Tag Archive for 'atheism'Page 2 of 7

My attempt at Hemant’s "Short and Sweet" questions

Hemant of Friendly Atheist, recently, challenged atheists to come up with very short answers to a number of common theist questions. A couple of bloggers have already answered them on their blogs, and now it’s my turn. :) I’m trying not to be influenced by other answers I’ve read.

I think this is an interesting project, as there are already several atheist FAQs (including my own, still unfinished), but those usually have longer answers. Having to answer a tough question in a line or two is a nice challenge. :)

Without further ado…

Why do you not believe in God?

For exactly the same reason that you don’t believe in every other god than yours.

Where do your morals come from?

Empathy, mostly. And reason, and a sense of fairness and justice.

What is the meaning of life?

I could tell you mine, but I can’t tell you yours, or anybody else’s. What, you believe it should be dictated to us by some outside source? ;)

Is atheism a religion?

No. Incidentally, that question implies that having a religion is something universal, even if it’s “atheism”. That is wrong; it’s like saying everyone has a car, even if yours is “feet”.

If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?

Depends on the kind of trouble. If I can do something about it, I do it. If not, I deal with it in many different ways, which tend to include friends, family, getting slightly drunk, and listening to heavy metal music. Not all at the same time, of course. :)

Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?

Yes, in the same way we’d try to convince an alcoholic or drug addict to do something about their addiction.

Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?

Hitler and Stalin had moustaches. So, having a moustache makes you a mass murderer! What, you’re saying that their moustaches didn’t inspire their actions? Neither did Stalin’s atheism (Hitler was a Catholic). The Inquisition, on the other hand, was caused by what, exactly…?

How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?

See: flat earth, geocentrism, demonic posession as an explanation for diseases, slavery, and many other times when billions of people were wrong.

Why does the universe exist?

“Why” is the wrong question. “How” would be better. How, exactly? I don’t know, it’s not my field of expertise, sorry. But I don’t take the easy way out and say “Goddidit.”

How did life originate?

Again, I’m not a biologist, but I don’t see the need for a supernatural cause there.

Is all religion harmful?

Yes, because even the most “harmless” ones teach you to replace critical thinking and skepticism with wishful thinking.

What’s so bad about religious moderates?

They believe that any religious creed is above criticism, simply because it is a religious creed. So, they protect extremists, and prevent rational discussion of religion.

Is there anything redeeming about religion?

People may feel better when, after a catastrophe, they somehow still feel that “someone above cares”. But that’s wishful thinking again… and it often keeps them from actually doing something about it. So, no.

What if you’re wrong about God (and He does exist)?

Which one? And what if you believe in the wrong one? Anyway, I believe a good god would prefer a decent unbeliever to a vicious believer… and, as for an evil god, only a coward would ever serve him.

Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?

No. Something is either true, or it isn’t. Why such a fear of reality?

Are atheists smarter than theists?

Technically, no, but statistically they probably are. For instance, the percentage of atheists among scientists is much greater than among the general populace.

How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?

If he existed — which isn’t certain — I’m almost sure that it was Paul, not Jesus, who invented the “he died for your sins; accept him as your savior and be saved” thing. In other words: the information we have about the historical Jesus is far from reliable.

Would the world be better off without any religion?

Oh, yes. Without religion in the middle ages, we would be at Star Trek-like levels today — not just in terms of technology, but of society. Religion is the thing that’s holding humanity back the most, and always has been.

What happens when we die?

It’s over for us, but we can leave memories and deeds, and can have made the world a better place for our children and their children.

Now, I’d add a few ones:

Isn’t atheism just hatred of God?

Do you hate Thor? Or just don’t believe he exists or ever existed? Well, it’s the same thing here.

How can you be sure God doesn’t exist, if you’re not all-knowing?

I’m as much sure God doesn’t exist as I am about unicorns or werewolves, and for the same reason: there’s exactly zero evidence for all of them.

Fundamentalists to "militant" atheists… and agnostics

Readers of Planet Atheism have probably seen this several times today:

Fundamentalists: believe 2+2 =5 because It Is Written. Somewhere. They have a lot of trouble on their tax returns.

“Moderate” believers: live their lives on the basis that 2+2=4. but go regularly to church to be told that 2+2 once made 5, or will one day make 5, or in a very real and spiritual sense should make 5.

“Moderate” atheists: know that 2+2 =4 but think it impolite to say so too loudly as people who think 2+2=5 might be offended.

“Militant” atheists: “Oh for pity’s sake. HERE. Two pebbles. Two more pebbles. FOUR pebbles. What is WRONG with you people?”

And, of course, it’s absolutely correct.

But I’d add another one in the middle:

Agnostics: 2+2 may be 4, or may be 5. Yes, it LOOKS like it’s 4, but I don’t have perfect knowledge, and I want to keep an open mind. Who’s to say the religionists aren’t correct? Who am I to know?

Yes, as long time readers of WotM are probably aware of, I really don’t like agnostics. Sorry if you’re one, but, to me, agnosticism is pure intellectual cowardice.

A fundamentalist theist believes “truth” is separate from reality, and, if they conflict, then reality is wrong. An atheist believes reality IS truth. An agnostic, on the other hand, believes reality is unknowable, and therefore evades the responsibility of trying to understand it. Anything goes. Reality is fluid, ever-changing, unpredictable. We can never truly know anything for certain, since everything we know, every law we take as true, may change tomorrow.

An agnostic — much like a New Age mystic — distorts the concept of “open mindedness” to an absurd level, where there are no laws, no rules, no hard facts, no reality — at least none that can be ever understood. To an agnostic, everything is possible, so nothing is ever certain. Taken to the extreme, nothing is ever even more likely than anything else.

Sorry, but, to me, this is no more rational than believing in an invisible bearded man in the sky, invented by primitive Bronze Age nomads, who, somehow, hates all the same people you do.

Atheism is today’s featured article on Wikipedia

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. :)

Towel Day

Douglas Adams

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.

Asimov, Atheism, and Death

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

Unbecoming Levity: "Why I am an atheist"

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 Humanist Symposium

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…

"True atheists" and redefining words

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. :)

Bligbi: "If it wasn’t for Hell, I’d kill you but that doesn’t make me a bad person"

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.

The Humanist Symposium, humanism, and a few thoughts

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.

Continue reading ‘The Humanist Symposium, humanism, and a few thoughts’




Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal