Atheism | Way of the Mind

Archive for the 'atheism' CategoryPage 2 of 9

Let Nihilism Reign Supreme!

Published

on March 18, 2008

. 4 Comments

… or not.

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

Hedges writes:

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

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

Say what!??

Continue reading ‘Let Nihilism Reign Supreme!’

The Four Hoursemen of the ATHEIST Apocalypse!

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 17, 2008

in atheism and humor

. 1 Comment

I just loved this comic.

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

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

(Seen first on Measured Against Reality)

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

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 13, 2008

in atheism, nature and science

. 2 Comments

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

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

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

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

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 13, 2008

in atheism and atheist lyrics

. 5 Comments

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

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

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

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

Eliminating religion?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 8, 2008

in atheism and religion

. 5 Comments

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.

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

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 6, 2008

in atheism, atheism faq and religion

. 6 Comments

(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:

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.
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.)

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

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 6, 2008

in atheism, christianity and religion

. 0 Comments

As 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.

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

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 5, 2008

in atheism, reason and thinking

. 1 Comment

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.

More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 2): the immaturity of religious arguments

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 4, 2008

in atheism, christianity, logic, religion and the bible

. 1 Comment

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…

Atheism, Stalin, and "without God anything goes"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 3, 2008

in atheism, morality and religion

. 5 Comments

A couple of days ago, I was reading the comments to a post on The Frame Problem which, like one of mine, included this comic:

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.