about science? Frankly, I am not sure what worshiping science even means or what it would look like. Do I have a high opinion of science? Of course! Not only am I a scientist by training, but I have been impressed with the countless benefits to humanity conferred by scientific advances. But I hardly regard science as somehow flawless or worthy of worship. Science both a method of acquiring knowledge and a body of knowledge. Simply because it works extremely well is no reason for worship.

Claiming that atheists worship humanity ignores the evidence that a great many atheists have fairly negative attitudes toward humanity. I can tell you that this is something with which I struggle quite regularly. I've made no secret of my episodic misanthropy, but I think my attitude is usually one of guarded optimism. I may hope for better days, but I am also realistic in my pessimism regarding the limits of our species.

So this must leave me worshiping myself, right Christians? This is the common fallback position when all other avenues are exhausted. If the Christian cannot identify anything else that we might worship, we end up here. I am not sure what I can say here except to point out that I barely tolerate myself much of the time and that this falls well short of worship. If worship includes positive feelings, then it is more likely that I worship my friends, my camera, or my dog. As great a dog as he is, he's not worthy of worship either.

Psychologically, the common tendency of Christians to denigrate atheists by making us seem more like them is fascinating. We see it with the claims that atheists must worship something and that atheism requires faith. There are many ways in which atheists and Christians are similar, but these are not among them.

American Atheists and Capital A Atheism

2008-06-02T05:40:00.000-05:00

I often blog about atheism, but for this post I'd like to address a different and much broader set of beliefs that I (and others) refer to as Atheism - capital A Atheism. This is the sort of Atheism championed by American Atheists. It would be misleading to speak of Atheism as the atheist worldview. After all, there many atheistic worldviews. However, I suspect that Atheism, as used by American Atheists, is one of the most common.

While atheism is neither a belief system nor a worldview, American Atheists describes Atheism as a broad doctrine that goes well beyond atheism.Confused? Yeah, well you're not alone. Many people misunderstand atheism, and it is hard to imagine that multiple overlapping definitions help. Still, I think most atheists would willingly embrace this broader Atheism.

According to American Atheists,

Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

In examining this description, we see that Atheism subsumes atheism (i.e., lack of theistic belief) but adds what has been described by some as naturalism and others as materialism - there is nothing but what is found in nature. I've met atheists who do not share this view, but they are in a small minority.

We also see that Atheism involves the position that mind is a product of the brain and cannot exist independently. This precludes spirits, souls, and life-after-death. In essence, Atheism is a set of closely related beliefs which can be boiled down to physical materialism.

To gain additional insight on how American Atheists have conceptualized Atheism, we can examine the following excerpt from Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963):

Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.

It is not my intention to hold this out as a complete worldview, and I certainly think it is important for everyone discussing atheism to realize that it is far more limited than this version of Atheism. At the same time, I can easily accept each component of this particular worldview as descriptive of what I believe. I suppose this means that I am both an atheist and an Atheist.

How Many Atheists?

2008-03-15T07:26:00.000-05:00

There is reason to believe that surveys conducted to identify the number of American atheists provide low estimates, but let's assume for a minute that we can trust these data as reasonably accurate. A commonly reported number is that 1.6% of Americans identify themselves as atheists. If the U.S. population is approximately 303.5 million, this means that there are at least 4,856,000 atheists in America who identify as such. That is a lot of atheists!

Given that the number of Americans reporting no religious affiliation is 16.1%, we can assume that there are at least some out there who are atheists but who do not want to identify as such for a variety of reasons. As a quick example, combining the number who identify as either atheist or agnostic gets us to 4% (roughly 12,140,000 people).

But the real question concerns the remaining 12% we haven't accounted for yet. Of these 12%, approximately half identify themselves as secular and without religious affiliation. How can one be secular, have no religious affiliation, and be neither atheist nor agnostic? I'm not sure, and I think a reasonable case can be made for adding them to the number we've been examining, even if only to provide a plausible upper limit. This takes us up to 10% of Americans who identify as atheist, agnostic, or secular and without any religious affiliation (approximately 30,350,000 people).

Looking at these numbers, we can conclude that are at least 4,856,000 atheists in America willing to identify as such and that approximately 30,350,000 people, or 10% of the population, are atheists, agnostics, or secular folks.

Tags: atheism, atheist, America, United States, secular, agnostic, religion, survey

All Children are Born Atheists

2008-03-05T05:37:00.000-06:00

Anyone who understands the definition of atheism must acknowledge that all children are born atheists, including those born to Christian parents. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of acceptance of the theistic belief claim (i.e., some god or gods exist). A theist is one who believes that god(s) exist; an atheist is one who does not share this belief. The newborn child cannot even entertain such possibilities and thus lacks theistic belief. Atheism is the default position, and this is where we all begin.

In order for Christians to argue against the reality that all children are born atheists, they must distort the meaning of atheism. They must convince themselves and their audience that atheism is a religion, a philosophy, or a worldview. They claim that atheism is an explicit repudiation of religion and that it involves faith that no gods exist. Such distortions in the meaning of atheism allow them to claim that children cannot be born atheist because atheism requires the same sort of deliberate choice required by religious belief.

Atheism is not a belief system but lack of acceptance of one particular belief. It requires no faith; it is the absence of faith. It is the null hypothesis, the default condition, the natural starting point for each of us.

But why must Christians distort the meaning of atheism at all? Why should they even care if their children are born atheists, especially when it is likely that they will begin brainwashing them at an early age? There are many reasons, ranging from a need to see the child as connected to them through the manner they consider most important (i.e., religion) to the harsh implications of infant mortality to their belief system.

To expand on this latter point, consider the Christian parent whose child dies before the child is capable of forming the cognitions necessary to comprehend theistic belief. According to this parent's own Christian doctrine, this child is likely destined for hell. This is where non-believers go, and this child is clearly a non-believer. The Catholics toyed with limbo as a way out, but the evangelical Protestants now engaging in America's "culture wars" never really warmed to this idea. Even theism will be insufficient for such a parent, as a personal relationship with Jesus is thought to be the only vehicle for salvation.

It should be remembered that Christians have created this doctrine for themselves and should be solely responsible for unraveling the many conundrums it presents. Distorting atheism is not an acceptable way out of the mess they have made.

Tags: atheism, children, atheist, Christian, belief, religion, faith, parent, child, limbo, doctrine

Atheist Spirituality

2008-01-22T05:43:00.000-06:00

Can an atheist be a spiritual person, and if so, in what sense? Is it meaningful to talk of atheist spirituality, or should the term be reserved for religious believers? This post may end up generating more questions than answers, but that seems fitting for a discussion of spirituality.

Let me get my bias out of the way at the beginning because it probably colors what I am about to say on the topic. I do not care for the word "spirituality" when referring to atheists. I have trouble getting past the "spirit" part of the word because I do not believe in spirits, souls, ghosts, demons, or anything else that is not part of the natural world. However, I recognize that my naturalism is not entailed by atheism and that other atheists are free to accept the reality of the supernatural.

What is spirituality?

From what I have read on the psychology of religion, I have learned that experts in this field lack consensus on the meaning of spirituality but generally agree on what it is not. Spirituality is not the same thing as religion, or even religious belief. One can be deeply spiritual while simultaneously rejecting anything recognizable as religious belief of religious practices. Moreover, not all religious believers are necessarily spiritual.

Many components of spirituality have been posited, and while consensus remains elusive, some of the more popular include vitality, connectedness, transcendence, and meaningfulness. One of the most commonly described experiences of spirituality involves a sense of one's interconnectedness to others and a dissolving of self-other boundaries.

Can an atheist be a spiritual person?

Absolutely. If we think of something like trait spirituality as ranging on a continuum from low to high, atheists can score at any point along the continuum just like anyone else. High scores would indicate someone who seeks spiritual experiences or who experiences the various components of spirituality, depending on how the measure functions.

Practically, we might see a spiritual atheist as highly empathic, aware of his or her connection to others, concerned with equality and social justice, regularly awed by the beauty of nature, etc. Such descriptors apply in varying degrees to all persons, theist and atheist alike.

Take something simpler, such as the need for meaning, and think about some of your friends. Some are probably deeper than others in the sense that they enjoy thought-provoking questions even more than the answers. They are about the journey and find great pleasure in learning, debate, and self-exploration. Others are more concrete, less concerned with inner exploration about more concerned with action. They have little interest in reflection and want answers on which they can rely. They may have little tolerance for ambiguity or uncertainty.

Do atheists need spirituality?

I think this question needs to be reframed in order to be meaningful. Think of it this way: atheists (like everyone else) vary in terms of their need for spirituality. Spirituality is vital to some atheists, and we could appropriately label such persons as needing spirituality. For others, the need for spirituality may be low enough that it would be hard to recognize it as such.

In all honesty, I am not sure where I would fall along this continuum. I tend not to think of myself as "spiritual," but I certainly find great meaning and purpose in experiences that others describe as spiritual. I have had many intense spiritual experiences in which I experienced connectedness, transcendence, and the like, and not all were drug-induced. I suppose I am a fairly spiritual person in many ways, but one who prefers to think of himself in terms of components such as empathy, meaning, and connection rather than "spirituality." Does that make any sense?

Should the secular community increase our focus on spirituality?

Probably. I suspect that very little is known about the importance and role of spirituality among nonbelievers, and the scientist in me thinks that improved understanding might be beneficial. To neglect something we do not understand well simply because we lack understanding makes little sense. We know that spirituality is important to a great many people regardless of their religious belief, and I think there is a large potential benefit from better understanding its role in our community. Discussing and potentially embracing an explicitly secular form of spirituality could make it easier for believers to imagine life without belief and could make our community more attractive for those who have come to doubt their faith.

Tags: atheist spirituality, atheist, atheism, spirituality, religion, psychology of religion, secular, religious belief