This doesn’t happen every day. 
Why not go and read the article in full? Whether you’re an atheist or not, you’re bound to learn something new (as the article is very detailed — it was because of that that it was eligible to be a featured article).
BTW, thanks to overcaffein8d for emailing me about this, and congrats to Reed for mentioning it first.
May 25 (today, that is) is Towel Day. I don’t have one with me right now (though I’ve used a couple during the day ), but, since we’re honoring the great, late Douglas Adams, I want to show you his interview with American Atheists (mentioned, incidentally, in one of this blog’s earliest posts, almost 2 years ago). Douglas Adams’ interview is as brilliant as it was years ago — and the world is less fun (both in the humorous, and in the adventurous sense) without that guy in it.
Thinking about a guy like this makes me wish there was some kind of afterlife, since I’d give anything to ever talk to the man. Unfortunately, wishing doesn’t make it so… and accepting that is what makes us adults instead of children.
It’s been some years, but… So long, Douglas, and thanks for all the fish.
Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.
– Isaac Asimov
From Unbecoming Levity, incidentally one of the most recent members of Planet Atheism, comes a brilliant — and beautiful — post, Why I am an atheist.
As deconversion stories go, this is one of the most enlightening I’ve seen, and, while the specifics are different, some parts almost echo my own experience. The following, for instance, could apply perfectly to me:
It became clear that God is a product of man, and he still exists as a go-to for those questions that still are not answered and to comfort us. Through a god and afterlife, we are eternal, our consciousness the manifestation of an immortal spirit that will rejoin its loved ones who have passed on before when we die. The God hypothesis makes us live forever. And further, it addresses the common lament that life is not fair, God will mete out justice. If an awful, evil man becomes powerful and lives a long happy life hurting others, we can take solace that after death, he will be brought to account for his transgressions. The God hypothesis makes life fair. This is why the God hypothesis exists–to make us feel better. It is a comforting idea, in my opinion. But that doesn’t make it true.
Really, go read it. You won’t regret it. And send the link to any theist (but inquiring) friends you happen to have.
The first edition of the Humanist Symposion is out. I just noticed it, and wanted to promote it here immediately; I haven’t read its articles (except for those who also appeared in Planet Atheism) yet.
Unfortunately, I ended up not participating in this one. 
Lack of time, and laziness, mostly. Maybe the next one…
On Bligbi, there is a recent post called On true atheists, about the fact that some “atheists” attempt to set what “true atheists” must be like.
I agree with KC on this, of course; atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, nothing more. To say “you are not a true atheist” for any reason other than “well, you do believe in a god” is an obvious example of the No true Scotsman fallacy.
It is, indeed, something I’ve mentioned in the past: how some people, for varied reasons, redefine words to mean something other than the accepted definintion, up to a point where you can’t have a useful conversation with them.
Some do it to escape from a negative association. E.g. “yes, the Inquisition was horrible, but those were not true Christians.”
Others, like the ones mentioned in the Bligbi post, do so to make the term fit with their own view. “I consider myself an atheist, and I like X, therefore true atheists must also like X.”
And some people are weirder. They make something up, but are not self-confident enough to admit their own originality, so they “steal” an accepted term and use it for what they just came up with. For instance, inventing a really weird set of beliefs — today — and calling it “Christianity”. For bonus points, say that it’s the only “true” Christianity, and that people have been wrong (see, Jesus was actually an alien, and to be saved you must worship pink things… while standing on one foot) for 2000 years.
Remember this Atheism FAQ entry, Without belief in an afterlife / fear of hell, how can people be moral?? The common argument (which theists keep using, without even noticing what it really says about them) that an atheist doesn’t have any reason to be moral, since he doesn’t believe in heaven or hell? In other words, that there is no morality without the supernatural, and that “morality” is simply not doing things due to fear of punishment?
Bligbi has said shortened that argument — and its implication — in a simple, brilliant way: If it wasn’t for Hell, I’d kill you but that doesn’t make me a bad person.
I’ve never participated in a blog carnival before, mostly due to laziness, but this one may just be too interesting to pass up.
If you’re not familiar with the term, a blog carnival is when a blogger invites other bloggers to write about a particular subject, and then links to (and usually writes a synopsis of) the submitted posts. In effect, it becomes like a single issue of a magazine, with several contributors. Carnivals also tend to be have new “editions” periodically, which makes the “magazine” metaphor even more appropriate.
A popular atheism-related one is the Carnival of the Godless. However, Ebonmuse, author of the wonderful Daylight Atheism blog and the Ebon Musings collection of essays, has noticed a trend in most atheism posts and blogs: we spend too much time writing negatively about religion (what’s wrong with it, debunking myths, spotting contradictions and atrocities in the Bible, denouncing the actions of some of the worst theists, and so on), and too little writing positively about being free from religion. So he’s created a new one: The Humanist Symposium.
An atheist’s typical claim is simple: there is no god.
A theist’s typical claim, on the other hand, is a little more complex: there is a god, and he is exactly like I think he is, wants what I think he wants, and hates what I think he hates.
I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.
– Charles Darwin
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.
Like several other members of Planet Atheism, I want to mention a new book, Parenting Beyond Belief.
Even though I’m not a parent (yet), and I live in a non-fundamentalist country (Portugal) where there’s not any kind of social pressure to raise kids as Christians (or members of any other religion), I’m still very interested in it — mostly, because I like to learn, and I’m sure the essays contained in it will be a fascinating read. Besides, it’ll help me get a better view of what life is for a non-theist in a fundamentalist, religious right-controlled society like America seems to be (at least sometimes). Maybe I’ll understand better how nutcases like this “Dick” can exist…
Anyway, the Parenting Beyond Belief web site is quite interesting, with a nice FAQ, a forum, and links to other resources.
Subscribe to this blog
