For the atheïsts

[SacRedMan]

SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term “atheism” has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.

Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.

Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment, believed that atheism was “not at all to be tolerated” because, he said, “promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.”

That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims “never to doubt” the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating.

Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity’s needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the “beginning” or “creation” of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.

The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, “The God Delusion,” this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don’t know precisely how the Earth’s early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase “natural selection” by analogy to the “artificial selection” performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

6) Atheists are arrogant.

When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don’t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.

There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature’s laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.

From the atheist point of view, the world’s religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn’t have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.

9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as “wishful thinking” and “self-deception.” There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

If a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn’t make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.

or ?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Sam Harris is a religious nutter and an imperialist douche bag. He's as bad and sick as Hitchens.

[Kamos]

Most of it makes sense, although all of it is also fairly common sense for anyone with an IQ in the triple digits. I don't know who Sam Harris is, so I can't base my response upon that.

[Terminator X]

"New Atheist" has become the new code phrase for "Douchebag Atheist" - it is possible to be a complete and utter atheist (as I am) without shouting through a megaphone about how much religion sucks. Harris, Hitchens, et al. also walk a fine line between atheist and racist/imperialist/islamophobic scum. They also have no problem alienating a large portion of the working class (most of whom are religious in some way shape or form) with their comments. Some "Marxist" Hitchens is, eh?

[Ingraham Effingham]

Atheism, as a belief, is alright by me. I was one for years. Although I personally don't see it as an 'end-point' but as a stepping-stone.

The problem, however, is that many (especially in the west) who claim they are atheist are actually just 'anti-theist,' after been turned away from any form of spirituality by the logical fallacies and overall weirdness of abrahamic religions.

Many then become so resistant to any idea of 'god' that they stop searching and learning, and use the bible as an excuse to turn off that part of their brain. That, i am not so alright with. These are the types who tend to be as intolerant, militant, and hateful as any religious fundemental. A good one way to tell, i think, is when an 'atheist' does more to bash christianity and islam, and offer no further support than "show me proof" and "religion is a lie"

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The problem, however, is that many (especially in the west) who claim they are atheist are actually just 'anti-theist,' after been turned away from any form of spirituality by the logical fallacies and overall weirdness of abrahamic religions.

Turned away? Maybe we never had any interest in such nonsense.

Many then become so resistant to any idea of 'god' that they stop searching and learning, and use the bible as an excuse to turn off that part of their brain.

Part of the brain for interpreting nonsensical delusions of self-importance as being real, maybe.

[Ingraham Effingham]

Turned away? Maybe we never had any interest in such nonsense.


Part of the brain for interpreting nonsensical delusions of self-importance as being real, maybe.

By 'many' i meant 'not necessarily the "we" that Takayuki identifies with'

Not every concept of of god is species- or egocentric. This is my point: 'many' atheists do more to refute the abrahamic god than anything else.

I agree the 'god' that created man in his image, and speaks to people through miracles, holy books and prophets is a manifestation of the average person's need for validation in this world, with a narcissistic overtone. But this isn't the only conception of a supreme being that exists.

[Commissar Rykov]

I have never understood why people have an interest in anyone's religious and sexual views in the first place. Then again I have seen people on both sides of the political spectrum obsess over it.

[mikelepore]

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality

Of course, a statement that one is not-something will not provide a basis for morality. The statement that I'm not an astrologer, or the statement that I'm not an alchemist, or the statement that I'm not a ouija board or crystal ball soothsayer also do not establish a system of determining morality. Likewise, neither does the statement that I'm not a theist (that I'm an atheist).

[Thirsty Crow]

Atheism, as a belief, is alright by me.

Atheism does not represent a belief. Or in other words, if atheism indeed represents a set of beliefs, then I'm no atheist.

[Nolan]

Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

Nazism didn't kill 6 millions Jews and many more others because it was "dogmatic," it killed them because it's nazism and genocide is part of the point.

Any notion of a "political religion" is nothing but a promotion of liberal exceptionalism and it actually trivializes the nature of fascism, making it something seen only on some dogma scale rather than as an ideological and sociological phenomenon.

[Ingraham Effingham]

Atheism does not represent a belief. Or in other words, if atheism indeed represents a set of beliefs, then I'm no atheist.

It's important to maintain a distinction between knowledge and belief.
Knowledge is based on observation and evidence.
Belief is based on faith.

Since there is no empirical, definite of either the presence or absence of god, both theism and atheism are beliefs.

[Franz Fanonipants]

this list is counterrevolutionary because, like almost all "atheist" polemics it's stuck in a liberal, bourgeois idealist framework.

The list literally pins ideas as the cause of observable phenomena, entirely abandoning a base-superstructure critical approach. Essentially, it allows atheists to move in the idealist world of religion and liberal politics.

[Tenka]

It's important to maintain a distinction between knowledge and belief.
Knowledge is based on observation and evidence.
Belief is based on faith.

Since there is no empirical, definite of either the presence or absence of god, both theism and atheism are beliefs.

Atheism is just the lack of belief in any god. To say it's a belief itself is to suggest that belief in a deity is some sort of default, so that one has to "believe that god does not exist" rather than just not believe in god. Even if our brains are wired in such a way as to invent gods, no one is born believing in them. If Atheism for someone seems like some sort of faith-based denial of god(s), they must have been deeply indoctrinated or something.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Atheism is just the lack of belief in any god. To say it's a belief itself is to suggest that belief in a deity is some sort of default, so that one has to "believe that god does not exist" rather than just not believe in god. Even if our brains are wired in such a way as to invent gods, no one is born believing in them.

This is patently goddamn ridiculous, especially on a site focused on Marxist/other Leftist discourse.

You're telling me at once that no one is born believing in invented Gods, which I agree with. At the same time, no one is born not believing in invented Gods. All of the cultural weight or belief/non-belief does not come perfectly formed from some religious or logical plain, but from our interactions with the material world.

Furthermore, you completely dodged my point, which is that this list puts atheists in a discourse with liberal idealism, the same kind of shit that allows capitalists to invoke "human rights" while bombing Afghan weddings.

[Tenka]

This is patently goddamn ridiculous, especially on a site focused on Marxist/other Leftist discourse.

You're telling me at once that no one is born believing in invented Gods, which I agree with. At the same time, no one is born not believing in invented Gods. All of the cultural weight or belief/non-belief does not come perfectly formed from some religious or logical plain, but from our interactions with the material world.

Furthermore, you completely dodged my point, which is that this list puts atheists in a discourse with liberal idealism, the same kind of shit that allows capitalists to invoke "human rights" while bombing Afghan weddings.

What's ridiculous? I haven't anywhere denied the influence from interactions with the material world. Also, I was only addressing the part where you called atheism a "belief", which it plainly is not.

EDIT: wait, wait... I wasn't even replying to you!

[Luisrah]

Well, atheist is someone that denies that god exists right? I suppose there is no proof that god exists, but there isn't proof that he/she/it exists either right?

That's why I like to call myself and agnostic (or agnosticist, whatever) because it is impossible to know if god exists or not. I just really think it doesn't exist, but I don't think we can be sure it doesn't

[Ingraham Effingham]

Well, atheist is someone that denies that god exists right? I suppose there is no proof that god exists, but there isn't proof that he/she/it exists either right?

That's why I like to call myself and agnostic (or agnosticist, whatever) because it is impossible to know if god exists or not. I just really think it doesn't exist, but I don't think we can be sure it doesn't

There's a point. Athiesm is faith-based just as much as any religion, in that they are basing beliefs on zero empirical evidence. Agnosticism(-arianism?) is the only doctrine that is based totally on empirical data and no faith.

Many self-described atheists are actually agnostic, or anti-theists, turned that way by the logical fallacies, potential for abuse, and overall weirdness of abrahamic religions.

Problem is, when faith is involved, adherents tend to misinterpret 'belief' as 'knowledge,' on both sides of the god question. False knowledge, as we all know, can very dangerous, which i think hits main point of this thread.

As a type of deist, I do believe there is a a divine state of being, and a divine creator, but it doesn't meddle in human affairs with holy books, miracles, and prophets, and is outside the realm of human perception and refute.

[punisa]

But atheism is much more cunning choice
It's simple really ... if you believe there is a god and spend your life waiting for his sign, chances are you'll probably die before it happens. On the other hand, as an atheist you believe there will be no sign of any deity showing up in the near future and you'll probably live your life without this taking place.

People who do believe in god will often make some ridicules claims as "how do you KNOW that 1 + 1 = 2 ?", but I personally think that atheism (especially if you become an atheist by simply thinking about the whole topic) is much harder to knock out of someone's head when comparing it to one's religious views.

[Kuppo Shakur]

I'm not an atheist because I "don't think god can be proved" or anything like that.
That's stupid.
I'm an atheist because, whether or not god exists, religion is still mostly harmful to progress. Social occurrences happen because people make them happen. Taking the successes and failures of humans and giving them to a god makes these occurrences lose their bearing on the human world. How are we, as socialists, supposed to revolutionize our socio-economic system, when we think that it's god that makes it happen? Why do we protest injustices and try to change the world for the better, when we can just stay home and pray? It's not helpful to think that it's god that makes the world the way it is. It's the people living in that world that make it that way.
So jesus christ or whoever deity, it doesn't matter, can descend from heaven and land right next to me and say "Here I am!", it wouldn't change a thing. I would reply, "Fix our world, or leave it the fuck alone and we'll fix it ourselves!"