Archive for the ‘atheism’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

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

Tuesday, April 8th, 2008

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…

Tags: , ,
Posted in atheism, bigotry, fanaticism, hate, religion | Comments Off

Does Evolution lead to Atheism?

Friday, April 4th, 2008

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.

Tags: ,
Posted in atheism, evolution | 13 Comments »

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

Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008

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.)

Posted in atheism, atheism faq | Comments Off

FAQ: What do you atheists worship, then?

Thursday, March 20th, 2008

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.)

Tags: , ,
Posted in atheism, atheism faq | 3 Comments »

Let Nihilism Reign Supreme!

Tuesday, March 18th, 2008

… 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!??

(more…)

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in atheism, books, nihilism | 4 Comments »

The Four Hoursemen of the ATHEIST Apocalypse!

Monday, March 17th, 2008

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)

Posted in atheism, humor | 1 Comment »

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

Thursday, March 13th, 2008

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…

Tags: ,
Posted in atheism, nature, science | 2 Comments »

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

Thursday, March 13th, 2008

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. :)

 

 

(more…)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in atheism, atheist lyrics | 5 Comments »

Eliminating religion?

Saturday, March 8th, 2008

Vocal atheists are often asked (and sometimes simply accused) if they want to eliminate religion (sometimes we’re even accused of trying to eliminate believers, but those idiocies aren’t even worth a reply). Of course, I can’t speak for any other atheist but myself (that’s one of the beauties of being an atheist: no dogma), but, in my case, yes, I’d like religion to disappear, because it’s useless and and a waste of time at best, and, more often, a tremendous source of irrationality, ignorance, division, suffering and death. (if I need to tell you that this doesn’t involve killing or harming a single believer, I’m very disappointed in you.)

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.

Posted in atheism, religion | 6 Comments »

FAQ: What if you’re wrong, and God does exist?

Thursday, March 6th, 2008

(Note: this is not the same as the previous FAQ, “Isn’t it better to believe, just in case? After all, if I’m wrong, then I don’t lose much, but if you’re wrong…”. That one is a repudiation of Pascal’s Wager; this one is an answer to the remote possibility that there *is*, indeed, a God.)

 

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.)

Tags: ,
Posted in atheism, atheism faq, religion | 5 Comments »

More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 3): "God exists" implies Christianity?

Thursday, March 6th, 2008

hitchensAs always, click on the image for the source and to download the videos, yada yada yada. :)

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.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in atheism, christianity, religion | Comments Off

Atheism is necessary, but not sufficient — and not the final goal

Wednesday, March 5th, 2008

A recent post on Primordial Blog, Atheist Proselytizing – What Should Our Goal Be?, includes this part:

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.

Posted in atheism, reason, thinking | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »