Atheism Faq | Way of the Mind

Tag Archive for 'atheism faq'

FAQ: What do you atheists worship, then?

Published

on March 20, 2008

. 3 Comments

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.)

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.)

FAQ: To say "there is no god," you need as much faith as to say the opposite.

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 22, 2007

in atheism, atheism faq and faith

. 5 Comments

In other words: we can’t look at the entire universe, we’re not omniscient. How can we say, for sure, that something doesn’t exist in the whole universe, without using a degree of faith — that is, belief without evidence to support it?

Well, it depends, in a way, on what you mean by “no god”: not that god, or no god at all?

It’s very likely that, by “god”, you mean the Judeo-Christian god, Yahweh, as described in the Bible. If so, I can answer that one easily: do you need faith to say Odin doesn’t exist?

I’m sure that you don’t. You have no reason to believe in Odin, no evidence of his existence. Besides, Odin and all the other Norse gods are clearly anthropomorphic; that is, they’re exactly like humans, only “bigger”, more powerful. But with the same emotions, traits, character flaws, of humans. It’s safe to say that he’s made up by ancient Norsemen.

Well, all of that applies cleanly to your god, too! That’s why one doesn’t need any “faith” to say that he’s been invented by men, because there’s a lot of evidence in that direction, and exactly zero in the opposite one.

Besides, there are many logical arguments against the existence of an entity such as the Judeo-Christian god. Take the omnipotence paradox, or the problem of evil. The former is logically self-contradictory; the latter requires such convulted excuses (follow the link, they’re all examined in detail there) that it soon gets ridiculous.

But maybe you didn’t mean a god like that. Maybe you’re talking about a vast, cosmic being, who didn’t create the universe, but who is the universe. A being who, because it wasn’t invented by men, doesn’t have human traits; who isn’t focused on, or probably even aware of, our insignificant little planet, who isn’t concerned with trivialities (in the cosmic sense) such as “prayer”, “sin”, or “the afterlife”.

As suggested here, such a being, if it existed, would be completely undetectable by us, would not in any way interfere in our lives, or be concerned with us at all. In every possible sense, it is as if it wasn’t there; nothing we could do would affect it in any way. Much like the “do we live in a perfect computer simulation” questions, it is most likely impossible to know, and ultimately irrelevant to our lives (though there’s nothing wrong with being curious).

In both of the above cases, there’s also something definitive against the “you need faith to say it doesn’t exist” position: burden of proof. It’s always on the side of whoever claims something exists, and it’s him who has to provide evidence for that existence. If he doesn’t, the logical position is to say that his claim is false, and no “faith” is required for that.

FAQ: Atheism is just another religion!

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 7, 2007

in atheism, atheism faq and religion

. 3 Comments

That’s not really a question. Anyway, it can have several different meanings. One is the common “atheists worship science / Satan / Darwin / themselves”, which I’ll address a couple of FAQ answers from now.

Another meaning is that atheism is a religion, that is, it’s got a lot in common with one. That’s what this FAQ entry is about.

What defines a “religion”? Mostly, a religion is a belief system, which includes rules of behavior, rituals, and, in many cases, an element of the supernatural (e.g. miracles), some claims about the origin of the universe, why we are here, and what happens after we die. (note that I said “many cases”, not “all cases”: some religions don’t include supernatural / metaphysical elements at all).

Well, atheism is nothing like that. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods; there are no rules of conduct, no rituals, no claims about why we’re here or what we’re supposed to do. In fact, there’s not even such a thing as “atheistic beliefs”, since the only thing we have in common is that we don’t believe in something that many other people do. In fact, as someone said before, “atheist” shouldn’t even exist as a word, since we don’t have — or need — words for “people who don’t believe in astrology” or “people who don’t believe in Santa”.

While most religions tend to create some sort of homogeneity (because of a common holy book, a common set of beliefs, and so on), atheism isn’t like that at all. Some, but not all atheists are skeptics, and arrive at atheism simply because it’s the “default”; the existence of any gods has no evidence for it, so, until any such evidence appears, we go with the simpler explanation: the universe is natural. But, other than that, we may not have anything in common.

Do you think that “I don’t believe in unicorns” defines a person? I doubt it. Do you think such lack of belief in unicorns is a religion? Unlikely, to say the least.

Many theists, here, will say: “ah, but to say ‘there is no god’ you need as much faith as to say the opposite”. That’s the third possible meaning, which I’ll leave for the next FAQ answer.

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

FAQ: If you don’t believe in God, why do you talk about him so much?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 6, 2007

in atheism, atheism faq and religion

. 3 Comments

Well, I, like most atheist bloggers, rarely talk about “God”, and when I do so, it’s about the (fictional) character described in religious books such as the Bible. (comic book fans may talk about Spider-Man, but that doesn’t mean they believe he’s real!) What I write about, mostly, is religion, and what I think is wrong with it, the harm it causes, and so on.

Religion, unlike God, obviously exists. It’s around us, and affects us - even those of us who have none.

Why do I care about it so much? I have a previous, more detailed post about it, but, basically, I believe that the atrocities committed in the name of religion (such as religious terrorism, the Inquisition, the crusades, etc.), the anti-life and pro-bigotry teachings (such as “gays are an abomination”, “stem cell research is murder, but invading other countries is OK”, or “women should remain submissive”), and so on, are only part of the problem. Another part, which affects many more believers, is the crippling of the intellect that most religions preach. When blind faith — especially when there’s zero evidence for it — is preached as a virtue instead as an obvious example of wishful thinking (which is always to be avoided), then something is very wrong, and religion stops being just a “harmless, peculiar belief”.

So, I write about it, because I care about it. Precisely because I’m an atheist, I believe that this life is “it”; and the world is what we make of it. So I try my best to make it a better place, instead of waiting for some unseen, undefined “real thing” after death, where things will magically become better without any effort on my part.

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

FAQ: How can you be an atheist? You can’t prove God doesn’t exist!

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 5, 2007

in atheism, atheism faq and logic

. 8 Comments

I can reply to that question in two ways, and either of them is enough.

1- I don’t have to.

You’ve probably heard the term “burden of proof” before. In this context, it works like this: when someone makes a new claim, it’s his responsibility to prove it, or at least provide some evidence for it, instead of someone else having to disprove it. In other words, the burden of proof is on the side of those who make the claim — especially if it’s a bold or uncommon one.

Imagine someone accuses you of being an alien disguised as a human. Would you feel that you have an obligation to prove that you’re a real human? Of course not. It’s the other person who has to provide evidence for their claims.

It works that way, too, for claims like “there is a god, and he’s exactly like I believe he is”. The one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. A question such as “can you prove that it didn’t happen?” only works in Ed Wood movies.

2- Can you prove X doesn’t exist, then?

Another way to counter the “you can’t prove God doesn’t exist” claim is to ask the same question back at you. Can you prove Zeus doesn’t exist? Aphrodite? Odin? Thor? Allah? Kali? Nanabozho?

You’ll have to admit that you can’t. In fact, you could dedicate the rest of your life to proving that any of them doesn’t exist, and you’d fail miserably. I’ll assume, then, that you believe all of them are likely to exist, right?

No? Why not, then? Believing in one god because you can’t prove he doesn’t exist, but not applying the same logic to all the other gods, is a classic example of a double standard. But I bet that you’re applying the “you can’t prove he doesn’t exist” logic to your god only…

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

FAQ: 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…

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 2, 2007

in atheism and atheism faq

. 1 Comment

Your question is, in essence, what is known as Pascal’s Wager. It was first suggested by Blaise Pascal, a 17th century French mathematician, and keeps being repeated (over and over) by apologists, many of whom, apparently, believe that they are the first to come up with it…

At first glance, it seems to make sense. After all, a believer who’s wrong, apparently, doesn’t lose much, but an unbeliever who’s wrong goes to hell — infinite punishment, and, so, infinite loss. To “hedge one’s bets”, then, might make sense… right?

Not quite. Remember that Pascal suggested it about 350 years ago, a time when there was, basically, one single religion around him: Catholicism. It’s not exactly like that today… there are hundreds, if not thousands, of variants of Christianity, most of which say that they’re the only valid version, and the believers of every other version are damned. And that’s just Christianity; many other religions, such as Judaism (with all its variants) and Islam (with all its variants) also have similar exclusive claims. Precisely because they’re exclusive (and their gods are “jealous” - their own words!), you can’t pick several of them at the same time, for “safety”.

In fact, if you go by Pascal’s Wager, the chances of picking the wrong religion, and therefore be damned, with so many of them available, are above 99%, and not much different from the chances of going to hell if you’re an atheist (again, according to Pascal’s Wager).

Or, to put it more simply: say you are a Christian. Now, any Muslim will tell you that you’ll go to hell for not believing in Allah. Isn’t it safer to believe, just in case? By not worshipping Allah, aren’t you taking a huge gamble?

There are more problems with Pascal’s Wager. For instance, can you actually choose your beliefs? Could you decide, tomorrow, that, for safety reasons, you don’t believe in Yahweh anymore, and that you believe Allah is the true god? Would that belief be sincere? And if it wasn’t sincere, would any god worthy of that designation actually be fooled?

It’s also not necessarily true that a believer who’s wrong (that is, if it turns out that there is no god after all) doesn’t lose much.

For a more detailed discussion of Pascal’s Wager, please see this thread at the Way of the Mind Forum, especially posts #1 and #5.

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

FAQ: Without God / religion / the Bible, how can people be moral?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 1, 2007

in atheism, atheism faq and morality

. 0 Comments

(Note: this is not the same as the similar-sounding Without belief in an afterlife / fear of hell, how can people be moral?. That one is about behaving because of fear of punishment; this one is about the common belief by theists that people get their moral rules from God / religion / the Bible.)

It may come as a surprise to you, but if you’re a caring, loving person who makes people around you happy, you’re not getting that from religion. In fact, it’s much the opposite.

If your religion is simply “I believe God is like a loving father who wants us to be kind to each other”, then, while you’re much healthier than many other believers, you are making that religion up. You are inventing it, creating it. Or, else, your priest or pastor, who taught you about God and religion, did so.

Because “just be kind to one another” is a philosophy that finds no support in the Bible. That’s not what the Christian god — especially, but not only, in the Old Testament — is about. Not in the least.

According to the Bible — and, again, if you ignore it, you’re making up your own religion –, God really thinks women are inferior to men. He thinks slavery is OK. He thinks people who disobey many of his arbitrary rules should immediately be put to death by other believers. He thinks homosexuals, bankers, disobedient children, and people who eat shellfish should be killed. And he’s OK with genocide — putting entire countries to the sword, including women and children.

Most Christians, of course, are never told about most of the above. Many of those who do are mentally healthy enough to repudiate those beliefs (thus, again, creating their own “sanitized” religion). Those who aren’t healthy enough become fundamentalists: preachers (and agents) of intolerance, suffering and hate.

But my point is that, if you’re a kind, moral believer, you are that despite your religion, not because of it. In fact, you have to ignore much of your holy book, or else you’d probably be in prison already (say, for stoning your child to death because he arrived late from a party).

How can your morality come from religion if you have to ignore most of that religion’s teachings in order to not be a monster?

More about this: Picking and Choosing.

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

FAQ: Without belief in an afterlife / fear of hell, how can people be moral?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on February 28, 2007

in atheism and atheism faq

. 21 Comments

Think of two children. One “behaves” because he was properly raised, because he really cares about doing the right thing, because he has moral principles. The second “behaves” only because he’s afraid of being spanked. Which one do you think is the “better” child? The most moral one?

There are many possible reasons to care for other people. Empathy, for instance. Cooperation. Community. Belief in other people. Love. Respect. A sense of justice, of fairness. Wanting to make the world a better place. Does one really need a threat of eternal punishment as well?

In fact, when you say that “without fear of hell, people would kill, rape, steal, and so on”, aren’t you, in effect, saying that you would do exactly that if you didn’t believe you’d go to hell for it? That you, yourself, don’t see any other reasons not to kill, rape or steal?

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

FAQ: Why do you hate God?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on February 27, 2007

in atheism and atheism faq

. 20 Comments

Let me ask you a similar question: Why do you hate Thor?

You don’t, right? You’re pretty sure that Thor doesn’t exist, and it’s absurd to “hate” something that isn’t real.

Well, to an atheist, it’s exactly the same. Your god, to the best of our knowledge, exists as much as Thor. He’s as real as Thor is. In other words, he doesn’t exist at all. And we — much like you, I bet — certainly don’t “hate” beings we believe to be non-existent.

If you sometimes feel any anger from some of us, it’s probably directed at some particular Christians and their actions, because we think those actions are harming humanity in general. Not at “God”. The thing is, Christians are real. So are their actions. Nobody denies that. We’re convinced, however, that the Christian god — much like all the thousands of other gods invented by mankind throughout history — doesn’t exist. That he’s not real.

You don’t “hate” beings you know are fictional, such as Thor, Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy… and neither do we.

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