(source: Beta Ray Bill: The Green of Eden)

In but 3 panels and with little dialogue, it summarizes not only atheism — including the idea that, even if something existed, to automatically worship that something would be nothing but a cowardly and loathsome way of grovelling –, but also humanism — that one should do “good” not because one fears punishment or desires a reward, but because it’s the right thing to do, because this universe is, as far as we know, the only one we’ve got, and, if we can influence it in some way, let it be a good way.

And all of this in a mainstream comic from a major publisher (Marvel). This is not something that happens every day.

Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: “Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists. Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation! It doesn’t matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me. If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant? Such arrogance! Such elitism.”

Well, if that’s what floats your canoe, you’ll be paddling it up a very lonely creek. The mainstream belief of the world’s peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They’ll be right.

– Richard Dawkins (source)

Choice A: there is no heaven or hell; no afterlife, no consciousness after you die.

Choice B: there is an afterlife, in heaven (eternal bliss) or hell (eternal torment), and you have a 10% chance of going to hell.

Which would you choose?

To me, if you don’t choose A instantly, you have never thought for a minute about what “eternal torment” – or even just the “eternal” part – means. Because the mere possibility of that, no matter how remote, should be enough to make anyone live in absolute terror.

Even eternal boredom is infinitely worse than the worst of monsters that ever lived deserves. Because there’s no escape, no reprieve, absolutely no hope of an end, of a sweet oblivion.

Now, as an atheist, I believe there’s no choice here: it’s A whether we want it or not. A theist probably believes the opposite.

Why don’t theists live their lives in abject terror? Well, some of them will use the “my god isn’t a monster and doesn’t send people to hell” argument. Of course, since that deity has no biblical basis, it’s obvious that it’s a god they’ve made up, with the traits they believe God should have. Since I don’t think belief shapes reality, I can’t accept that the god you or him or her or them – or me, if I wanted to – have invented can possibly exist. (As I’ve said many times on this blog, if you believe in a good god, you’ve made him up, and he can safely be dismissed.)

Others will believe that hell exists, but will be certain that, somehow, they’re completely free – or “saved” – from it. They’re sure that they have the proper “get out of jail free” card. Because they have faith in Jesus, because they have said the magic words, because they obey most of Moses’ law or Mohammed’s rules. Somehow, they’re certain that they belong to the right religion – the right branch of the right religion – even though most of the world doesn’t. They probably have the same religion as their parents, making their religion – and, according to their beliefs, whether they’re saved or not – a matter of chance, of geography.

And they don’t think there’s a non-negligible chance of ending up in eternal torment. They’re not in complete terror every moment. They can lead normal lives.

It boggles the mind.

As if that wasn’t enough, he said what I believe will be the most often quoted bit in Planet Atheism for the next couple of days:

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus… and non-believers."

Hell yeah! Just a couple of years after Bush Sr.’s “atheists can’t be considered citizens or patriots” quote. The tide is turning…

Which just shows that this blog is no Friendly Atheist.

Still, this doesn’t prevent me from answering my own question, in detail. As others said, neither statement by itself is offensive – much like “2+2=4” and “2+2=5” aren’t. One of them is right and the other is not, but a simple claim shouldn’t be offensive to anyone.

However, these statements aren’t said in a vacuum. When you say either of them, you are probably – even if unconsciously – adding something to it. How much, depends on the individual. Similarly, when you hear one of those statements – especially if it’s the one you disagree with –, you tend to add implications to it.

“There is a god”, when said to an atheist, only has no extra meanings when said by either a deist or an incredibly liberal believer (so liberal he couldn’t possibly be called a “Christian” or similar). If said by virtually every other kind of believer, it includes one or more of the following:

• I’m right and you’re wrong
• I’m saved and you’re not; you’re going to hell
• You’re immoral for not believing, and for having no source of morality
• (if in a Christian community) You’re an outsider; you’re not one of us; you’re not a real American/whatever
• Your life is incomplete; you can’t possibly be happy
• Jesus died for you, you ungrateful monster
• It’s because of people like you that evil exists
• If you don’t believe, you’re just in denial; God’s existence is obvious
• You must allow me to convert you, otherwise you’re screwed.

(note that I said “one or more of”. I don’t mean that every theist believes all of those, or means all of those.)

Meanwhile, and to be fair, when an atheist says “there is no god”, here’s what he can mean, or at least what believers hear:

• I’m right and you’re wrong
• You’re stupid
• You were conned
• You’re brainwashed
• You’re a sheep
• You only have those beliefs because you’ve never thought about them
• You’re irrational
• Your religion is a crutch, because you can’t cope with the real world
• You’ve wasted your life. Time, money, effort, hopes, fears: all of it was for nothing.

The last one is particularly poignant, and I love Dan Dennett’s take on it. When you think about it, that is perhaps the worst thing you can tell a person – which doesn’t mean that it’s not true –, and it’s understandable that many people find it utterly offensive, even if that wasn’t the goal. Incredibly, I think it can hurt people’s feelings even more than, for instance, saying “you’re immoral and you’re going to hell”, because a non-believer knows that those are not true, and that the believer is just speaking from ignorance. But “you’ve wasted your life” is a real, actual, present “threat” – one that must be fought at all costs. Because otherwise you feel like an utter failure, an utter waste of a life.

This explains why there were so many complaints about atheist / secular signs during the past months. Now, granted, some can actually be an attack on belief, and offensive to believers, but some the ones they complained about said something as inoffensive as “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone”, or, as Ebonmuse put it, “Atheists exist”. And even these were seen as personal offenses, as attacks on their faith, as “liberal Christian-bashing”, and other absurdities. Perhaps, from this angle, I can understand their otherwise incomprehensible anger: the fact that atheists exist and have a voice is a constant threat on their own perceived self-worth. “If atheists exist (and can speak out, and have normal lives), then perhaps, just perhaps, I’ve wasted my life.”

Sign A:

There is a God.

Sign B:

There is no God.

I’ll expand on this in the next post, naturally, but, first, I’d just like to have your answers, and, if possible, your reasoning for that answer – whether you’re an atheist or not.

Oh. So if you simply think the idea that there is a Great Cosmic Voyeur who wants to control your genitals is absurd, that makes you a fanatic? I can’t be too concerned about the opinions of a deluded true believer who can’t tell a fierce bearded guy with an AK-47 from a tweedy academic with a word processor.

Source: Pharyngula

I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said: such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is he is not a Muslim; he’s a Christian, has always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, "What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?" The answer’s "No, that’s not America." Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he’s Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

Kudos to Powell for having the guts to say that (remember McCain’s (paraphrased) “no, he’s not an Arab,” (meaning “Muslim”, really), “he’s a decent family man”, thus implying that a Muslim can’t be one?). The implication, which probably shocks and offends the Religious Right like few other things in recent memory, is that being a Muslim is somehow not inferior to being a Christian, that being a Muslim (or a non-Christian in general) doesn’t disqualify someone for the presidency.

What next, they may be asking? “Is there something wrong with being an atheist in this country?”

I’m betting, of course, that the media will focus on “Powell endorses Obama”, and ignore this small bit of what he said, but, to me, that was the most important part. I can easily imagine Powell saying the same thing about any other religion, or about the lack of one, and these things need to be said, to combat the Religious Right’s dream of religious tests for high office (which, of course, you’d only pass by adhering strictly to their exact branch of fundamentalist Christianity).

Incidentally, it’s strange that I haven’t seen mass conservative cries of “Obama is an atheist”, since atheists are even more demonized than Muslims in the U.S.. I guess it’s the old “there are really no atheists, as deep inside everyone knows God exists” thing.

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

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.)

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.)

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!??

But it gets better:

These atheists share a naïve belief with these fundamentalists in our innate goodness and decency. They, like all religious fundamentalists, fail to grasp the dark reality of human nature, our own capacity for evil, and the morally neutral universe we inhabit. There is nothing in human nature or human history to support the idea that we are morally advancing as a species or that we will overcome the flaws of human nature. We progress technologically and scientifically, but not morally. We use the newest instruments of technological and scientific progress to create more efficient forms of killing, repression, and economic exploitation and to accelerate environmental degradation as well as to nurture and sustain life. There is a good and a bad side to human progress. We are not moving toward a glorious utopia. We are not moving anywhere.

OK, take a deep breath. Where to start?

First, as PZ says, religious fundamentalists don’t have a belief in “our innate goodness and decency”. Much the opposite; their theology rests on the fact that we are flawed, are sinners, and need “saving”, even though we don’t deserve it. In my opinion, nobody hates humanity as much as religious fundamentalists do. Therefore, since we atheists aren’t like that, we certainly don’t “share” that with them.

Second, humanity doesn’t progress morally? If only there was a time machine to send Hedges to the middle ages for a while; I’d love to see if, when he came back (assuming he survived, of course), he’d still say that human morality hadn’t evolved, that things are now as bad as they were 500 or 1000 years ago. The world is far from perfect, and there’s still a lot to do, of course, but, nowadays, in most of the world, women and non-Caucasians can vote, slavery and rape are illegal, and you can criticize your rulers without being imprisoned or killed for it. If this isn’t “moral progress”, then I don’t know what would qualify.

We may not be “moving toward a glorious utopia”, but, despite the actions of both life-hating fundamentalists and nihilists like Hedges, I still feel very lucky to be living now instead of even 100 years ago. And I’m not talking about technology.

And there’s more…

But more ominously, the New Atheists ignore the wisdom of original sin, as well as studies in cognitive behavior that illustrate that human nature is often irrational and flawed. We are all governed, even in our moments of greatest lucidity, by unconscious forces. This understanding, whether achieved through Augustine or Freud, has been our most potent check on schemes of human perfectibility and utopian visions. But the New Atheists, like all believers in myth, refuse to listen. They peddle the alluring and enticing fantasy of inevitable moral and material progress. This vision is not based on science, history or reason. It is an act of faith. It is a form of the occult. It is no more scientifically legitimate than alchemy.

“Wisdom of original sin”? Man, this sounds like an Ayn Rand villain… it’s like I’m reading a column by Ellsworth Toohey! If there’s a concept which is pure evil, pure injustice (being culpable for the actions of others) and pure humanity-hating, it’s “original sin”. The fact that Hedges sees “wisdom” in it just shows how much he hates humanity, life, and the fact that he’s alive — and that other people can find joy in their lives. How dare they?

“Governed by unconscious forces”? While we certainly don’t have perfect control of our minds or our lives, Hedges seems to go beyond that; his words suggest a form of determinism, or predestination, with shades of John Calvin. Furthermore, Hedges seems to be shocked and offended by the idea that someone may not want to conform to their fate, and actually may want to improve things. It’s as if this predestination is “God-given”, and to defy it is a sin.

I could go on. Like Ebonmuse says, Hedges is a nihilist. Not only that, he wants to impose his nihilism on everyone. To him, anyone who dreams is a naïve idiot at best, and dangerous at worst. To him, there may be no god, but “original sin” is a concept worthy of praise, because we’re all animals, we’re all evil, and we’re all monsters. There can be no progress, no betterment of things, and the best we can do is to resign ourselves to our fate and suffer the least by default; to actually try to change things, to make things better, to make the world a better place, to him, is a deluded dream which will inevitably make things worse, cause atrocities and a lot more suffering, and is as bad as the worst kind of fundamentalism.

Still, reading this is very educational to me. I was unaware that people like Hedges existed outside of Ayn Rand novels…

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)

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…

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.

I’ll find the path and the way on my own, I have before
Don’t need them telling me who died for me
And what it was for

This may be a revelation for them
They don’t understand my life or yours
Not conforming to all of their ideals
Makes me all wrong and them right of course.

So no, I don’t believe in their religion
I don’t believe their sacrifice
I don’t believe their hell or heaven
I don’t believe that they are right about my life…

People dying because of ideas
Ideas describing their god differently
It is their gods’ world
So they rearrange it
arrange it to fit
distorted prophecies

[Repeat verse 2]

Oh no, I don’t believe in their religion
I don’t believe their sacrifice
I don’t believe their hell or heaven
I don’t believe that they are right about my life…

I’ll find the path and the way on my own
I always have before
I’ll find the path and the way on my own
I will open my own doors.

[Repeat verse 2]

Oh no, I don’t believe in their religion
I don’t believe their sacrifice
I don’t believe their hell or heaven
I don’t believe that they are right…

I don’t believe…

But what about the “harmless” religions?

PZ Myers put it wonderfully:

As for the charge that these New Atheists are unable to tolerate a harmless religion, and that their goal is the elimination of the enemy, that’s complete nonsense. We want to eliminate them in the same sense that we want to eliminate illiteracy; we will educate, we will talk, we will stand up for our ideas.

(the underlining is mine)

It’s a beautiful comparison, in my opinion. I had thought about comparing a non-harmless religion to a disease of the mind (you can’t possibly claim Fred Phelps or the 9/11 hijackers is/were “healthy”, can you?), but I now think that any religion is at least like illiteracy; that is, it’s not the fault of the believers/illiterate, but it limits them, limits their choices, their abilities, and their future, and they would surely be better off without it.

This is a question often asked by believers (especially Christians) to atheists. What if we’re wrong, God does indeed exist, and after we die, as the saying goes, we do indeed meet our maker?

First, let me say that this is not a possibility that actually worries me, as I have every reason to believe that no god or gods exist. The universe appears 100% natural, and, while science is far from knowing everything, there isn’t anything out there, so far, that absolutely requires a supernatural explanation and can’t possibly — ever — be explained in naturalistic terms. In other words: a complete lack of evidence “for” is in itself very good evidence “against” (and it’s not like humanity hasn’t searched, for millennia), and therefore evidence suggests there are zero deities out there.

Second, if there was a god, it’s still virtually impossible that the human religions are right. Their gods are small, provincial, territorial, petty and tribal. And very human-like. They have human emotions (including a lot of jealousy), they tend to have a “chosen people”, they supposedly created a universe that we now know is incredibly vast and complex (and which was unknown when the religions appeared), but our insignificant little planet is still the only thing that matters in the universe — and our physical lives here aren’t even what really matters. (The idea of a universe old and vast like this, as simply “background scenario” for a test to see whether we’re saved or not… it boggles the mind.) The anthropomorphic gods of our religions are too obviously man-made to be the real thing. If there was a god out there capable of creating a universe, he/she/it would probably be much too complex for us to even notice — and he/she/it wouldn’t certainly be concerned with us, our morality, our sexual lives , nor would he/she/it judge us and create places for us to go after we died. In other words, if there was a god, it wouldn’t affect us in any way — and it would be infinitely greater than the petty anthropomorphic fictional deities of our religions.

Third, what if, despite all the above, there still was a god, and he/she/it was concerned with us, and did judge us in some way after our physical deaths? Well, it depends on its standards of judging. Maybe it didn’t care about our morality, or about being worshipped, but about something completely different. We have no way of knowing.

But suppose it did care about our actions. Then, the final question would be: is God good, or evil? I’m dismissing any corruptions of the meaning of “good” such as “whatever God does or wants is by definition good”. There must be some standard, other than the whims of a powerful being.

Therefore:

1. a good god — which precludes the insecure sexuality-obsessed tyrant the three monotheisms believe in — would reward someone who lived a good life, generally being nice to other people, and full of curiosity to discover things, and to follow the available evidence to the logical conclusion. The available evidence doesn’t in any way suggest the presence of a god, so to believe in one anyway is nothing more than intellectually dishonest wishful thinking. A good god would reward good atheists and good believers, and punish evil atheists and evil believers — but would probably be a bit disappointed with the lack of curiosity and honesty shown by the believers (but then again, he/she/it would have some explaining to do: why stay hidden and make it so that the universe implies his/her/its non-existence?). A good god wouldn’t be an insecure or immature, so he wouldn’t need, desire or care about worship or any kind of ego-stroking at all. Therefore, I have no fear at all of a good god.
2. an evil god — much like Yahweh or Allah (and if you don’t agree with me, you haven’t been reading your holy books) — would be much like a brutal dictator in a totalitarian dictatorship. No one is safe from such a monster; there’s no use in expecting justice or fair treatment. He owns you; you’re his property: a slave, no more. Sucking up might work for a time, but he can always torture or kill you on a whim, because, to him, you’re not really a sentient being; you are a tool to be used, a toy to play with. Still, sucking up — that is, worshipping him, and living your life just for him, obeying his commands blindly, no matter the suffering it causes — would probably be your best bet. Of course, that would also make you a disgusting little coward, devoid of any moral integrity. This god is the kind of being that would indeed create two places for us to go for eternity — one for endless torment, the other for sucking up to him even more. The only moral thing to do in the presence of such a monster, as he condemned and damned us for having the morality he lacks, would be to spit in his face, as a final act of defiance.

Fortunately, I don’t believe any of the above exists. I have no reasons to, after all. And the result? A feeling of freedom.

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

Christopher Hitchens: You had a marvelous quotation from Francis Collins, the genome pioneer, who said, while mountaineering one day, he was so overcome by the landscape, and then went down on his knees and accepted Jesus Christ. A complete non sequitur.

Indeed it is. One doesn’t follow from the other, unless you already had some nasty preconceptions.

Much like C.S. Lewis did before, Francis Collins doesn’t realize that the idea that some god exists (because he’s looking at something which seems to imply some form of design) does not mean Christianity — or any other particular religion — is true.

Why is it that supposed atheists or agnostics, when they have an experience like that, never “accept” the “truth” of a less common religion where they live? Why wasn’t Collins convinced of the “truth” of Islam, Judaism or Hinduism, from watching that beautiful landscape?

Because of his background, I’d say. Much like many Westerners, Collins was probably brought up to believe that religion means Christianity (regardless of whether its claims are true or not), and that then there are some other creeds out there, mostly weird, exotic beliefs. Therefore, a sudden realization that “yes, there is a god!”, to him, must necessarily mean “Christianity is true”. In other words, “there is a god” is synonym with “God incarnated as a human 2000 years ago and sacrificed himself to himself in order to change his own mind about damning us all”.

Needless to say, it takes a pretty warped mind to not only move from one to the other, but to see no problem with doing so.

And that’s why I think that turning people away from religion is not enough. Instead, the primary goal of an atheist movement should be to instill in people the value of rational thinking. I’m worried that, as atheism gains in popularity, we will see a bunch of bandwagon-jumpers climbing on board because it is the thing to do rather than because they have thought critically about the issues. The truth is that most people do not think for themselves – they like to follow the crowd and do what they are told. That is the disease we need to combat in this world.

I couldn’t agree more. I sometimes worry that the success and momentum of the so-called “new atheism” may lead some (eventually many) people to become atheists simply because “it’s in”, or “it’s fashionable”, or “so-and-so is an atheist too”, or simply to annoy others (their parents, society, etc.), as a teenage-like act of rebellion.

Will I say that the above is not “real atheism”? Of course not. If you don’t (really) believe in gods, you’re an atheist.

I’d say, however, that the above reasons are irrational reasons for atheism, and that is a problem.

Saying 2+2=4 because it’s fashionable, or to imitate someone who said that, or to annoy your 2+2=5 believing parents, is irrational and stupid, even if the conclusion is itself correct. Rationally, you’d make the sum — that is, think about it — yourself. Two pebbles, two more pebbles, one, two, three, four pebbles. That’s rational.

Note, by the way, that there’s no way to believe 2+2=5 rationally. That is, you may have been brought up believing that, you may respect and admire someone who believes that, and believing that may be comfortable and make you feel good; however, you can’t ever reach that conclusion rationally, scientifically, by testing reality. By adding two groups of of two pebbles, you will never come up with five of them, and so, to keep believing that 2+2=5, you have to come up with irrational, absurd excuses (“you can’t test God’s addition”, “it’s 5 in a spiritual, non-materialistic sense”, “it looks like 4 to test our faith”, “there’s a higher reality beyond this one where it does add up to 5″, “it’s 5 because it says so in my holy book”, “I don’t need to add the pebbles — my faith is enough for me”, and so on).

In other words, being an atheist doesn’t mean you’re rational, but not being an atheist certainly means you’re irrational — because somehow, somewhere, wishful thinking, dogma, arguments from authority, and unfounded emotions got in the way.

But we (ok, ok, *I*) don’t want atheist sheep, do we? What we want is for people to stop being sheep, to think for themselves, to be rational. The survival of our species may depend on that — and its progress certainly does. Atheism is, ultimately, just a minor (but unavoidable and necessary) consequence of that rationality.

Like before, just click on the picture above to go to the source, download or watch the 2-hour video, and so on.

Also like before, I’m going to post and comment on one of my favorite parts of the discussion between the “four horsemen of atheism”.

Daniel Dennett: Right. And you know this, what you just said Christopher, actually, I think, strikes terror, it strikes anxiety, in a lot of religious hearts. Because it just hasn’t been brought home to them that this move of theirs is just off-limits. It’s not the game. You can’t do that. And they’ve been taught all their lives that you can do that – this is a legitimate way of conducting a discussion. And here, suddenly we’re just telling them “I’m sorry, that is not a move in this game”. In fact it is a disqualifying move.

[..]

Christopher Hitchens: Adumbrate the move for me a bit, if you would, or for us. Perhaps only for me. Say what you think that move is.

Dennett: Somebody plays the faith card.

Hitchens: Yes.

Dennett: They say look, I am a Christian and we Christians, we just have to believe this and that’s it. At which point, I guess the polite way of saying it is well, okay, if that’s true you’ll just have to excuse yourself from the discussion because you’ve declared yourself incompetent to proceed with an open mind. Now…

Hitchens: That’s what I hoped. That’s what I hoped you were saying.

Dennett: …if you really can’t defend your view, then sorry, you can’t put it forward. We’re not going to let you play the faith card. Now if you want to defend what your holy book says, in terms that we can appreciate, fine. But because it says it in the holy book, that just doesn’t cut any ice at all. And if you think it does, that’s just arrogant. It is a bullying move and we’re just not going to accept it.

Sam Harris: And it’s a move that they don’t accept when done in the name of another faith.

Dennett: Exactly.

In other words: saying “we just have to believe it and that’s it” is not a rational argument, or a grown-up argument. Nor is saying “it is true, because it says so in my holy book”. Those are appeals to emotion or to authority, which are childish arguments that have no place in an adult, rational discussion… and which believers wouldn’t accept from believers of other faiths, anyway. Those arguments are the equivalent of a child’s “but I wannaaaaaa!!!!”. They only “work” because religion and religious beliefs are still unnaturally and unjustifiably respected.

Incidentally, Dennett’s “Now if you want to defend what your holy book says, in terms that we can appreciate, fine” reminds me of Barack Obama’s “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all”.

In other words — and even though Obama is himself a Christian — both are saying that childish arguments, such as appeals to authority or emotions, just won’t do in real life. This is probably shocking to many believers, who are used to, and comfortable with, their immaturity of beliefs and arguments. It probably explains why Christians cry “we’re being oppressed!” merely for not being allowed to oppress others anymore… after all, they’re suddenly losing a right privilege they’ve had for centuries, when they were so powerful that they were able to act like spoiled children, both in terms of arguments and of actions. Suddenly being told to grow up and act like adults — for the first time in centuries — probably feels like “oppression” to them…

The replies, over there, were a little more like those I had expected here.

First, there came the usual “Stalin / Hitler did this, so atheism is even worse” argument, a.k.a. “I completely missed the point of the comic”. The point is that the comic’s panels suggest several hypothetic (and completely non-existent) atrocities actually made in the name of atheism — and whose equivalents were, in real life, made in the name of religion. That’s completely different from atrocities made by believers or atheists but not in the name of (or because of) their religion or atheism.

When someone pointed out that there’s no relation between Stalin’s atheism and his atrocities (Hitler was a Catholic), then this little gem came up:

They decided that there was no god and realized that they were therefore permitted to do anything they wanted

And this is where I believe all discussion with that person should end. Because he or she, at that point, has gone between a mere logical confusion (going from “atheists did this” to “atheism causes this”) to actual immorality. That person doesn’t see any reason for not “doing anything they want” other than fear of being spanked by the sky daddy. No reason to help and care for other human beings, except that God supposedly commanded so. No reason for not going into a killing spree, except that they don’t want to go to hell.

This, ladies and gents, is absolutely sickening — not to mention worrying (what if they ever lose their faith? no one in the vicinity would be safe…). And they don’t even get that.

I’d like to suggest to fellow nonbelievers that, when told that “atheism leads to evil (because without god anything goes”), or confronted yet again with the Stalin argument (which really amounts to the same: “they killed people because they didn’t fear divine punishment”), they reply with something like the following:

You have just stated that you, yourself, see no reason not to commit mass murder, other than fear of going to hell. Therefore, you have shown yourself to be a psychopathic monster, and I am not interested in continuing a discussion with the likes of you.

I know I’ll be using it in the future, because, sure as hell, believers will continue to compare my morality (or, in their eyes, lack thereof) to Stalin’s.

As a follow-up to my previous post on the subject, I want to share — and comment on — some of the best parts (IMO) of the conversation between the “four hoursemen”, which I still recommend that you watch in full (just click on the image above and download the files, if possible, or at least follow the YouTube links). Since there’s too much to comment on, I’ll divide it among several posts; here’s the first.

Daniel Dennett: Yeah, well I’m amused by it [the accusation that they are "strident or arrogant, or vitriolic, or shrill"], because I went out of my way in my book to address reasonable religious people. And I test-flew the draft with groups of students who were deeply religious. And indeed, the first draft incurred some real anguish. And so I made adjustments and made adjustments. And it didn’t do any good in the end because I still got hammered for being for being rude and aggressive. And I came to realize that it’s a no-win situation. It’s a mug’s game. The religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them critically without being rude.

Nowhere else, from my experience, does something like this happen. “I think you’re wrong” is not an insult or a personal offense… except in religion. I think this is a very important point.

And why is it? Harris and Dennett provide the answer:

Sam Harris: I mean, this is just not the way rational minds operate when they’re really trying to get at what’s true in the world. And religions purport to be representing reality. And yet there’s this peevish, tribal, and ultimately dangerous, reflexive response to having these ideas challenged. I think we’re pointing to the total liability of that fact.

Dennett: Well, and too, there’s no polite way to say to somebody…

Harris: You’ve wasted your life!

Dennett: …do you realize you’ve wasted your life? Do you realize that you’ve just devoted all your efforts and all your goods to the glorification of something which is just a myth? Or have you ever considered – even if you say have you even considered the possibility that maybe you’ve wasted your life on this? There’s no inoffensive way of saying that. But we do have to say it, because they should jolly well consider it. Same as we do about our own lives.

Again, this is pretty important. It’s something I’ve noticed when discussing these matters with less skeptical friends (and it wasn’t even about religion, but astrology, mysticism, “energies”, and so on): if you refute their arguments one by one, they invariably reach a point where they’re visibly emotionally affected — almost near panic — and, if you keep going on past that point, they get really offended, angry, and aggressive with you. Why? Because their beliefs aren’t just a matter of whether the methods (e.g. prayer, horoscopes, etc.) “work” or whether the propositions are “true”. These people have an emotional investment in those beliefs. A huge one. And, in a way, you’re telling them that they may have lost all of that investment. That, as Harris and Dennett say, they’ve wasted their life. A form of the sunk cost fallacy comes into effect — deep inside, the person may realize that their belief isn’t based on reality, but they’ve invested too much time, energy, and emotions into it to ever admit the fact. And anyone who insists on making them “look hard” at it is “hurting” them, is attacking them personally, is “offending” them.

I guess that, in many cases, there’s nothing that can be done. It takes a special kind of courage and honesty to admit something like “I’ve wasted most of my life”. In many cases, it’s probably hopeless to try to get them do do it — and it can cost friendships, in fact.

Please, watch it. Really. Just click on the image above. I suggest downloading the files first and watching them in the best available quality, instead of using YouTube.

For believers, it may surprise you to find out how “strident”, “shrill” and “fanatical” these four bestselling authors really are.

For non-believers, don’t pass this by because you expect it be just “preaching to the choir”. As I said, the discussion is, in my opinion, fascinating and absolutely stimulating, and it will sure get you thinking about stuff you hadn’t considered before.

[...] given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God’s test of devotion.

But it’s fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham.

Source: ‘Call to Renewal’ Keynote Address, 2006

More than good enough for me. Pity I’m not American, or I would, for the first time in my life, vote for a guy and be proud of it. (I’m assuming he’ll beat Hillary, by the way, which seems increasingly likely, according to the latest results.)

Contrast this with Mike “rewrite the Constitution so it conforms to the Bible” Huckabee, Mitt “secularism is a religion” Romney (yes, I realize he’s out), or John “Roe v. Wade should be overturned” McCain.

(To be fair, McCain seems to be by far the lesser evil amongst Republicans (which admittedly isn’t saying much, given who his current main opponent is), and would certainly be an improvement over Bush… but, then again, who wouldn’t? Unless an oddly convenient “terrorist” attack allows Bush to institute martial law and remain in power, things are sure to improve — not just for the U.S., but for the entire world — after November, regardless who wins the election.)

EDIT: removed the bold font emphasis on the original text. Sorry about that.

Consider her description:

I am going to kill myself in 90 days. What else should i say? This blog is not a cry for help or even to get attention. It’s simply a public record of my last 90 days in existence. I’m not depressed and nothing extremely horrible has lead me to this decision. But, does it really have to? I mean, as an atheist I feel life has no greater purpose. My generation has had no great depression, no great war and our biggest obstacle is beating Halo 3.

“… as an atheist I feel life has no greater purpose”? Gee, that sounds just like what theists love to say about atheists… and what atheists either don’t say, or say literally; in other words, the lack of a “greater” purpose just means that we don’t have someone telling us what to do, so we have to (responsibility! scary!) decide for ourselves, come up with a purpose on our own.

Quoting Shnakepup:

Expect “Jane” to start laying the nihilism and hedonism on thick, all the while spouting off about how pointless it all is. Then, closer to the due date, we’ll see more and more posts featuring Jane reconsidering her godless, wasteful existence , and pondering if maybe there’s something more. Cue religious friend who sets her straight on the lie of atheism, and who tells her all the church has to offer in it’s place. Instead of killing herself on Day 90, we’ll see her changing her mind and deciding to live her life with Jesus! Warm fuzzy music plays and everybody learns a valuable lesson.

Indeed. Now, I wonder… as an atheist, I would never do something like this (say, “faking” a deconversion). Why? Because it would be dishonest, and the same love of truth that makes me an atheist prevents me from even considering something like this. The belief in “saving souls” for brownie points in heaven, even if you have to cheat, lie, and hurt people to do it, is, apparently, something very typical in evangelical Christianity.

EDIT: it was just an experiment, after all. Either that, or they aborted it because they can’t follow their plan to talk about the emptiness of atheism for 3 months and then “find Jesus” on day 90, because we were on to them on day 4. Nothing to see here, folks.

Source: MattBors.com

It’s a bit strange to see absurdities like Christian “Science” and Scientology in those positions, as I’d say they’re even more obviously bullshit-infested than, say, Eastern Orthodox or Hinduism (and that’s saying a lot), though that’s probably because they agree with me on something… no idea what, though. At least, the test got number one right, so it’s a start. It is a test more focused on beliefs instead of lack of them, however, as the phrasing of the questions shows.

What about you? What does the Belief System Selector say about your beliefs?

So… as an atheist, what do I think about Christmas? Well, I love it.

No, I don’t love the absolutely idiotic consumerism that makes it impossible to go into a shopping center during December, which creates huge queues everywhere, and which makes otherwise rational people go into a shopping frenzy, and actually panic because they might forget someone, or disappoint someone, or not be able to find the “right” gift for someone. As I said, I absolutely hate this, and refuse to take part in it.

But I love the rest of Christmas. The decorations, the Christmas trees, the songs, the Santas everywhere, the Christmas parties or dinners at work, the food (here in Portugal there are several types of traditional cakes and other foods that are only made near Christmas, and it’s probably similar in the rest of the world), the whole festive atmosphere of it. And the fact that I get to spend an evening with my family, include some of its members that I almost never see during the year.

No, I don’t feel like I’m “betraying my atheism” (which is a completely absurd concept, of course — you can’t “betray” a lack of belief in something ) by taking part in a celebration usually associated with Christianity (even though it comes from a much older pagan holiday, as everyone here probably knows). In fact, the kind of Christmas celebrated in Portugal has very little — if anything — to do with Jesus and religion, but instead with giving gifts (which unfortunately causes those ridiculous shopping frenzies I mentioned), with family reunions, and with and enjoying each other’s company. And I love it. I don’t need to believe in an invisible man in the sky to follow the traditions and “rituals” I enjoy.

Now that intriques me.  I would love to see that post sometime soon.  After all, if I stopped believing the feeling would be the complete opposite of relief.

I’ve written about it in the past (interestingly, in one of this blog’s earliest posts, How I’ve become an atheist), but I’ll try to answer your question specifically: why the relief?

Well, first consider this: what if Christians are wrong and Muslims are right? If that is so, Allah will send you to “the fire”. Scared yet? There are so many religions (and variations of each religion) out there that the odds of picking up the right one are very, very small. And most of them say their gods are “jealous”, so you can’t pick several at the same time. The fact that you’re a Christian and not a Jew or Muslim or Hindu, or that you’re, say, a Protestant instead of a Catholic, depends just on one thing: where you were born. And while you may have a more liberal theology (“anyone who accepts Jesus is saved”, or even “God wouldn’t send anyone to hell, even though it says he does in the holy books”), that’s a relatively recent thing, and you’re probably in the minority, not to mention that the holy books don’t agree with you. So, statistically, if there is a god or gods and there is a hell, then each individual has very good odds of ending up in it — and of that happening just by chance, because you were born in the “wrong” place and raised in the “wrong” faith. To me, that would be very, very scary indeed, and losing that fear would certainly be a relief. Most believers (including myself, when I was one) avoid living in constant fear of their statistically probable eternal damnation simply by not thinking about this at all; their faith is the “right” one, automatically, because they were raised in it, and it’s “obvious”, so, end of story.

However, my own relief was more related to intellectual honesty; I was always inquisitive, with “the soul of a scientist”, so to say, and only managed to keep my faith by not thinking critically about it, by stopping myself whenever I started to consider the implications, before going “too far” — and, with time, the lines of thought I had to avoid became more and more in number. I knew, subconsciously, that if I thought about it, I would lose my belief, and come to the natural conclusion: that all religions are man-made, self-contradictory, and teach morally wrong — sometimes even repugnant — things. And that the reasons I had for not believing in every other religion could apply perfectly to my own. So, my mind served me so well at school, at college, at work, and to solve problems regularly in life, but it had to be “chained” for me to keep a belief that would not survive a good, hard look? Can you imagine how dishonest, how “fake” that made me feel? To have a part of my life that I had to constantly avoid thinking rationally about? To have two separate standards of reasoning, one I applied to reality and life, and the other to a belief that I just “had” to keep… or else? And yet I blamed myself, not the belief — because I had been taught so.

It’s as Martin Luther said, reason is the enemy of faith. I just disagree with him on which side to pick.

While I agree with most of the post (that religion is to blame for the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11, Hitler’s anti-semitism, and so on), I have to disagree with this part:

The way I look at it to know there is no god requires the same amount of faith as it does to know that there is a God. Since I have yet to see convincing proof either way I can’t fall on one side of the argument or the other.

Non-belief in gods requires as much “faith” as non-belief in unicorns, and the default position should be “where’s the evidence?”, not “I can’t tell one way or another”.

Can one prove there is no god? Of course not, much like the aforementioned unicorns, or Russell’s Teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But all those are extraordinary claims, and, as Carl Sagan said, they require (and everyone should demand) extraordinary evidence. There is absolutely none, so non-belief is the only logical, rational position, and it requires no “faith” at all.

Incidentally, while it’s impossible to prove the non-existence of any gods at all, one can certainly prove the non-existence of most particular gods, in several ways:

1- self-contradictory, logically impossible claims (such as omnipotence)

2- divergence from reality (e.g. holy books whose factual claims are contradicted by historical research, or contradictions such as the Problem of Evil)

3- tracing the religion’s origins and discovering / proving that the religion’s creator was lying, deluded, or didn’t even exist.