Q&A About Atheists and Atheism

[webmdave]

By David Gleeson

 

Do atheists hate God?

 

No. Consider: Do you hate Santa Claus? Or Zeus and Poseidon? The fact is, atheists just don´t believe in "God" or gods. You can´t hate something you don't believe in.

 

Why don´t atheists believe in God?

 

The reasons why an atheist doesn´t believe in God can be as varied as the beliefs of believers, but it usually boils down to a simple fact: the atheist just doesn´t see any evidence for the supernatural in general, and God in particular. If you are a Christian, think about why you don´t believe in Zeus or Shiva. That will tell you a lot about why atheists don´t believe in your god, or any god.

 

So atheists think there´s no greater power than themselves?

 

Whoa! Who said anything like that? Atheists believe we are just one ordinary life form that managed to evolve on a rock that circles one ordinary sun in one unremarkable galaxy, in a universe of 100 billion such galaxies and ten thousand billion billion such suns. Compare that world-view to the typical Christian mindset: the God of the Universe cares so much about us (me) that he sent his only begotten son to Earth to die for our (my) sins, so that we (I) may have everlasting life. Now ask yourself who is more guilty of arrogance, the Christian or the atheist. An atheist who thinks nothing is greater than him? You´ve got it backwards: an atheist wonders what could possibly be less than him.

 

Sometimes I hear atheism defined as "the belief that God doesn´t exist". Other times I hear it as "the lack of believe in God". Is there a difference? Which is right?

 

There is a huge difference. If I were to say to you, "Santa Claus doesn´t exist", I am making an assertion, and a bold one at that: I am absolutely affirming that the being known as Santa Claus does not exist. That is a claim, and, incidentally, an indefensible one. It is absolutely impossible to prove the non-existence of Santa Claus, and it is therefore wrong to positively claim that he doesn´t exist. The same is true of "God" (in the general sense). God cannot be disproved, just as Santa Claus cannot be disproved. But that doesn´t mean we should believe in these beings. If we were to believe in everything that could not be disproved, we´d have to believe in virtually everything - a preposterous way to go through life. Atheism is literally a-theism, meaning "lack of theism" or "lack of belief in God or gods". Atheism is not a claim; it is merely a statement of withheld belief. When someone calls himself an atheist, he is merely saying that he doesn´t subscribe to the god-belief. That is a far cry from positively asserting that God doesn´t exist.

 

Even atheists as prominent as Christopher Hitchens sometimes fall into the atheism-as-belief trap. In a recent interview for CBS, when asked to define atheism, Mr. Hitchens said, at first, "Well, it is the belief that God does not exist", before realizing his mistake and then adding, "or, it is the lack of belief in God." It is not an either/or proposition. Atheism is not a belief - it is the lack of belief. Atheists make no claims about God; they simply do not believe in Him/Her/It.

 

Are atheists immoral?

 

Some are. Some theists are immoral, too. I suspect what you really want to know is: are atheists more immoral than they would be if they didn´t reject the existence of the "source of all morals" (as some Christians would argue)? Personally, I think it´s the other way around. I think religious beliefs are the source of most of the misery in this world. But this is a personal opinion, and there´s not a lot of conclusive evidence to back it up. But consider this (and this is something that Christopher Hitchens has asked numerous times without an adequate answer): Can you think of a moral action performed by a believer that couldn´t have also been performed - unselfishly - by an unbeliever? And then ask yourself when was the last time you read about an atheist blowing himself up in a cafe, or flying an airplane into a building at 500 mph, or killing an abortion doctor, or beheading an infidel, or crucifying a gay man upon a fence, or dragging a black man like an animal behind a car to his death.

 

Why are atheists always attacking Christians? Why not Muslims or Jews?

 

Atheists fight irrationality, in whatever form it may take. In the United States, where over 70% of the population claims to be Christian, that irrationality usually takes a Christian form. Atheists in Pakistan, I´m sure, speak out against Islam, while Israeli atheists take on Judaism. American atheists don´t have a bias against Christianity; it´s just what we see most often.

 

You can´t prove that God doesn´t exist, so isn´t what you´re doing a waste of time?

 

Possibly. Believers hold their beliefs very deeply, and convincing them to abandon beliefs that they´ve held since childhood is usually a futile effort. It isn´t always about converting people, though. Personally speaking, most of the time I'm simply trying to get people to look at things from a different point of view. When someone wishes me a Merry Christmas at Christmastime, it has probably never occurred to them that there´s a 30% chance I´m not a Christian. Saying things like, "And a Happy Hanukkah to you!" is a great way to raise consciousness. And I´m not trying to prove God doesn´t exist. As I said above, that´s impossible. But that shouldn´t be necessary. We don´t need to prove the non-existence of Santa Claus to be skeptical of his existence. That´s all I´m advocating: skepticism of things that have virtually no supporting evidence.

 

What do atheists think happens after we die?

 

In a word: nothing. We live, we die. Just like every creature on the planet.

 

What´s the point of life, then?

 

I guess it´s whatever you make of it. Why do you need the promise of an afterlife to find a purpose to this life?

 

So we´re just an accident?

 

Well, if you consider four billion years of evolution by the non-random process of natural selection an accident, then yes. Any number of tweaks in the evolutionary process would have guaranteed our non-existence, or at least the existence of a species far different from us. The evolution of life on this planet was not an accident once it got started (natural selection is the complete opposite of a random process), but in a way, every species that exists today is an accidental species, simply because there are so many more ways of being dead than alive. But so what? Even if our existence is completely accidental, and even if everlasting life is an illusion, why does that mean life itself is pointless?

 

Why are atheists always trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us?

 

I don´t see that happening. Give me an example.

 

How about with the abolishment of school prayer? Or by trying to take "one nation, under God" out of the pledge?

 

First off, prayer hasn´t been abolished in schools. Students can pray, in private, any time they want. It is only school-sanctioned prayer that the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional. Second, trying to remove the "under God" wording in the pledge is not an effort to impose a belief system. It is simply an effort - a moral effort, by the way - to get the government to remain neutral with respect to religion. A pledge with the phrase "one nation, under no gods" would be an imposition of atheism. A pledge that says, simply, "one nation, indivisible", is a pledge that remains neutral with respect to religion and respectful of this nation´s diverse religious culture. That´s all atheists want - a government that remains neutral with respect to religion, or, failing that, at least one that isn´t so blatantly pro-Christianity. No "In God We Trust" on currency, no state-sanctioned (and taxpayer funded) Christmas celebrations, no tax breaks for churches, etc.

 

Do all atheists believe in evolution?

 

Let´s get some terminology clear first. There are beliefs, and then there are beliefs. I believe it might rain tomorrow. I also believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Failing a cataclysmic disaster, my second belief will turn out to be true. There´s a good chance my first belief, though, will turn out to be false. Clearly, the word "believe" is something we need to pay attention to.

 

I don´t believe in evolution. As much as I know anything, I know evolution is true, just as I know that there is a force called gravity that obeys an inverse square law. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. We don´t need to believe in things for which there is overwhelming evidence. We simply know them to be true - as much as we can know anything to be true.

 

I would venture to guess that, yes, virtually all atheists accept the truth of evolution, simply because without the lazy "God did it" argument, there is quite a lot to explain about how we came to be. And evolution is an amazing explanation that´s backed by mountains of evidence.

 

Are atheists´ lives empty and meaningless?

 

I guess that would depend on the individual. An empty and meaningless life isn´t an immediate consequence of rejecting the possibility of an afterlife. There would need to be other, more serious, psychological reasons for this. This goes for believers, too. If the only reason your life has meaning is because you´re relying on a better world in the hereafter, then you need therapy, fast. Our lives are as full and meaningful as we make them. If purpose and meaning and fulfillment come to you only as the result of a wish for something better beyond death, that´s when your existence is truly hollow and meaningless.

 

Aren´t atheists afraid of going to Hell?

 

Not even remotely. If you are a Christian, are you afraid of Muslim hell? If not, why not? If the Muslims are correct, all infidels (that is, all who reject the teachings of Islam) are bound for everlasting torment in the pits of hell. Does this keep you awake at night? I doubt it - and it shouldn't, either, simply because Muslim hell, like Christian hell, is a human invention, a sick, twisted, immoral doctrine invented by the Church to scare the poor and uneducated into fearful submission. If you are a person of decent moral character, you should be sickened by this evil doctrine.

 

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/02...nd-atheism.html

[R. S. Martin]

And I´m not trying to prove God doesn´t exist. As I said above, that´s impossible. But that shouldn´t be necessary. We don´t need to prove the non-existence of Santa Claus to be skeptical of his existence.

 

I thought it would be a bright idea to post that quote on a fundy site so I did, with a link to the title of the article on the Main Blog. I wanted people to read the article and actually learn something about atheists.

 

Response: I was informed that there actually was a person on whom Santa Claus is based (which I knew) and I was given a website to support the claim.

 

That's how much good that did.

 

This is not to say that nobody follows the link.

[quicksand]

And I´m not trying to prove God doesn´t exist. As I said above, that´s impossible. But that shouldn´t be necessary. We don´t need to prove the non-existence of Santa Claus to be skeptical of his existence.

 

I thought it would be a bright idea to post that quote on a fundy site so I did, with a link to the title of the article on the Main Blog. I wanted people to read the article and actually learn something about atheists.

 

Response: I was informed that there actually was a person on whom Santa Claus is based (which I knew) and I was given a website to support the claim.

 

That's how much good that did.

 

This is not to say that nobody follows the link.

You can always expand upon the argument tho. If a guy named Jesus did exist there is still no reason to believe without skepticism all the supernatural claims. Essentially, that's it. And since it's safer to presume that Jesus was just a man, than a god. Of course, again, the christian will dodge this bit of reasoning, but at least you make a sound case that needs no support. The Christian is left defending himself again, usually by moving the goal post to satiate the burden of proof or revising the criteria for belief. Probably make an argument begging faith.

[Dhampir]

I have a question: Why is it that the dictionary will define Atheism as a lack of belief in gods, but subsequently will define it as a belief that no gods exist? Seems like a bit of a contradiction, doesn't it?

[R. S. Martin]

And I´m not trying to prove God doesn´t exist. As I said above, that´s impossible. But that shouldn´t be necessary. We don´t need to prove the non-existence of Santa Claus to be skeptical of his existence.

 

I thought it would be a bright idea to post that quote on a fundy site so I did, with a link to the title of the article on the Main Blog. I wanted people to read the article and actually learn something about atheists.

 

Response: I was informed that there actually was a person on whom Santa Claus is based (which I knew) and I was given a website to support the claim.

 

That's how much good that did.

 

This is not to say that nobody follows the link.

You can always expand upon the argument tho. If a guy named Jesus did exist there is still no reason to believe without skepticism all the supernatural claims. Essentially, that's it. And since it's safer to presume that Jesus was just a man, than a god. Of course, again, the christian will dodge this bit of reasoning, but at least you make a sound case that needs no support. The Christian is left defending himself again, usually by moving the goal post to satiate the burden of proof or revising the criteria for belief. Probably make an argument begging faith.

 

Here is the main thread where I'm discussing this argument. I have made every conceivable argument for the topic of the thread, and they have the dodging game down to an art. I've been following their tactics like a pro (I think) and now they are resorting to anti-intellectualism and name-calling, guilt-tripping, you name it. All the regular fundy mind games. When one person is exhausted, another shows up. Term like logic and evidence seem not even to exist in their vocabulary, not even the guy who claims to be a police officer. I'm not sure how to introduce serious discussion on anything at this point, let alone something as seriously contraversial as the historicity of Jesus.

[R. S. Martin]

I have a question: Why is it that the dictionary will define Atheism as a lack of belief in gods, but subsequently will define it as a belief that no gods exist? Seems like a bit of a contradiction, doesn't it?

 

You might have to ask the author who wrote the definitions. Also, I notice a discrepency in the atheist community; not all atheists describe atheism the same way. If you look closely at the various nuances expressed here at exC, you will see that some atheists are more positive in their denial of deity than others. Dictionaries tend to provide the various definitions of words; often these definitions are inconsistent in order to reflect their common usage. For example, we use the same word "down" for these two sentences:

• The secretary took down the names of all who were present.
  
• The man at the top of the ladder teetered, lost his balance, and fell down to the ground
  

The entry for the word "down" is probably one of the longest ones in the dictionary.

[Ouroboros]

Epicureans believed in a God, a pantheistic kind, and my understanding is that this name was taken into the Jewish language to mean "atheist." So in those days I guess pantheism was considered a form of Atheism too. The Christians got labeled atheists too in the early church. I think to many it really means "non-conformed-to-established-religion" or basically another term for heretic.

[R. S. Martin]

Epicureans believed in a God, a pantheistic kind, and my understanding is that this name was taken into the Jewish language to mean "atheist." So in those days I guess pantheism was considered a form of Atheism too. The Christians got labeled atheists too in the early church. I think to many it really means "non-conformed-to-established-religion" or basically another term for heretic.

 

That would make sense. I understand that Christians were charged with atheism by the Romans. I've tried cowing people with that and they prided themselves with it. Somehow, it's noble for their martyrs to have suffered as atheists but *I* should be *ashamed* of the charge.

 

To be capable of such intellectual gymnastics must be very convenient. One would never need to worry about such technical details as personal integrity and factual accuracies. Of course, not thinking about such things would make for an awfully boring life--I couldn't tolerate it.

 

Back on topic. If I remember correctly, Socrates was executed for being atheist. So we have all kinds of people being charged with atheism--all of them being people who do not conform to the "established" religion, whether Christians during the days of the Roman Empire or people who do not accept belief in the existence of the Christian biblegod two millennia later. Seems a lot can happen in just a few millennia. I don't mind at all being associated with Socrates or Jesus. But the religious zealots who profess to be following Jesus are what bug me.

[woodsmoke]

Socrates wasn't executed for being an atheist, per se, so much as for "rocking the boat," as it were.

 

As I understand it, to call him an atheist isn't entirely accurate. He didn't seem to hold to any active belief in the existence of the Greek pantheon, to be sure, but he seemed equally dispassionate about the idea of arguing against the idea. His take on the whole thing was very simple and pragmatic (one might even say apathetic): the gods, if they existed, didn't seem much bothered either way by the lives and activities of humanity, so it only stood to reason humans had no incentive to bother themselves with the gods' doings either.

[R. S. Martin]

Right. I thought there was something wrong with the way I said it. The way you describe his position sounds an awful lot like my own. But when I have to take a position (on professing or denying belief in biblegod) as one inevitably must in many places and families today, I cannot with personal integrity say I believe.

 

All the same, if I remember correctly (and I'm not sure that I do), Socrates rocked the boat by not believing in the Pantheon. Wasn't that part of the problem? I guess I should look it up somewhere. Not sure where.

[Skankboy]

In Socrates' time religion and politics were intimately mixed. Leaving offerings at some temples was as much a civic as a religious duty. Not professing a definite belief (and teaching this to the youths) was considered a kind of treason against the State. So really, what we are seeing is a political machine getting rid of what they saw as a threat to their authority. Religion was just something of an excuse in this case.

 

At least this was my understanding...

[woodsmoke]

Right. I thought there was something wrong with the way I said it. The way you describe his position sounds an awful lot like my own. But when I have to take a position (on professing or denying belief in biblegod) as one inevitably must in many places and families today, I cannot with personal integrity say I believe.

 

Of course, nor can I. In all likelihood, according to what we know of him, nor could (or would) have Socrates. I think it's mostly just a matter of doing one's best to avoid such situations (which, if I understand classical history correctly, was rather easier to do in ancient Greece than in modern North America).

 

All the same, if I remember correctly (and I'm not sure that I do), Socrates rocked the boat by not believing in the Pantheon. Wasn't that part of the problem? I guess I should look it up somewhere. Not sure where.

 

Yeah, that was part of it. He just generally upset the established social order by criticizing the PTB and their methods and encouraging people to be skeptical and think for themselves.

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, that was part of it. He just generally upset the established social order by criticizing the PTB and their methods and encouraging people to be skeptical and think for themselves.

Exactly. The culture and society allowed for different beliefs, and there were not stature about religious crimes at all. He was just too frigging annoying! He made people think, and he questioned every possible side of right, wrong, ethics, morals, duty, glory etc. So basically he was potentially undermining and destroying the morals of the soldier and political structure. The charges were trumped up.

[R. S. Martin]

Woodsmoke, your description of ancient Greece almost makes me think they must have been an advanced civilization...it being easier not taking a religious stand. Then I read Hans's post....trumped-up charges. Ugh! Sounds an awful lot like stuff people today can conjure with no problem. Elsewhere I saw mention to evolution of religion. I see no evolution or devolution. Just plain no change in the human species.

[woodsmoke]

Truly, Ruby, the parallels that can be drawn between ancient Greece and modern America are astounding in both quantity and quality. In my philosophy text there was a quote outlining all the problems with modern democratic society in sparkling clear detail--written by Plato in ~380 BCE.