Archive for the 'atheism' Category

101 Atheist Quotes

From The Atheist Blogger. I knew less than half of them, and there are many gems in there.

Some of my favorites:

If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul. - Isaac Asimov

I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence. - Doug McLeod

Since the Bible and the church are obviously mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust them to tell us where we are going? - Anonymous

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. - Christopher Hitchens

It will yet be the proud boast of women that they never contributed a line to the Bible. - George W. Foote

And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence. - Bertrand Russell

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. - Robert A Heinlein

He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave. - William Drummond

Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived. - Isaac Asimov

Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. - Sam Harris

I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance, and then sends me to hell if I’m ‘bad’. - Mike Fuhrman

Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. - Frater Ravus

Man has always required an explanation for all of those things in the world he did not understand. If an explanation was not available, he created one. - Jim Crawford

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

If we expect God to subscribe to one religion at the exclusion of all the others, then we should expect damnation as a matter of chance. This should give Christians pause when expounding their religious beliefs, but it does not. - Sam Harris

Monique Davis’ "apology" - double standards, anyone?

Alonzo Fyfe is completely right.

Rep. Monique Davis apologized to Rob Sherman, the atheist she told to “get out of that seat” because he “believes in destroying”, which she equates with being an atheist, who has no right to go to court in “the land of Lincoln where people believe in God”. She apologized to him, personally, for insulting him — personally. As if she had just insulted him, instead of atheists in general. As if no bigotry was involved.

Alonzo compares it with Mel Gibson’s outburst against a Jewish policeman.

Did Gibson apologize just to the cop for insulting him personally? No, nor could he have done just that. He apologized to the Jewish people in general. He wasn’t just insulting that cop, he was accusing Jews of causing wars and being responsible for a number of evils in the world. That was not just rudeness, that was bigotry.

Why should Davis’ outburst be treated differently? Why should people be satisfied with a personal apology for rudeness? She showed as much bigotry to all atheists as Mel Gibson did to all Jews. Do atheists have less rights? Have we bought into their propaganda so much that we’re willing to be reviled and demonized, and not do a damn thing about it? In which way are atheists morally inferior to Jews, or to any other group? Why should this kind of bigotry be excused, when it wouldn’t be if the target was any other?

Not to mention that Davis is not an actor, but an elected official. She has a much bigger responsibility for her actions than Gibson.

Read the comments on Alonzo’s post as well, where he gives suggestions on whom to contact in order to demand a real apology (or resignation) from Davis. As Alonzo says, and I said before, complaining to Davis is useless: the fact that the people she sees as the most obscenely evil  in the world criticize her actions only confirms their “righteousness” in her mind.

Hitchens vs. Hitchens

It’s brilliant. Really. Christopher Hitchens is in much greater form here than in, say, the Four Horsemen talk, and Peter is not bad either. :)

I, of course, agree with Christopher on virtually everything he says, except for his support of the Iraq war — although he presents his case for it very well here, I still think it was the wrong thing to do, was done for all the wrong reasons (oil for Halliburton, and getting the US in a war frenzy so it’s “unpatriotic” to criticize the administration), and was done as badly as it could.

But, on the subject of religion, listening to Christopher’s wit is an intellectual delicacy, not to mention very, very funny. :)

Get the torrent here. Or look for it on YouTube.

"It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists"

(Note: you may want to read the prologue first.)

From Rep. Davis’ bigoted outburst about atheists, one part “jumped at me”, and I knew at the time (a few days ago) that I would have to dissect that point. That part is, of course, this post’s title.

If you follow, logically, from a correct premise, you will likely arrive at correct conclusions. However, if the premise itself is wrong, then the best logic in the world will still end up with a wrong conclusion… but it’s interesting to analyze those occurrences. This is one of them.

Rep. Davis, when she said that sentence, was being bigoted and ignorant, sure, not to mention hateful and full of “righteous anger”. However, there was something else there, something else you can hear in her voice. Fear.

And, from her original premise, she has every reason both to be afraid and to hate atheists. Because something very, very precious is at stake: the fate of eternal souls.

I’ve talked about this before, but most people — believers and otherwise — have never really thought about the concept of hell, or eternal torture. Or are simply unable to grasp it in its entirety, because humans have not evolved — nor have they ever needed to, for their survival, so it makes sense — to deal with concepts such as infinity. The worst part of “eternal torture” isn’t “torture”, but “eternal”. Even mere eternal boredom, without any active torture, is a fate inconceivably horrible, to an extent our minds aren’t capable of imagining. There is no crime on Earth, which is necessarily finite, that warrants such a fate — and this is why I believe the doctrine of hell makes the Christian god supremely evil, more sadistic than the world’s most sadistic sadist, and I wonder why more people don’t see it. Cultural indoctrination, I guess.

But, even without fully grasping the concept of eternal torture, Christians know very well  — even if sometimes just instinctually — that it’s something to be avoided at all costs, something worse than anything that can happen to us on Earth.

Now, think about it. You believe that the most important thing in the world — to such an overwhelming degree that, compared to it, nothing else matters — is to avoid going to hell. Both for yourself, and for those people you care about — and, if you’re a “nice”, well-meaning person, for strangers as well. Nothing you can do or achieve or feel here on Earth is worth anything if you still end up in hell. So, to save yourself (and, later, others) form hell, anything goes. No amount of earthly suffering really means anything compared to it. No amount of ignorance, of lying, of manipulating, of causing suffering to yourself and others is significant. Taken to the logical conclusion, to condemn someone to hours, days, months, even a lifetime of suffering, is a moral act… as long as it prevents that someone from going to hell! Indeed, this was the belief of the Inquisition. Better to be tortured for days or weeks and repent, thus having a chance of being saved, than to lead a pleasant life and then be damned for all time. If you really believe that God sends people to hell, then anything that prevents that is moral… no matter the suffering it causes.

But this is not simply a matter of suffering. It’s also a matter of knowledge. Any knowledge or way of thinking that can lead one to doubt God is dangerous — indeed, more dangerous than anything in the world — and must be suppressed. Whether that knowledge is true or false is immaterial. Evolution may indeed be a fact, and it is compatible with liberal theism, but it can also lead to non-belief, and therefore its teaching must be opposed at all costs, regardless of its truth — simply because it may lead thousands, maybe millions of children to hell. And isn’t saving innocent children the most moral act one can perform?

Recall the preface in Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, where he wrote (emphasis mine):

I suspect - well, I am sure - that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don’t believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents’ religion and wish they could, but just don’t realize that leaving is an option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness - raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.

Therefore, to a believer like Davis, the mere existence of atheists — and, not only that, but happy, moral, fulfilled atheists — is a threat, one that may cause many people to question their faith, to realize that, yes, non-belief is an option, and doesn’t make you a monster. It may cause millions of innocent souls to end up in hell. Morally, shouldn’t that be fought with tooth and nail? The mere existence of atheists is already a threat that is filling hell with souls that might not have ended there otherwise. But vocal atheists? Publicly seen atheists? Atheists that don’t act like hedonists, who don’t have “horns”, or frighten people? How many are they condemning to eternal suffering?

If one believes that God sends non-believers to hell, then it only makes sense to do anything in your power — including oppressing, lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering — to stop any possible source of non-belief. Whether that source is a person or group, or a book, or an idea, or a philosophy, or a knowledge. Whether that source is itself moral, or is itself true. None of that matters. Hell is what matters.

In fact, why stop there? Yes, the Bible says “thou shalt not murder”, so one can assume that a murderer goes to hell. But what greater sacrifice is there than one’s soul? What is giving up your life for others (say, your children), compared with up giving your soul? What could be more moral, more heroic, more noble than sacrificing your afterlife for that of your children… by killing that soul-damning atheist who is making them, for the first time in their lives, doubt what you’ve taught then since birth?

Compared to that, what is disregarding the Constitution (man’s law… pfft.) and taking away the legal rights of an atheist? I’m sure Rep. Davis considers her bigoted actions to be absolutely moral, and probably won’t even understand what all the fuss is about. After all, she was doing it to save innocent souls… in her eyes, she should get a statue, or something.

"It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists" - prologue

Readers of Planet Atheism will probably have already been flooded with posts talking about Rep. Monique Davis’ unconstitutional and hate-filled insults against Rob Sherman, who was testifying against Illinois (unconstitutionally) giving 1 million dollars to a Baptist church. Here is Eric Zorn’s original news report in the Chicago Tribune, and here’s PZ Myers’ post on RichardDawkins.net (which I link to instead of the original on Pharyngula, as this one includes contact information for people to do something about it, instead of just posting comments :) ).

Well, as this post’s title says, this is a prologue for the next one, about that particular quote from Davis. I wanted that one to focus on that quote itself, which is why I’m introducing the story here, in a separate post. The “real thing” comes later today.

Also, I’m not American, so there’s little I can do about it, but if you are, and care for that pesky thing called the Constitution (not to mention the civil rights issue of having non-believers demonized and insulted by politicians without consequence — imagine if Davis’ rant had been against a particular religion or skin color!), please follow the second link above for ways to make a difference. Even if you’re not an atheist, you should still care

Does Evolution lead to Atheism?

notdarwinMany people in the US claim that teaching evolution is a bad thing, because it leads to atheism (and some, like Ben Stein, add that it then leads to Nazism and the Holocaust, but that’s another story). Of course, I don’t think that leading to atheism is a bad thing, because atheism is a “good thing”. However, the question remains: does it?

My answer: in some cases, yes.

The reality of evolution doesn’t preclude the existence of God, much less disprove it. It is certainly compatible with the existence of a supreme being who created the universe, and even with one who also intentionally created life on Earth.

It does, however, affect religious belief in two different ways, either of which can lead one to atheism, and which are why religion often has objections to evolution:

  1. It removes one of the major needs for the existence of God. One can believe that a divine creator exists simply because we don’t see any other explanation for something — in this case, the existence of mankind. Much like in Douglas Adams’s case, it can happen that you come to the conclusion that human religions are logically incoherent and man-made, but you still believe there must be some kind of creator, since you are aware of no other explanation. But evolution provides one, which resolves the “I don’t see any other way it could have been” argument from ignorance.
  2. It reveals the holy books are not inerrant. The major monotheist religions are based on their respective holy books, which include creation stories, usually having something to do with “six days”, with mankind as “special” and intentionally designed, and which totally contradict evolution. To put it bluntly: if evolution is real, Genesis is wrong. While not all sects of each religion teach biblical literalism and inerrancy, many do so, and the fact that evolution shows one part of the Bible to be not literally true leads one to a slippery slope: if this part is wrong or can’t be taken literally, might other parts be wrong or non-literal as well? (One particular resurrection comes to mind…) And how can one then know which parts to trust? This kind of questioning leads some to a more liberal form of religion, but others to one simple, “dangerous” question: what if… it’s all wrong?

And thus evolution is opposed. Because they see what it can do, indeed.

FAQ: There must be a God; otherwise, life is pointless / there is no basis for morality / etc.

This FAQ answer doesn’t address the correctness of the consequences (e.g. whether life is pointless without God or not, etc.). You can find answers to some of those in the rest of my Atheism FAQ — or will be able to in the future.

Instead, the purpose of this entry is to show you how the very premise is based on faulty logic, and and is therefore an absolutely invalid argument.

In a nutshell, the statement says the following: if there is no God, <something bad> is true. Therefore, there must be a God.

What’s so wrong with it? Just this: even if the consequences were correct, that is, the result of “no God” was indeed bad, that has no bearing on the truth value of the premise. In other words, the desirability of a possibility has no effect on whether that possibility is true or not. It either is, or is not; its consequences don’t matter here.

Even if it were absolutely 100% true that “no God” meant “life is pointless”, that would have zero effect on the truth of whether God existed or not.

The error of believing something to be true just because “otherwise it would be bad” is a logical fallacy called appeal to consequences, a common example of wishful thinking. Your beliefs should be shaped by honestly attempting to perceive reality to the best of your abilities — not by believing in what you wish was true, in what makes you comfortable.

Again, note that I am not agreeing with the consequences in this FAQ entry’s title at all. Life isn’t pointless without gods, there is a basis for morality, and so on. But even if those consequences were all completely and undeniably true (like some others indeed are, such as “we’re evolved animals, not specially designed” or “there is no life after death”), it would have no bearing at all on the question of the existence of God.

 

(Note: please keep any comments related to the above question / answer, and not to other subjects, such as whether God exists or not. Thanks.)

FAQ: What do you atheists worship, then?

It depends on what you mean by “worship”. If you mean admire, respect, try to emulate, or believe in, I can’t answer your question, as every atheist is different. There’s nothing in the “atheist” tag that specifies any of those about a person. 

If you mean in a religious sense… the answer is simple: nothing.

Now, many believers are brought up to believe that worship is an essential, universal part of the human condition; in other words, everyone worships someone or something. Since atheists don’t believe in gods — and, more specifically, they don’t believe in your god –, you may have been taught, or may have concluded yourself, that atheists worship someone or something else. Common theist claims about our objects of worship include:

  • ourselves
  • humanity
  • Darwin
  • Dawkins
  • materialism
  • wealth
  • science
  • reason
  • evolution
  • nature
  • communism
  • nihilism
  • other gods than yours (which contradicts the definition of “atheist”, but never mind that…)
  • Satan (!)

Needless to say, all those claims are false.

Atheists don’t worship, in the religious sense. We may respect, we may admire, we may even feel awed (and many of us frequently do — for instance, by nature or science). But “worship” implies something different.

Worship, much like religion, or having a car, is not an essential part of what being a sentient being is. Some do it (believers, in general), some don’t.

(Note: please keep any comments related to the above question / answer, and not to other subjects, such as whether God exists or not. Thanks.)

Let Nihilism Reign Supreme!

… or not. :)

Both PZ and Ebonmuse have mentioned a recent book by Chris Hedges, author of American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America (which I haven’t read), called I Don’t Believe in Atheists. Hedges introduces his book in this essay, and, though those two much more esteemed bloggers than myself :) have already done so, I can’t refrain from adding my part.

Hedges writes:

The New Atheist authors [...] embrace a belief system as intolerant, chauvinistic, and bigoted as that of religious fundamentalists. They too propose a route to collective salvation. They too believe in the moral advancement of the human species, this time through science and reason. The utopian dream of a perfect society and a perfect human being, the idea that we are moving toward collective salvation, is one of the most dangerous legacies of the Christian faith and of the Enlightenment. Those who believe in the possibility of this perfection often call for the silencing or eradication of human beings who are defined by them as impediments to human progress. They turn their particular good into a universal good. They are blind to their own corruption and capacity for evil. They soon commit evil not for evil’s sake but to make a better world. And they do this in the name of religion or science or reason.

Now, if you know anything at all about atheists, if you know any of us personally, if you read atheist blogs (never mind being an atheist yourself), you’re probably as shocked right now as I was when I read the above for the first time. “Intolerant”? “Chauvinistic”? “Bigoted”? Excuse me?!? On what grounds does Hedges call atheists that? Well, here’s his argument: we believe in making the world a better place. We don’t believe human beings are intrinsically and irrevocably evil. The nerve of these pesky atheists! Don’t we know that the world can’t become better in any way? Furthermore, the very fact that we want to try makes us not only more evil than everyone else, but actually dangerous — because we have some dreams of “utopia” and will, inevitably, sacrifice and kill anyone who gets in our way.

Say what!??

Continue reading ‘Let Nihilism Reign Supreme!’

The Four Hoursemen of the ATHEIST Apocalypse!

I just loved this comic.

atheistapocalypse

I especially appreciate the contrast, when the very familiar-looking horsemen speak, with extremely scary looks on their faces, and horror movie poster-like letters, of an “apocalypse” I’d love to see become reality. :)

“FACTS WILL STRADDLE THE EARTH AS A COLOSSUS, AND YOU SHALL LIVE IN THEIR SHADOW!!”

(Seen first on Measured Against Reality)

Richard Dawkins and Douglas Adams, on the purpose of things, and a certain Dish of the Day

I just stumbled upon this, by browsing through a couple of other Dawkins-related videos on YouTube. I didn’t know such a thing even existed, though I knew Dawkins and Adams were friends, of course. Anyway, if you’re a fan of either, you’ll love this:

While not very well known compared to others, this was always one of my favorite parts of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, and I even told it to friends and co-workers a couple of times in my youth. To see and hear Adams himself reading it is a treat, to say the least. Also, Dawkins looks incredibly young — it feels a bit weird, in a way, as I’d just been watching his talk at UW Madison, from just 2 days ago (look here), and the difference is astounding, though I’m glad to see that he hasn’t yet lost his sense of humor. :)

P.S. - if you don’t see the video above, it’s probably because you’re reading this in an aggregator; in that case, just look here

Atheist Lyrics #1: Blaze, "The Path and the Way"

Welcome to a new series on WotM, Atheist Lyrics. I don’t think I need to explain what it’s about, do I? :)

blaze-blood-and-belief The first entry will probably be unfamiliar to you, unless you’re a fan of British heavy metal. It’s by Blaze Bayley, ex-singer of Wolfsbane and Iron Maiden, in the 3rd studio album by his solo band, called (the album, not the band) Blood & Belief.

The song is called “The Path and the Way”, and, besides sounding great (to my musical tastes, of course!), the lyrics, while simple, are somewhat inspired, and Blaze sings them with a lot of emotion — much more than in his albums with Maiden. It’s obvious that he’s singing from the heart. While he may or may not be an atheist, the lyrics certainly say, quite correctly, that religion is bullshit. :)

 

 

Continue reading ‘Atheist Lyrics #1: Blaze, "The Path and the Way"’




Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal