Militant atheism

From Conservapedia

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.|||Richard Dawkins Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. Indeed, the word stems from the Greek a- meaning "without", and theos meaning "god". Theos includes the Abrahamic YHWH(s), Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and every other deity from A to Z<ref>God Checker for a humorous list of many of these gods</ref> (and 0-9, !, ", £, $ or any other character, obviously). For the definition of atheism, the terms "God" and "a god" are used interchangeably as there is no difference between a monotheistic deity and a pantheon of polytheistic deities when it comes to complete disbelief in them. This also has the deliberate intent of ignoring the privileged position Yahweh has held in English grammar. Most atheists also do not believe in anything supernatural or paranormal.

[edit] Atheism throughout history

Template:Cquote

There has been a long history of rational people who have not accepted superstitious or magical explanations of natural phenomena and who have felt that "gods" are not necessary for the working of the world. In the Western world, there have been atheists almost as long as there has been philosophy and writing. Some of the most famous men (for most of history, nobody bothered to ask women what they thought) of the ancient world have been critical of belief in deities or eschewed religion entirely - many favouring logic and rationality to inform their lives and their actions, rather than religious texts. Democritus, who originally conceived of the atom, hypothesized a world without magic holding it together. Critias, one of the Thirty Tyrants of Athens, preceded Marx when he called religion a tool to control the masses. And Socrates, the founder of the system of Western thought, was accused and executed for the "crime" of teaching atheism (a charge he denied at trial, unsuccessfully).

Not until recently, however, did the term known as "atheism" begin to carry its current connotation. In an increasing number of countries around the world it is a neutral or unimportant label. The nation of New Zealand, for example, has thrice elected an agnostic woman (Helen Clark) as Prime Minister, followed by its current agnostic leader (John Key). Several Prime Ministers of the UK have been atheists, including Clement Attlee, and at least one Australian PM was atheist. However, in more religious areas such as the United States or Saudi Arabia the term carries a heavy stigma. Indeed, prejudice against atheists is so high in the United States that one study found that they are America's most distrusted minority.<ref>Atheists As “Other”: Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society</ref>

The reason for such attitudes towards atheists in these nations is unclear. Firstly, there is no stated creed with which to disagree (except perhaps for "strong" atheists, whose only belief is that there are no gods). Nor are atheists generally organized into lobbies or interest groups or political action committees (at least none that wield massive power), unlike the many groups that lobby on behalf of various religions. And yet an atheist would be the least likely to be elected President of the United States - only 49% of the American population would vote for an atheist. In contrast, no other grouping — including Mormons, African Americans, and homosexuals — would fail to get at least 79% of the potential vote based on that single trait alone.<ref name="TGD">The God Delusion. Dawkins, Richard.</ref> One potential reason for this is that in the United States, Christian groups have managed to push and implant the concept that without religion there can be no morality - often playing to people's needs for absolutes and written rules - absolute morality is presented as something inherently true and achievable only by believers.

[edit] Misconceptions about atheists

The mistrust of atheism is often accompanied by snarl words, straw man arguments and various other myths and legends in order to denigrate the idea of disbelief in established gods. Some misconceptions about atheism should be addressed:

[edit] Atheism as an organized religion

One of the widest misconceptions, often used as a strong criticism, is that atheism is a religion. However, while there are secular religions, atheism is most commonly defined as "no religion." To expand the definition of "religion" to include atheism would thus destroy any use the word "religion" would have in describing anything. It is quite often pointed out that if atheism is a religion it would be akin to stating that the act of not collecting stamps is a hobby, or that being unemployed is an occupation. Following from this, atheists do not worship Charles Darwin or any other individual. Although some think that atheism requires evolution to be a complete worldview,<ref>Richard Dawkins, an early chapter in The Blind Watchmaker.</ref> there is no worship of anything or anyone in atheism, and acceptance of evolution isn't exclusive to atheists - for that matter there is no necessity for an atheist to accept the evidence for evolution. By definition, if atheists worshiped Darwin as a supernatural entity, they wouldn't be atheists. This applies equally to the accusation by fundamentalists that atheists actually worship Satan.

Atheists, as a whole, are not a unified group, so accusation that "atheists" are doing x, y and z hold little water. In fact, a disaffection with organized religion, and the potential for groupthink, is what causes many believers to abandon faith and come out as atheists. It doesn't follow that such individuals would happily join another organised group. Debate within the atheistic community is robust - debates even about whether there is even an "atheistic community" at all, for instance - and the fact that this debate exists presupposes no dogmatic mandate from an organized group. It does follow from this lack of organisation that there is no atheist equivalent of the Bible, Koran, or other holy text. There are, of course, atheist writings, but one does not need to adhere to opinions held by Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens to be considered an atheist. Some atheists will actively oppose what these kind of authors do and say.

[edit] Fundamentalist views of atheism

Fundamentalists will often denigrate atheists on the grounds that they "hate God." This, however, makes no sense. Atheists do not deny the existence of the Christian God because they "hate God" or simply "want to live in sin", because atheists simply do not believe in any of these things. Thus hating god(s) makes as much sense as someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus blaming him for not bringing them any Christmas presents. In line with the varied specific beliefs of atheists in the world, some may actually wish a god did exist (but can't reconcile this with what they observe, such as the problem of evil), some would very much dislike the god portrayed in the Bible and don't believe such a thing could exist, some simply do not care, and many will fall somewhere in between these definitions.

Morality is one of the larger issues facing the world, and religious fundamentalists believe that they have the monopoly on explaining, and deciding, moral judgments. Contrary to the claims of fundamentalists, "no gods" does not equal "no morality." There are strong humanistic, cultural, and genetic rationales for the existence of morality and ethical behaviour, and many people, not just atheists, recognize this fact.

In the US, where criticism of atheism is high, it often works well for politicians and evangelists to compare atheism to the "evils" of communism, or even Communism itself. These "evils" are not inextricably fused with the values of atheism in reality. Although most orthodox Marxists are atheists (Marxism treats religion as a "false consciousness" that needs to be eliminated), the atrocities wrought by Stalin and others were not on account of their being atheists, but on account of their being totalitarians and authoritarians. Additionally, there have been many anti-communists who were atheists or agnostics, such as Ayn Rand and the computer pioneer John von Neumann.

[edit] Misconceptions of definition

Atheism and agnosticism are not entirely mutually exclusive, and atheists are not "actually agnostic because no one can ever know whether God exists." This is a highly contested point among religious believers and atheistic philosophers alike, as most, if not all, thinking atheists would happily change their minds given the right evidence, and thus could be considered "agnostic" in this sense. However, this conflates the ideas of belief and knowledge. Atheism is a statement of a lack of belief, and not a lack of knowledge - which is often accepted on all sides of the theistic debate. Atheism takes the position that it is rational to think that gods don't exist, based on logic and lack of evidence. Agnostics, on the other hand, state that the lack of knowledge cannot inform their opinion at all. There are agnostic atheists, who can be either weak or strong. There are also agnostic theists.

[edit] Why people become disaffected with religion

Not all atheists are "disaffected with religion" - some were just never raised with or indoctrinated with religious beliefs in the first place. Hence a substantial number have nothing to become disaffected with. However, in areas where religious belief is essentially taken as normal, there is a high chance that a person will have been religious before "coming out" as an atheist. As the term "atheist" only really means something in the context of ubiquitous religious belief, being disaffected or unconvinced by religion is certainly a factor in most, if not all, people who declare themselves as an atheist. As has been said previously, there is debate in the atheist community and not all atheists would agree with all of these reasons or even consider them relevant to atheism.

One of the major intellectual issues regarding disenchantment with religion is the fact that most world religions insist that all other faiths are wrong. While some moderate believers may like to take a stance that "all religions are right, they're just different interpretations", it's undeniable that heresy and apostasy are looked down upon very harshly. This suggests the possibility that no religion is right, and further suggests that, because the vast majority of believers in any faith are born into it, being a member of the "correct" group or "the elect" is merely an accident of birth. There is also historical evidence that organized religion, while professing a peaceful moral code, is often the basis for exclusion and war as well as a method to motivate people in political conflicts. The enmity among different religions and even among sects within the same religion is also an indication of this.

Other reasons may be more directly to do with a religion or its specifics - namely (1) the evils that the concept of religion has produced over the ages, (2) the hypocrisy of professed believers and religious leaders who exhort their followers to help the poor, love their neighbors and behave morally but become wealthy through donations to the church and carry love for certain neighbors to an immoral extreme, and (3) the contradiction between talk of a loving god and a world in which children starve to death and innocent people are tortured. Issues with religion may arise due to the nature of fundamentalists - insisting that their holy texts are literally true. This leads to attempts by such fundamentalists to undermine education by censoring scientific knowledge that seems to contradict their beliefs. Intelligent design is a prominent case of this (see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District). Often this doesn't sit well with moderate believers and especially those who may be on the verge of losing any faith, especially when the evidence provided by daily experience suggests that there are no events that cannot be explained by common sense and scientific study.

Other issues that atheists have with religion involve the characteristics of supposed gods. Atheists sometimes view the idea that a supreme all-knowing deity would have the narcissistic need to be worshiped, and would punish anyone for worshiping a different god (or none at all), to be absurd.

[edit] Clergy who turn atheist

There are even atheists among the clergy. Studying religion in depth during training for clerical work can lead a person to examine religious ideas critically. Theology may include the whole of the Bible rather than just the pleasant parts and include historical background which can lead to rational doubt. Clergy can deconvert at any stage in life, as can lay people. <ref>http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2011/08/solution-for-atheist-clergy.html</ref> Some clerical atheists hypocritically keep quiet about their lack of belief,<ref>http://elpidiovaldes.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/the-hipocrisy-of-the-clergy/</ref> but at least one Dutch clergyman is openly an atheist. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14417362 </ref>

In 2011, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason launched a confidential support group for clergy who have lost their faith, The Clergy Project. One of the founders of Clergy Project is Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who was an evangelic preacher for nineteen years before becoming an atheist.<ref>"Groups support pastors, priests leaving the pulpit", Freedom from Religion Foundation, October 14, 2011.</ref>

[edit] Types of atheism

There are many ways to describe different types of atheism and some of these are explained below. These shouldn't be read as factions or sects within atheism in the same way as sects within religion, Protestant/Catholicism in Christianity, Sunni/Shiite in Islam, and their multiple sub-groups for example. One does not "join" a group of implicit atheists. Instead of being sects that dictate people's beliefs, these should be taken as models to, at least roughly, describe people's beliefs and their attitudes towards belief itself. There are many similarities, all of which are included in the blanket term "atheist." However - as it typical in atheist thought - not all athiests consider these divisions particularly relevant worthwhile or meaningful.

The commonality among these various modes of atheism is the statement that no god or gods created natural phenomena such as the existence of life or the universe. Instead, these are usually explained through science, specifically without resort to supernatural explanations. Morality in atheism is also not based on religious precepts such as divine commandments or revelation through a holy text - many alternative philosophies exist to derive or explain morality, such as humanism.

[edit] Implicit vs. explicit atheism

[edit] Implicit atheism

Implicit atheism is simply the state of not believing in any gods, simply out of a lack of considering the question. All implicit atheists are weak or pragmatic atheists.

[edit] Explicit atheism

Explicit atheism is a conscious rejection, either of the belief in gods or of their existence. Explicit atheists can be weak or strong atheists, but all strong atheists are explicit atheists.

[edit] Weak vs. strong atheism

[edit] Weak atheism

Weak atheism (sometimes equated with "pragmatic atheism" or "negative atheism") describes the state of living as if no gods exist. It does not require an absolute statement of God's non-existence. The argument is based on the fact that as there is no evidence that gods, spatial teapots or fairies exist, we have no reason to believe in them. This argument could also be classified as extreme agnosticism, or "agnostic atheism" - as it is an acknowledgment of the lack of evidence but acting as if there were no gods.

Pragmatic atheists however are frequently reluctant to make outright statements like "Gods (or fairies) do not exist", because of the great difficulties involved in proving the absolute non-existence of anything - the idea that nothing can be proved is held in the philosophy of pyrrhonism. Consequently many pragmatic atheists would argue that the burden of proof does not lie with them to provide evidence against the extraordinary concept that gods exist. They would argue that it is up to the supporters of various religions to provide evidence for the existence of their own deities, and that no argument is necessary on the atheist's part.

Christopher Hitchens put it another way when he said: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

[edit] Strong atheism

Strong atheism (sometimes equated with "theoretical atheism") makes an explicit statement against the existence of gods. Often, theoretical atheism specifically combats religious beliefs and other arguments for belief in some god (or gods), such as Pascal's Wager, and argument from design because religion is seen as a distraction from work needed to solve world problems such as poverty, disease and crime.

Most theoretical atheists would disagree with pragmatic atheists about the inability to disprove the existence of gods. While gods (or fairies) cannot be absolutely proven not to exist, their existence could be provisionally described as extremely improbable.<ref>See Monkey typewriter theory</ref>

[edit] Apatheism

Template:Main

An apatheist has no interest in accepting or denying claims that a god or gods exist or do not exist. An apatheist considers the very question of the existence or non-existence of gods or other supernatural beings to be irrelevant and not worth consideration under any circumstances.

In short: they simply don't care. (Well, OK, they care enough to give themselves a name - so that people explicitly know what it is they don't care anything about. But that's it.)

[edit] Antitheism

Template:Main

Antitheism adds to a disbelief in gods the position that any adherence to a different position — any belief in gods — is harmful or undesirable, either to the adherent or to society. As justification the antitheist will often point to the incompatibility of religion-based morality with modern humanistic values, or to the atrocities and bloodshed wrought by religion and by religious wars.

[edit] Types of arguments for atheism

Template:Cquote

[edit] Burden of proof

Arguments related to the burden of proof deal with whether atheists must disprove theism or theists must prove theism. Conventionally, the burden of proof lies with someone proposing a positive idea - or as Karl Popper fans would put it, those who are proposing something falsifiable. By this standard, atheists have no need to prove anything, and just need to render arguments for the existence of God as non-compelling. However, the ubiquity of religion in society and history have often shifted the burden of proof to atheists, who must subsequently prove a negative. Assuming that God exists is known as presuppositionalism and has always been a key tenet of Christian apologetics but is usually rejected by more sensible scholars. The absurdity of being asked to prove a negative is demonstrated in Bertrand Russell's teapot thought experiment - where no matter how hard you look, you can't thoroughly disprove the belief that a teapot is out there in space, orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars. This sort of presuppositional thinking is illogical, so asking an atheist to disprove God is an unreasonable request.

Occam's razor can also be invoked as a guide to making the fewest assumptions, and assuming God exists a priori is a major assumption that should be avoided. Combining these thoughts to lay the burden of proof on theists indicates that without supporting evidence, the default position on God must be either weak-ish atheism or agnosticism rather than theism. Proponents of atheism argue that the burden of proof has not been met by those proposing that a god exists, let alone the specific gods described by major religions.

[edit] Logical

Logical arguments try to show that God cannot possibly exist (at least as described). Barring any escape hatch arguments like Goddidit, some properties of God are not compatible with each other or known facts about the world, and thus a creator-god cannot be a logically consistent and existent entity. These arguments are heavily dependent on the use of common descriptions of the Abrahamic God as a target; things such as omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. As a result, they are not as useful in trying to refute the claims of, say, Neopaganism, and are also vulnerable to the tactic of moving the goalposts by changing the descriptions of God.

The omnipotence paradox postulates that true omnipotence is not logically possible or not compatible with omniscience. This is primarily a logical argument based on the general question of whether an omnipotent being could limit its own power - if yes, it would cease to be omnipotent, if no, it wouldn't be omnipotent. Hence the paradox that shows, through contradiction, that God cannot exist as usually described.

Other logical arguments try to prove that god is not compatible with our scientific knowledge of reality. The Problem of evil states that a good god wouldn't permit gratuitous evil, yet such evil occurs, so a good god does not exist.<ref>Logical Arguments for Atheism - The Secular Web</ref> The argument from design is often given as proof of a creator, but it raise the following logical question: if the world is so complex that it must have had a creator, then the creator must be at least as complex and must therefore have a creator, and this would have to have had a more complex creator ad infinitum.

While believers hasten to point out that their gods don't need to follow logic, let alone the known laws of physics, this is really a case of special pleading and doesn't so much prove anything itself. Atheists therefore tend to reject these counters to the logical arguments as they mostly beg the question of a creator's existence and, very arbitrarily, plead that a creator can be exempt from the same logic that was used to "prove" its existence.

[edit] Evidential

At the root of the worldview of most atheists is evidence, and atheists point out that sufficient evidence for the existence of gods is currently very lacking, and thus there is no reason to believe in them. Evidential arguments are less ambitious than logical arguments because, rather than proving that there is reason not to believe in a god, they prove that there is no reason to believe in a god (See Burden of proof above). It is important to remember that what constitutes sufficient evidence can be quite subjective, although rationalism and science do offer some standardization. Various "holy books" exist that testify to the existence of gods, and claim that alleged miracles and personal experiences all constitute evidence in favor of the existence of a god character of some sort. However, atheists reject these as insufficient because the naturalistic explanations behind them (tracing authors of the holy texts, psychological experiments, and scientific experiments to explain experiences, and so on) are more plausible - indeed, the very existence of plausible naturalistic explanations renders the supernatural explanations obsolete.

Atheists often cite evidence that processes attributed to a god might also occur naturally as evidential arguments. If evolution and the big bang are true, then why would a creator god have needed them?<ref>Evidential Arguments for Atheism - The Secular Web</ref> Occam's razor makes theistic explanations less compelling.

[edit] Moral

One important ethic stressed by many is "truthfulness", and many atheists believe that religion presents an inherent attack on truth.

Atheists sometimes ask the question:

• "Can you think of an evil act that a man committed because of his religion?"

Examples are quite numerous, from the bloody crusades and the Inquisitions to al Qaeda and Christian Identity. Even if religious apologists declare no true Scotsman on these examples, claiming that such people were influenced by other factors and merely used the religion as a vehicle, many cult leaders certainly commit these acts directly due to their beliefs. So the answer to this is clearly "yes" and it invites the obvious follow up question:

• "Can you think of an evil act committed by an atheist because he is an atheist?

Since some believers, who fail history forever, like to equate atheism to communism and thus link it to the deaths of millions, the answer to this is often "yes" also. But the question remains whether any of the examples were because they were atheistic. Stalin was an atheist; however, he did not set up his communist empire in the name of atheism. A popular comparison is to note that both Hitler and Stalin had moustaches, however that was certainly not what drove them to mass-murder. (Moreover, Hitler was not an atheist.) Due to this, some atheists tire of the follow-up explanation involving "dictator x was an atheist" and thus use a variation on this theme:

• "Can you think of an evil act that can only be done by a believer in the name of a religion?"

Again, several come to mind. It's then followed by:

• "Can you think of a good deed done by a believer in the name of a religion that couldn't have been done by an unbeliever?"

However, this does raise the issue of what a "good deed" is. A lot of people think Mother Teresa did nothing good and constructive in her entire life, others believe that forcing bringing her religion to people was the "good deed." Obviously, bringing religion to someone is clearly something that can only be done by a believer - though the act's status as a "good deed" remains debatable.

[edit] Experiential

Just as the born-again Christian "knows" that God exists, the day-to-day experience of the atheist demonstrates quite clearly that there is no supernatural being responding to human prayer and fighting against evil in the universe. The God described in the Old Testament who constantly intervened in human affairs, razing entire cities and turning people into pillars of salt for peeking, is nowhere to be found, and neither are any others.

[edit] What god is being denied?

Tied up with some of the more awkward aspects of defining the term "atheist" is the question of what god, or type of god, is being denied. This is particularly important for those who claim that atheism is supported by evidence (more specifically, the lack of evidence for a theistic case).

If the god being denied is the interventionist God, which most theists hold to exist, then the argument against the existence of this being is easy; the lack of any demonstrable interventions demonstrates the god's lack of existence. In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. However, if the god being denied is of a less interventionist, or deist type, god, then the above argument regarding evidence doesn't work. Indeed, the only possible "evidence" for a deist god is the very existence of the universe, and most sane people don't tend to deny the universe exists. On the other hand as said "evidence" is simply asserted and isn't testable in any way, it is a lot less than wholly convincing and we return to "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Whether atheism also requires a person to disbelieve in all other forms of magic, or ghosts, or psychic powers is also a question. These are not "gods" in the conventional sense at all, but they are still supernatural entities or powers. More "hardline" atheists would insist that disbelief in all things supernatural is mandatory for the label of "atheist." They would argue that this follows from the fact that athiesm is a rational position; and that therefore atheists should take rational positions on other matters also. What does and what does not constitute a "god" in the case of atheism can often be very subjective; the definition could be restricted to monotheistic "creator" gods, or expanded to include all supernatural entities, or used to describe only things that are worshipped or idolised. The variables that arise when trying to perfectly codify "atheism" are immense, and this is fitting with its position as specifically a lack of belief.

However, atheism only makes sense in the context of the ubiquity of religion and theistic belief worldwide. If religions didn't exist, atheism wouldn't exist and any discussion of the subject would be inherently meaningless - the world doesn't feature books, internet debates and billboard campaigns saying that it's fine to disbelieve in Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot precisely because few, if any, people believe in the teapot. Therefore a working, albeit still slightly subjective, definition of what constitutes a "god" can be developed based on the beliefs of self-declared religions of the world. As a thought experiment we can conceive of a religion that achieves literal overnight success by promoting some god, Athkel,<ref>With thanks to the Fantasy Name Generator</ref> who will become a worldwide phenomenon tomorrow. An atheist would simply not believe in Athkel tomorrow, despite the fact they had no belief in him/her yesterday because it is a self defined religious deity.

[edit] Opposition to the term "atheism"

One difficulty with the term "atheism" is that it defines what its adherents do not believe in, rather than in what they do believe in. The lack of positive statements of belief has lead to the fact that there is really no overarching organisation that speaks for atheists (some would regard this as a good thing, keeping atheism from becoming an organised religion) and has lead to the comparison that organising atheists is like "herding cats", i.e., impossible. It is possible that the only thing which does really unite atheists is a lack of belief in gods; thus an overarching organisation to represent them would be physically impossible.

Primarily because of the prevalence of extreme discrimination against atheists, people have tried to come up with more positive terms or campaigns to get the goddless philosophy noticed and respected. This allows atheists to feel more united and happy with their beliefs (or lack of), but has also lead to organisations that will help them in situations, such as legal cases, where individuals couldn't do it on their own. The most prominent examples:

• The "Brights Movement" describes itself as being composed of people with a naturalistic world-view.
• Naturalist is the preferred term used by A. C. Grayling and others. Grayling argues that a statement such as "I believe in naturalistic explanations" has the advantage of being a positive statement about what is believed and also does not narrowly define the speaker in terms of one particular lack of belief.
• Freethinker is another term meaning something similar; the philosophy behind it is known as "freethought."

To date, none of these alternative descriptions seems to have taken hold a great deal and the term of choice for most people remains "atheist." "Freethinker" is probably the term with most support, as it dates back at least to the 19th Century. "Naturalism" may be the second most popular, although the name may lead people to confuse it with naturism or with some kind of eco-hippy ideal. "Bright" is the most recent term invented, and as a result is currently the most controversial and divisive. Supporters of the Brights movement see it as a positive and constructive redefinition (on par with the re-branding of homosexuality with the word "gay", which until then primarily meant "happy" or "joyous") while its detractors see it as nothing more than a shameless attempt to turn atheism into an organised religion, and the use of "bright" as a cynical attempt to appear more intellectual.

In some contexts words such as "rationalist" and "skeptic" may also be code words for "atheist." Although not all atheists need to be rationalists, and not all rationalists need to be atheists, the connection is more in the method a person uses to derive their beliefs rather than what their beliefs actually are.

[edit] Religious views of atheism

With the existence of deities being central belief of almost all religious systems, it is not surprising that atheism is seen as more threatening than competing belief systems, regardless of how different they may be. This often manifests in the statement that "freedom of religion" doesn't include freedom from religion. It is also important for theists that the political hierarchy, the priesthood, should do their utmost to discourage dissent - as true believers make better tithe givers. Most religious codes are more than a bit irritated with those who do not believe. The Bible, for example, includes clear ad hominem attacks on non-believers, The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." ( Psalm 14:1), while the penalty for apostasy in Islamic law is death - and this is still endorsed today.

The increased public visibility of atheism - what some commentators call the "New Atheism", seen in the popularity of books like The God Delusion - has brought renewed energy to the debate between believers and non-believers.<ref>Investigating Atheism - Current Controversies</ref> As part of that debate, some believers have put considerable effort into trying to stop what they think of as the “irresponsible” promotion of atheism. Their efforts range from material that has academic pretensions to arguments that are plainly abusive, focusing on "smacking" atheists with PRATT arguments regarding how great the Bible isn't is - and, of course, a heavy bias towards their own religion being true.<ref>Doug Giles - How to Shut Up an Atheist if You Must</ref> What these arguments tend to have in common is that they are less about providing arguments for religious belief and more about keeping atheists quiet, with questions such as "don't you have anything better to do than talk about the God you don't believe in?" or arguing that "faith is better than reason so shut up".<ref>Greta Christina's Blog - Atheism and the "shut up, that's why" argument.</ref> It's not entirely unexpected that this would be the thrusts of several anti-atheist arguments - after all, according to several Christians in influential positions, mere knowledge that atheism exists can be dangerous.<ref>It’s Dangerous for Children To Know Atheism Exists, Says Illinois State Legislator</ref>

[edit] Atheistic view of the Bible

Atheists may view the Bible and other religious works as literature, mythology, epic, philosophy, agit-prop, irrelevant, history, or various combinations thereof. Many atheists see religious works as interesting historical records of the myths and beliefs of humanity. By definition atheists do not believe any religious text to be divinely inspired truth. In other words, "Dude, it's just a book" (or, in fact, a somewhat random collection of different books).

There are several types of evidence to support the idea that "it's just a book." Textual analysis of the various books of the Bible reveals vastly differing writing styles among the authors of the individual books of the Old and New Testaments, suggesting that these works represent many different (human) voices, and not a sole, divinely inspired voice. The existence of Apocrypha, writings dating from the time of Bible that were not included into official canon by Jews or Christians (and peppered with mystical events such as encounters with angels, demons, and dragons), further suggests that "divine authorship" is not a reliable claim. Within Christianity, there are even differences among sects regarding which books are Apocrypha and which are included in the Bible, or which are included under the heading "Apocrypha," indicating that they constitute holy writings but are not meant to be taken as literally as the other books. The Book of Tobit, for example, is included in the Catholic Bible but considered Apocrypha by Protestants and wholly absent from the Jewish Bible.

Another problem with the "divine authorship" of the Bible is the existence of texts that pre-date it but contain significant similarities to certain Biblical stories. The best-known among these is the flood story, found in numerous versions in texts from across the ancient Middle-East, including the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, which bears textual similarities with the Biblical account. Another such story with apparent Babylonian origin is that of the Tower of Babel. It has been suggested that some of these stories were appropriated by the Jews during the Babylonian Exile.

Studies of the history of the Bible, although not undertaken with the intent of disproving it (in fact, many Biblical historians set out to prove the Bible's veracity), shed light on the Bible's nature as a set of historical documents, ones which were written by humans and affected by the cultural circumstances surrounding their creation. It should be noted that this type of rational discourse neither proves nor requires an atheistic worldview: one can believe that the Bible is not the infallible word of God either because one adheres to a non-Judeo-Christian religion or because one is a Christian or Jew but not a Biblical literalist. These criticisms of Biblical "truth" serve mainly to counter the arguments of fundamentalists, who are among Atheism's most vociferous critics.

[edit] Atheism and American bigotry

Template:Cquote Research in the American Sociological Review finds that atheists are the group that Americans least relate to for shared vision or want to have marry into their family.

[edit] Why even argue with theists?

The question remains, why should an atheist be held to a theist's definitions, their rules of argumentation, and their playing field? Ultimately, atheists don't need to make a case for atheism, because the assertive (or positive) claim is being made by those who say "God exists." By the rules of logic, science, and even law, the ones making the assertion must be the ones who prove their claim, and not the other way around. Otherwise atheists would also be held accountable to make a case for being an athorist, etc., and almost everyone would be held accountable for being an "adragonist" or an "aunicornist" and an "adinosaurlivingwithpeopleist."

One reason that a person might argue with a theist is the same reason one might argue with a friend who is convinced she was abducted by aliens, or who thinks children are better off without vaccinations: because we care about them, and they choices they make can be harmful for themselves and their children; because living a life of fear out of an illusion seems an amazingly bad way to live. However, the people who have this motivation are generally known as "do-gooders" or "busybodies" and such arguments can be counter-productive in that they cement the delusions further.

Another common motivation for arguing with theists is political. Theists make up a majority of the world's population, and in many countries, a majority of the governing elite; they have often appealed to religion as a means to stay in power, often to draw a distinction between their subjects and foreigners (as in the Nazis' pandering to Christianity, or, more recently, most European Islamophobia).

Hence, a strategy for subverting such elites is to dispute the religious beliefs to which they appeal. In the modern era, this started with the Enlightenment, as royal absolutism, based upon the role of God as King of Heaven, was challenged by questioning the existence of God. There was a significant atheist contingent within the French Revolution.

Later, communists took up this kind of challenge to theism, with Karl Marx arguing that religion was the "opiate of the masses," used to hold workers in the trammels of the bourgeoisie. This sentiment was expressed in this excerpt from the famous communist anthem, L'Internationale:

Template:Cquote

In the present day, theist politicians use religion as a rhetorical tool to push a variety of agendas that might otherwise come under closer scrutiny. For example, as the American evangelical-left figure Jim Wallis noted in his book God's Politics, the Republican Party has made a very successful use of religion, specifically concerning the abortion issue, to attract voters who would otherwise vote for the Democratic Party.

A consequence of the prevalence of such rhetorical devices is that a broad range of crank religious ideas, specifically creationism, gain credence when politicians use them to ensure the voting public of their religious bona fides. This in turn causes legitimate science to fall into some disrepute among the people, making it much easier for other kinds of pseudoscience, such as global warming denialism and scientific racism, to get a foot in the door.

In short, the presence of religion in politics can lead to a whole maelstrom of craziness, and some people might feel motivated to nip this in the bud by discrediting religion in general.

[edit] Demographics

Specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 suggests<ref>Religious Views and Beliefs Vary Greatly by Country, According to the Latest Financial Times/Harris Poll</ref> that the true proportion of atheists is 2%<ref> Gilgoff, Dan, "Few 'No Religion' Americans Are Atheists", US News, Sep. 28, 2009, US News</ref><ref>U.S. Religious Landscape Survey --Report 1: Religious Affiliation, The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, "1.6% are atheists" Pew study</ref> to 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. A 2004 Telegraph poll found that 44% of Britons believed in a god, 35% did not, and 21% did not know.<ref>You'll have to take our word for it - the YouGov poll is no longer available</ref>

Many studies put atheists in the higher intelligence group of the population.<ref>Landau, Elizabeth, "Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ", CNN Health, Feb. 26, 2010, "...people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs..." CNN</ref> A recent meta-analysis of 39 eligible studies from 1927 to 2002 was published in Mensa Magazine, and concluded that atheists are more likely to be of higher intelligence than their religious counterparts.<ref> Bell, Paul. "Would you believe it?" Mensa Magazine, UK Edition, Feb. 2002, pp. 12–13.</ref> According to an article in the prestigious science journal Nature in 1998 the belief in a personal god or afterlife was very low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Only 7.0% believed in a personal god as compared to more than 85% of the general U.S. population.<ref> Larson, Edward J.; Larry Witham (1998). "Correspondence: Leading scientists still reject god." Nature 394 (6691): 313.</ref> This also suggests that the more intelligent subjects are more unlikely to believe in god or supernatural powers.

A recent study published in the Annals of Family Medicine suggests that atheist doctors are more likely to care for the underserved compared to religious ones (35% vs 31%).<ref>Do Religious Physicians Disproportionately Care for the Underserved?</ref>

[edit] See also

Template:Hu

• Agnosticism
• Antitheism
• Apatheism
• Atheist bus campaign
• Brights Movement
• Deism
• Methodological naturalism
• RationalWiki Atheism FAQ for the Newly Deconverted
• Theism
• Jean Meslier, a priest who wrote about being/becoming an atheist

[edit] Some Essays by Rationalwikians

• Category:Atheism essays

[edit] External links

• American Atheists and The American Humanist Society debate the existence of God
• Some things about some other things - ScienceBlogs
• Pharyngula blogger, PZ Myers writes a gorgeous argument for the humanity of atheism
• Description of Atheism
• Investigating Atheism Project at University of Cambridge
• Atheist Scholar

[edit] Footnotes

Template:Reflist