Supporting Civil Rights for Atheists and the Separation of Church and State

Nov

2011

What Is Atheism?

Author: BlairScott / BlairScott's blog

Log in or register to post comments

NOTE: Please do not confuse the definition of atheism with the philosophy of atheism. A lot of atheists do not like the idea of atheism only being a “lack of belief in gods,” but that is because they are placing the philosophy of atheism onto the definition of atheism. The two are different. If the definition of atheism qualified as the philosophy then we must accept babies in our numbers, which is obviously ridiculous. The philosophy of atheism ranges from one person to another, which is why I do not address it in this article. My concern is the definition of the word. I would encourage you to leave a comment on what you think the philosophy of atheism is!

What is atheism?

“Under no circumstances would I ever vote for an atheist [for President] because they are terrible [and have] no moral code.” – Star Jones, from the ABC morning television show The View, March 16 2002

“What is atheism” is usually the one question never asked of atheists. Most people do not ask this question because they already have their own ideas about what atheism is and what atheists are. Where these ideas originate vary from their minister to their social circle to myths encouraged by certain media outlets.

Theists usually define atheism incorrectly as a belief system. The ulterior motive behind this incorrect definition is that if atheism is a belief system, then theists can refer to atheism as a religion. If one can refer to atheism as a religion, then one can argue that attempts to uphold the separation of church and state (SOCAS) supports the “religion of atheism.” Laugh if you must, but lawyers tried to do just that in the summer of 2004 in Alabama. Syndicated Christian radio host Kelly McGinley (Retaking America) tried it after the courts ordered the removal of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court. Having been a two-day guest on her Christian radio show I can assure you that she was dead serious about this and did not mean it in a sarcastic way. She honestly thought that removing the monument was supporting the “religion of atheism.” Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God” and/or “denial of God.” Some dictionaries go further and say that atheism is “wickedness,” “sinfulness,” “heathenism,” “paganism,” and “immorality.”

Some dictionaries even say that atheism is the “doctrine that there is no God.” At least The American Heritage Dictionary says “God and gods” after the word “doctrine,” but that does not detract from the fact that use of the word “doctrine” is incorrect. Clearly, two thousand years of Christian influence have tainted dictionaries. I am certainly not suggesting a conspiracy. I am only suggesting that the theistic worldview and theistic usage of the word have tainted the definition from the original meaning of the word.

Speaking of the original meaning, the word atheism comes from the Greek atheos, which means “without god.” The original meaning of the word, based on its Greek origins, mentions nothing about “disbelief” or “denial.” A short and single-word definition would be “godless.” The fact that the dictionary definitions use the phrase “there is no God” betrays the theistic influence in defining the word “atheism.” If dictionaries did not contain such influence, then the definition would read, “A belief that there are no gods.” The use of god in singular form, with a capital G, is indicative of Christian influence. In addition, using words like “doctrine” and “denial” betray the negativity seen of atheists by theistic writers. Atheism does not have a doctrine at all and I certainly do not “deny” that gods exist. Denial is the “refusal to believe.” Atheism does not “know there is a god but refuse to believe in him (or her, for that matter).” That is as silly as saying that you know Big Foot exists but you refuse to believe in him. If the evidence of gods was insurmountable and provable, and atheists still refused to believe, then that would be an act of denial. This is similar to how Scully refused to believe in aliens and UFO encounters even though Mulder had insurmountable evidence of their existence. Scully denied the existence of aliens and UFO’s even though the evidence was overwhelming. She was a horrible example of a skeptic!

Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism may be part of an individual’s religious beliefs, but atheism, in and of itself, is not a belief or religion. Some religions do not have a concept of god(s). One out of three religions worldwide is atheistic in nature, meaning that they worship no gods: Taoism, Buddhism, Spiritualism, New Age, and others (Macmillan Information New Encyclopedia: World Religions, 1998). Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, from the original Greek meaning of “without gods.” That is it. There is nothing more to it. If someone wrote a book titled “Atheism Defined,” it would only be one sentence long. Is atheism a religion or a belief system? Let us look at the different definitions of religion and see if atheism belongs in any of them (using the American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 2006).

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

No atheism resides in that definition. Atheists do not believe in a supernatural power or powers.

2. Beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Atheism does not have a spiritual leader and atheism does not have any rites or rituals (practices) around such a spiritual leader. Atheism requires no initiation, no baptism, there is no Atheist Bible (Koran, Vedas, etc) to read, no rituals that atheists must go through to join an Atheist Church (temple, mosque, synagogue, sect, etc), and no central beliefs that all atheists must adhere to in order to be “true atheists.”

As I mentioned above, there are religions that are atheistic in nature, and they may fit the second definition. Atheism is not the religion. The religion just happens to be godless. Atheism is not the central tenet of their belief system, nor is it the foundational rock of their belief system. The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Every atheist is as unique as a fingerprint when it comes to his or her individual philosophy, convictions, and ideals. I have debated fellow atheists on issues as far ranging as the judicial system, the drug war, and alien abductions. I have had these debates because each atheist has a unique perspective on the world and each atheist has different convictions about every issue known to man. Some atheists see a difference between supernatural and paranormal. They may lack a belief in gods but they believe in psychics, ghosts, and other things. Such atheists should recognize that those beliefs are reliant upon faith just as much as belief in god. Because atheists only share a lack of belief in gods, they disagree on many other issues.

I am certainly not going to say that every atheist who reads this will agree with me and I am definitely not going to aver that my view represents all the atheists in the world. Chances are the first comment will take me to task for something the reader disagrees with.

Comments

Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:58

Thanks Scott. there is confusion about the word "atheist" and i think you said a great deal to clarify that. i'm glad you pointed out that atheists have only the common thread of non-belief in gods and supernatural beings and that in fact we may be otherwise completely different. we may agree or disagree on anything else and may not all be fiends, know or necessarily like each other. we just don't believe in something.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:42

I think the philosophy of atheism is simply evidence over faith.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 12/09/2011 - 07:16

As a Christian, I can't stand it when another Christian states that you just have to have "blind faith" when it comes to the things of God. It is true, not everything about Christianity can be explained, just as not everything in the physical world can be explained. But there is enough evidence to verify that God exists and that Christianity is true.

Consider the scientific evidence, such as how the earth came into existence. The odds of every little detail working out exactly as it has in order to produce a climate suitable enough for life are much too great for everything to have just come together by chance. Even if one factor did just that, consider that there are numerous other factors about earth that must have fallen together perfectly as well for life to exist as we know it. This is explained in detail in a documentary entitled "The Privileged Planet". You should check it out on YouTube.

Then consider the historical evidence. While tons and tons of evidence exists that verify the existence of the God of Christianity, I will just mention the evidence for the one event that defines Christianity...the resurrection of Jesus Christ. To start off, everyone, including modern historians (even those who are Atheists and non-Christians), biblical scholars, and the Roman soldiers, Jewish leaders, and followers of Jesus during His time will agree that the tomb was empty the third day after His death. If it wasn't, then all that needed to be done was simply produce the body of Jesus, and that would have shut up all those who were claiming He was alive. What people don't agree on, of course, is what happened to His body. The Jewish leaders didn't take it...they thought they had done away with Him once and for all. The disciples didn't take it. They would not have lived the rest of their lives preaching that Jesus was alive and ultimately die for this if they knew it wasn't true.

One cannot conclude that Jesus really never died, but survived it and eventually moved to a land far away, such as India or even North America. For one, it would be extremely difficult for a person to survive this type of torture and death and come to a full recovery, especially considering that medical technology was obviously not nearly what it is now.

Another factor to consider is that over 500 people were testifying that they had seen the resurrected Jesus. It couldn't have been a hallucination....500 people having the same exact hallucination is very improbable. Plus, these 500 people knew that they faced fierce persecution and even death because of this, yet they testified anyway. Again, it is hard to imagine this many people staking their lives on something that they knew was a lie.

If you want to go on evidence, the evidence leads to God. A good book to read on historical evidence is Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ. He gives scientific evidence for God in his book The Case for a Creator.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 12/09/2011 - 12:41

"It is true, not everything about Christianity can be explained, just as not everything in the physical world can be explained."

But things in the physical world can be studied and experimented on, and thus things in the physical world have the potential to later be explained through study. This differs from things that can never be explained or proven true or false because they are *divine mysteries*.

"But there is enough evidence to verify that God exists and that Christianity is true."

This would be Nobel Prize winning stuff...If there really was enough credible evidence to verify the existence of God. Furthermore, if there really was enough evidence to support the *truth of Christianity*, I daresay that their wouldn't be as many Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, etc., as there are now. If you have some evidence that people who are not Christian aren't aware of yet, please present it.

"The odds of every little detail working out exactly as it has in order to produce a climate suitable enough for life are much too great for everything to have just come together by chance...This is explained in detail in a documentary entitled “The Privileged Planet”"

And you know this how? I have 2 points for you

(1) It could be argued that the factors for the formation of life on Earth are factors for only a very specific type of life and not ALL life. - The documentary also makes note of factors that are not even necessary for a number of Earths Creatures...

(2) The documentary states that the odds of all the conditions coming together in one location is around 1/10^14 or 10^-14%. It also gives an estimate that there are more than 10,000 billion billion star systems in the universe or 10^21. Now astronomers say that about one in ten star systems contain planets, and a one in a billion billion star systems with a one in ten chance of a planet being in a star system leaves 10^20 planets. Now if my math is correct, this means that according to the "privileged planet" there are roughly...10^6 habitable planets out there due to chance alone.

"I will just mention the evidence for the one event that defines Christianity…the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

There's no credible evidence for this. Otherwise this would be taught as fact in history classes and nearly everyone in the world would see the evidence and be Christian...

"Roman soldiers, Jewish leaders, and followers of Jesus during His time will agree that the tomb was empty"

The merits and authenticity of references to these "Roman soldiers, Jewish leaders, and followers of Jesus" have been discussed many times by countless critical scholars. Their current expert consensus is that the majority of the references to these people are forgeries. So there's still no credible evidence...

"If it wasn’t, then all that needed to be done was simply produce the body of Jesus, and that would have shut up all those who were claiming He was alive. What people don’t agree on, of course, is what happened to His body."

This would assume that Jesus was a real person, for which there is no credible evidence and that the bible is historically accurate, which it is not...

"They would not have lived the rest of their lives preaching that Jesus was alive and ultimately die for this if they knew it wasn’t true."

And Religious extremists wouldn't suicide bomb people if they didn't believe that their religion was the one true religion. Being willing to die for something doesn't make what you believe in true, it just makes you a fanatical follower. *Believing something to be true* and *something actually being true* are two separate things.

"One cannot conclude that Jesus really never died"

One can conclude that he never existed due to the lack of evidence that he did exist. One can also conclude that, even if a historical Jesus existed - (for which there is no evidence), the biblical Jesus who performed miracles and resurrected did not because there is no evidence or records of these miracles. Having no evidence or proof of the miracles that Christ performed makes them as believable as the supernatural claims of any other religion or any nut job on the street...

"over 500 people were testifying that they had seen the resurrected Jesus."

Paul says that 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus, but he does not name who they are, where they came from, what they saw, were they sober or mentally stable, or any other details. Furthermore, none of these "500 people" recorded anything regarding there experience seeing the resurrected Christ? This is nothing but hearsay. It is very likely that the 500 witnesses is just a number written on paper and the whole thing is one example of the many propaganda pieces.

Thus far you've introduced a documentary and a book that have already been debunked by experts and counter-apologist, references that come from forgeries, hearsay accounts, and blind-assertions as *evidence* for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. Furthermore, all of this *evidence* has been presented and discredited before. Therefore, I still have no reason to believe that Jesus existed, that the Christian God is the one true God, That God exists, and that you believe in the existence of God for any reason more than blind faith and questionable/discredited evidence.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 12/09/2011 - 14:05

Almost everyone agrees that Jesus Christ existed as a literal person. The Muslims the Jews, and yes...even many atheists, agree that Jesus Christ existed as a real person. They just hold different opinions from Christians as to who He was. What evidence do you have that proves Jesus did not exist?

What evidence do you have that proves they were forgeries? Many mention that we don't have the original texts. The earliest manuscripts that we do have only date about 100-200 years later than than when the original copies were written....pretty close if you ask me! No doubt the original copies were still around when the copies we have were written....someone would have clearly recognized them as forgeries if they were, since it was so recent. The difference in time between these texts is a lot closer than the difference between the dating of Aristotle's original works versus the copies we have (1400 years difference), yet nobody denies that Aristotle wrote them. And there are over 5,600 copies of these early Greek New Testament manuscripts that scholars have in possession, while there are only around 50 copies of the earliest manuscripts of Aristotle. Sounds like the New Testament holds historical credibility.

There is not sufficient evidence to say that Jesus never existed or that He never did these things, and there is also not sufficient evidence to support God's non-existence.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 12/09/2011 - 17:23

"Almost everyone agrees that Jesus Christ existed as a literal person."

An argument from popularity? How Popular a belief is does not affect what is true.

"They just hold different opinions from Christians as to who he was."

True. Jews think he was a crazy heretic, Muslims think he was a prophet, and atheists who do believe that a historical Jesus existed think that he was a Jewish rabbi upon whom the legend of the biblical Jesus was based on.

"What evidence do you have that proves Jesus did not exist?"

It's unnecessary to prove a negative claim such as this, for example - What evidence do you have to prove that faries do not exist? What evidence do you have to prove that Big-Foot doesn't exist? You claim that Jesus exists and thus the burden of proof is on you. The evidence that Jesus, fairies, and Big Foot don't exist is the lack of credible evidence for their existence. To believe in something that hasn't been proven true until it has been proven false is rather...illogical. Jesus may have existed in the same way that invisible fairies and the elusive Big-Foot might exist, but lack of evidence for their existence means that there's no real reason to believe that they did.

"What evidence do you have that proves they were forgeries?"

I was referring to the secular and non-biblical accounts that support Jesus's existence that critical scholars and historians say are forgeries.

Now if you want to talk about the Bible itself, even Christian New Testament scholars notice that the bible contains forgeries, mistakes by scribes in copying, and mistakes in translations to other languages. There are even entire books on Biblical forgeries and mistakes such as "Forged" by Bart Ehrman and "Who Wrote the New Testament?" by Burton L. Mack for example.

"Sounds like the New Testament holds historical credibility."

Three points

(1) The Bible is rather far from historically inerrant in the Old Testament. For instance, there's no evidence for the Global Flood that Noah's family went through.

(2) The Bible is still rather far from historically inerrant in the New Testament. For instance, Luke 2:2 places the birth of Jesus during the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6 CE. Matthew 2:1 places Jesus Birth during the life of King Herod of Judea who died in 4 BCE. Quirinius was not Governor until 6 CE, there was no large census for over 100 years prior to his census in 6 CE, and King Herod of Judea died in 4 BCE which leads to the question which gospel, if any, is right about this matter?

(3) Trying to prove the existence of Jesus using the bible is like proving that Odysseus existed using Homer's Iliad. While there might have been a historical Jesus and historical Odysseus whom the Biblical Jesus and the legendary Greek hero Odysseus were based upon, there's no reason to believe that the Biblical Jesus who performed miracles and the Odysseus from legends who fought mythological monsters really existed because there is no proof for the supernatural things they did.

"There is not sufficient evidence to say that Jesus never existed or that He never did these things, and there is also not sufficient evidence to support God’s non-existence."

And neither is there any credible evidence to believe that Jesus did exist, that Jesus did do those things, or that God does exist, Just as there is not sufficient evidence to say that Big-Foot and Fairies don't exist. And because of that, there's still no good reason to believe that Jesus, God, Big-Foot, and Fairies exist. They could, but there's no good reason to believe they did...

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 12/10/2011 - 05:58

Disregard my first sentence....apparently it did post where I wanted it to :-)

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 12/10/2011 - 07:07

"Apparently you’ve never investigated this. Scholars, Christian and non, have all confirmed the existence of a man named Jesus Christ from around that time."

Care to quote a source to help with the investigation? I'm aware that some people *believe* a historical Jesus existed, that some *speculate* that he exists, and some are *open-to* the possibility that there might be a historical Jesus upon whom the legends of the biblical Jesus were based upon. I was not aware, however, that anyone had *confirmed* the existence of a man named Jesus Christ from around that time. If you've got confirming evidence and proof that he did exist or that "Scholars, Christian and non" have confirmed his existence, please provide.

"I am well aware of the apparent contradictions that biblical accounts have from each other. But you can’t dismiss something as false or that it did not happen based on differences in petty little details"

I wasn't dismissing it based on *petty details*. I was merely pointing out mistakes in something that you say is "historically credible". I dismiss it on lack of evidence.

"You have to understand that they are writing from different points of view...They could have both been right."

I liked your snowing example. Unfortunately, Quirinius was not Governor of Syria nor was there a large census during King Herod of Judea's rule. Those both came after his death. History shows that at least one account must be wrong...

"Numerous other historical records have apparent contradictions as well….the Bible is not the only one."

True, though thankfully those can be fact-checked against other historical records, archaeological sites and artifacts, out-side sources, etc.

"Did you know that Quirinius served two terms? The first one dates around the time of Jesus’ birth. Yes, Josephus’ records indicate that there was a census taken during Quirinius’ second term."

Nope...history states that Quirinius was the Governor of Pamphylia-Galatia in modern-day Turkey during the final years of King Herod. History also states that there was not another large census within 100 years prior to 6 CE. That is a popular apologetic claim to this though.

"(But, according to you, Josephus’ records must have been forgeries since they account for a historical Jesus.)"

No, the statement about Jesus in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" being a forgery has to do with facts. Personal feelings have no bearing on truth. Here are some details on that...

Not a single writer before the 4th century makes a single reference to Josephus' statements about Jesus, yet it was supposedly written in the 1st century. Origen, an early Church Leader from the 3rd century, who quotes from and relies on Josephus's work extensively never made mention of his statements about Jesus despite arguing against Pagan writers and Celsus, a Jesus nonbeliever, for nearly half his life. It would have made incredible sense for Christians to quote a passage from a secular non-christian source in defense of their religion, yet the first person to cite Josephus' statements about Jesus, in the year 340, was Bishop Eusebius who bible-scholars recognize is a self-confessed liar-for-god. Here are two quotes where he admits to lying in order to "glorify God".

(1) "I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion"

(2) "It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment."

"Why did Luke and Matthew mention two different rulers? Matthew’s gospel was written with a Jewish understanding, while Luke sought to make his gospel understandable to the Gentiles."

So your saying that the differences between the Jewish and the Gentile understanding resulted in the placement of an event in two separate time periods in which one contradicts the other based on historical fact? Two different perspectives on one event would yield two different views on the *same* event in the *same* historical context...

"Plus, their purpose was *not simply to record history*, per se, but to share the message of God’s salvation *through the historical events of the life of Jesus.*"

Then one would hope that they would get the historical events of the life of Jesus historically correct...

“While there might have been a historical Jesus…” Glad you’re open to that possibility now!"

Anything can exist: God, Jesus, Zeus, Fairies, Aliens, Big-Foot, etc. Whether or not they do exist or have evidence to support that they exist are different matters entirely.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:03

"There is not sufficient evidence to say that Jesus never existed or that He never did these things, and there is also not sufficient evidence to support God’s non-existence."

Why isn't Jesus mentioned in the histories of Philo of Alexandria?

Why don't you have faith in an omnipotent, omniscient god?

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 12/10/2011 - 07:02

Consider the scientific evidence, such as how the earth came into existence. The odds of every little detail working out exactly as it has in order to produce a climate suitable enough for life are much too great for everything to have just come together by chance.

Compared to what, exactly? In order to have a set of 'odds', you have to have a subset to calculate against. This means that in order to post the odds of a hundred to one, you require multiple prior events to generate those odds.
The Goldilocks effect is horse crap.

You should check it out on YouTube.

Youtube is the Nat'l Enquirer of the internet.

To start off, everyone, including modern historians (even those who are Atheists and non-Christians), biblical scholars, and the Roman soldiers, Jewish leaders, and followers of Jesus during His time will agree that the tomb was empty the third day after His death.

What utter nonsense.
A. You can't even locate the damn tomb,
B. there was a severe Roman injunction AGAINST robbing ANY tombs, so severe that a full investigation would be launched, yet there's not even a peep of it in anyone's records, &
C. Richard Carrier, noted historian (& atheist) is a Jesus myth-er too.
So there goes that down the crapper.

They would not have lived the rest of their lives preaching that Jesus was alive and ultimately die for this if they knew it wasn’t true.

Arguments from martyrdom? It's traditional (not historical) that the 'apostles' all died, based on Fox's book from the 14th CE.

Another factor to consider is that over 500 people were testifying that they had seen the resurrected Jesus. It couldn’t have been a hallucination….500 people having the same exact hallucination is very improbable.

This is 1 of those ridiculous lies that McDowell promotes. 500 people 'testifying'. Paul alludes to these people while telling a story. That's definitely not the same thing as 'testifying'. Compound that w/the inability to actually NAME any of these people, & you have garbage.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 12/10/2011 - 08:14

You raise good points with regards to the odds of everything falling into place. I'll admit I am no scientist, but I have studied several scientific claims both for and against theism and I personally believe the claims against just don't hold up.

I know you've probably been asked this a hundred times, but I am curious....what do you believe caused everything to come into existence? I'm not referring to evolution, natural selection, etc. I'm talking about everything before that. What caused our universe to form? I would appreciate your feedback on that.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 12/10/2011 - 15:06

Everything exists. There: that's easy. Is there someone behind it? No, obviously not.
What I believe is irrelevant: it's whatever the evidence points to.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 12/10/2011 - 18:26

Doesn't evidence help to give an explanation for how or why something happens? You say that everything just exists, and that's it. Are you saying that the universe has just eternally existed? That it never had a cause for coming into existence? Doesn't everything have a cause?

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 12/14/2011 - 04:50

rangerzfan - the point here is that you state that god (Jesus Christ) exist and Christianity is true. We are only questioning all your so called "facts".

Religion has caused more misery in every stage of human history than any other single idea. Religion (your religion) burn woman on wooden stakes because of accusation of witchcraft. Religion is a tool used by many to control those with feeble minds. I am sorry rangerzfan... you have a feeble mind.

Good luck in accepting Jesus. ROFL

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 12/15/2011 - 19:53

rangerzfan – Consider the following lines of thought for possible expansion of your reference of our universe. First, why is it an issue for you that, perhaps, the universe has always existed? Perhaps it has. You say everything has to have a cause. Well, to have a chain of cause and effect you need a universe in which those things can occur. It may not work the other way around, that is, to have causes you need a universe, but the universe itself may not need a cause. The universe in this case is an antecedent concept to that of the idea of a “cause” and thus may not have had one. It may also be bizarre to think of a universe being around forever, but once again, deeper analysis may provide other alternatives. The concept of time itself does not stand alone, but rather is inextricably linked to other notions like those of space, motion, and energy. The idea of time itself may be, at best, a secondary property of the universe derived from a more basic structure. Even worse, time as we think of it could be just an artifact of our consciouness and thus would hardly be useful in providing insight to the most basic nature of the universe. Secondary or tertiary concepts cannot be used to analyze primary concepts from which they are derived without peril. The point of all of this speculating is to make it clear that what you seem to take as fact may very well be assumption and thus is not as solid as you may think for defending your views. If a tradtional view of time is indeed rendered unhelpful at the most basic level, the need for a beginning to the universe and a creator become unnecessary. Even if we bring the conversation back from the philosophical to the empirical, it would seem the Big Bang serves as a starting point at least for the universe as we know it. Why this occurred is obviously an active topic of research, but some intelligent being causing it doesn’t seem to be supported by any evidence or logical model. The complex usually develops from the simple. A complex intelligent creator, a so-called Big-Bang ignitor if you will, implies there was already an existent “universe” of sorts before our universe, so the creation of a universe by this godly ignitor would not really be the creation of existence per se since god already consisted of an existence before the one of which we are aware. You could then turn your original question back on this: If everything needs a cause, like you say, why wouldn’t you then question what “caused” or created the god/creator in whom you believe. After all, if a watch implies a watch-maker, a creator would seem to imply a creator-maker. Most theists don’t seem to have an issue with the idea that their given god or gods have always existed. If a god can always exist, then why not the universe? Why not apply Occam’s razor and cut out the middle man? On the other hand, if a god has a beginning or a creator, is this god truly worthy of its label? These issues I have mentioned, along with many, many, others, have left me with no rational course but that of identifying myself as an atheist.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 12/27/2011 - 06:19

To rangerzfan; 12/10/11 at pm 1:14

In reply to Mr. Apostate, quote :
" You raise good points with regards to everything falling into place.
I'll admit I'm no scientist, but I've studied several scientific claims both for & against theism & I personally believe the
claims against just don't
hold up."
Reply :
Oh, please.
It starts in the (12th dynasty) of Egypt with the
Pharaoh (Ameotep the 4th),
& with him at the helm, the
god (Aten, or Sun disk )
became the most
important god in the
Egyptian state religion.
The Pharaoh then changed
his name from Ameotep
the 4th to (Akhenaten)
reflecting a symbolic link
with his new deity.
And in doing so,
(Akhenaten) had broken the
old tradition of (RA) & all
other gods while forming a
religion that reflects just 1
deity is where your god of
the bible came from in the
first place.

Please study some history?
Your friend :
Erebus Priest

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 12/27/2011 - 07:25

rangerzfan (12/10/2011 @ 13:14),

What do you believe caused your god to come into existence?

Why does the same argument not apply to god as to the universe?

There are numerous problems with the prime mover argument. Here are a few:

1) To assume that the universe requires a creator must logically cause one to assume that the creator also had a creator creator and a creator creator creator, and so on. This is the turtles all the way down problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

2) We are currently dealing with the task of explaining a very massive and energetic, but simple, early universe in a hot dense quantum state. You would replace this difficult task with the far more difficult task of explaining the existence of a highly complex and intelligent being capable of creating such universes at the rate of one per week.

3) Quantum mechanics allows for and even requires the spontaneous creation of quantum particles, known as virtual particles. If these are ignored, the equations produce incorrect answers. So, we have precedent as well as direct and powerful evidence for the spontaneous creation of quantum particles. The universe was in a quantum state at the instant of the big bang.

4) This one is the most important. Read carefully and slowly. There is simply not a single shred of hard scientific evidence for any god or gods. All of the philosophical arguments of all of the philosophy classes in all the world cannot change this simple basic fact. The god(s) hypothesis has been around for millennia. Yet, we are still waiting for the first shred of evidence to come in.

Compare this with String Hypothesis (not a theory yet, IMHO). String Hypothesis has been around for about 30-40 years. As yet, there is no evidence it is correct. In fact, it makes no falsifiable predictions yet. Already, there are some in the physics community, most notably Lee Smolin, suggesting that funding be cut or reduced for research into this hypothesis and redirected to alternatives.

See, when science fails to confirm a hypothesis, such as phlogiston chemistry or alchemy, we throw it away.

Religion has had 100 times as long. And yet, there is still not a single falsifiable prediction from religion. There is still no supporting evidence. When will we drop this intellectual turkey on its head? (Sorry, no offense to turkeys intended by the comparison.)

Answer this one question and you will see why your hypothesis fails.

What would it take to convince you that there is no god?

When you realize that the fact that you have no answer means that religion has made no falsifiable predictions and is therefor untestable, you will see why it is not a hypothesis on par with any scientific hypothesis, let alone any well-tested theory.

Further, if you think about this some more, it just might occur to you that if the god hypothesis makes no testable predictions, it means that it adds nothing to the sum total of human knowledge. You will not find a single piece of technology founded upon the god hypothesis.

Compare this with:

Relativity: GPS relies on the time difference between clocks in orbit and those on the ground.

Quantum Mechanics: The semiconductors in the computer on which you are reading this rely on quantum theory.

Evolution: All of modern medicine rests on evolution. This is why we need flu shots every year rather than once. Flu mutates quickly. This is why we test on animals. Without getting into a debate about the ethics of testing on other species, think about why it works to do so. Why does it tell us anything to test medicine on a rat? Hint: because we're related to the rat.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 12/24/2011 - 08:46

You state the following: "Consider the scientific evidence, such as how the earth came into existence. The odds of every little detail working out exactly as it has in order to produce a climate suitable enough for life are much too great for everything to have just come together by chance."

Well, maybe you're not aware that there are approximately ten to the 24th power stars in the entire Universe. that's a 1 followed by 24 zeroes... 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars or a trillion trillion stars. An unfathomable number. And every day scientists are discovering earth-like planets around stars. They're everywhere! The odds are in favor of life elsewhere in the universe.

Lest you forget, not too long ago we thought the sun revolved around the Earth.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 12/24/2011 - 21:30

Doesn’t evidence help to give an explanation for how or why something happens?

Shit just happens

Are you saying that the universe has just eternally existed?

Don't be a retard. I said no such thing. Matter/energy has existed forever, as far as we know. We have no reason to say it didn't.

That it never had a cause for coming into existence?

Nope.

Doesn’t everything have a cause?

A cause? Yes. A purpose? No.
Really, the idiocy that religionists think is philosophy is risible.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 11/14/2011 - 09:57

in my response above, the word "fiends" was a typo. it should be "friends". thanks.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 11/14/2011 - 02:15

I read somewhere that atheism is a religion (belief system, whathaveyou) just like not collecting stamps is a hobby. I can live with that.

To your question of the philosophy of atheism. There isn't one. There are philosophical systems that may be lack the need for gods; there are some epistemological systems like science that, by their very nature, seek explanations in the natural world and not in the supernatural. But there simply isn't a philosophy of Atheism (with a capital A).

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 11/14/2011 - 04:09

An article entitled "what is atheism" takes focus off the real issues facing the USA. It only serves to keep us nonbelievers arguing about the petty and mundane. Let us stand out front and bring the issues to the American people. Let's show up at the presidential rallies and campaign stops and ask the questions that need asking. Like how will you defend your oath of office to protect and defend the constitution (especially 1st amendment) if elected, when your beliefs and donors all appear to be moving this country more and more towards theocracy? I want to know how the next president plans on protecting these rights. Don't you? Why are we not out there asking these questions? Why are we not asking these candidates how old the earth is and if they believe dinosaurs walked with man 6000 yrs ago? The candidates have all made God part of the campaign as soon as they kicked off their campaigns. These are fair quesions yet noone is asking. Why not take the argument to the religionists instead of always being on the defensive? It is time we changed the game and stop having the argument brought to us.

Anonymous (not verified) / Fri, 11/18/2011 - 18:59

Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity and, as this blog suggests, does not have any established church or organization. Atheists in general seem to be "free thinkers" and prefer to form their own opinions about life, the universe and everything. By this standard, a group of individuals that claim to be atheists should not presume that they represent the entirety of those who are atheists.

I am an atheist and I personally believe that each individual should be free to form their own views. I interpret this to mean that I should allow that others may exercise their freedom of choice, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. I have no right to interfere with the choice of others, even if they have different beliefs to me. Although I have in the past engaged in debate over the existence of a deity, I no longer do this as this would be inconsistent with the concept of freedom of choice.

So to me - atheism is inextricably linked to the concept of freedom of choice.

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 11/24/2011 - 06:32

atheism: not theism.

atheist: not a theist.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 12/06/2011 - 17:03

Aren't there varieties of atheism? For instance are there mythological atheists such as Friedrich Nietzsche, who believe that God never existed but the "God-myth" was once a live model by which people lived? Was the myth killed with improvements in man's understanding and cultural advancement?
Can atheism be viewed in a metaphysical sense?

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 12/07/2011 - 06:58

I would like to agree and disagree with you on one particular point. I would agree with you in that atheism should not be labeled a "belief system" because atheism does not come with a particular set of standards, teachings, values, etc. Every atheist is free to interpret things as he sees fit, without the governance of any particular book or document. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that atheism is not a "belief". There are only two options when it comes to an object or a statement. You either believe it, or believe in it, or you do not believe it, or in it. For example, an atheist does not believe God exists. Another way to say that, though, is he "believes that God does not exist". An atheist still believes one way or the other. If he did not know what to believe, he would be labeled an "agnostic" as correctly mentioned in a previous comment. If one calls himself an atheist, though, then he must admit that he holds to the "belief" that God does not exist, just as a person of a certain faith holds to the "belief" that God does exist.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 12/27/2011 - 07:40

rangerzfan,

Then, you must be an adragonist, assuming you believe dragons do not exist.

Presumably, you are also an aunicornist, assuming you believe unicorns do not exist.

And, I would further assume that you are an aelfist, assuming you believe that elves do not exist.

These are all belief systems by your definition.

The problem is that you are defining people by one negative belief, not all.

Further, as I have stated previously, atheism is much more of a belief in evidence than a belief that there are no gods. No self-respecting atheist would persist in atheism were hard scientific evidence to begin coming in that points to the existence of one or more gods. Thousands of years of searching for such evidence suggests rather strongly that this will not happen. But, should it happen, most of today's atheists would at least become agnostic, if not believers, depending on the quality of the evidence. However, lack of evidence provides a complete and utter lack of any reason to entertain the god(s) hypothesis.

So, until some evidence appears, I remain an atheist, and an athorist and an azeusist and an aganeshist and an agnomeist and an atrollist and an adragonist and an aunicornist and an aelfist and ....

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 12/08/2011 - 14:48

Well said, thank you :)

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 11/26/2011 - 04:34

I have recently had two different individuals take issue with me identifying as an atheist.

One said I can't be an atheist because she doesn't believe atheists exist. She referred to me as agnostic and explained it with the following:

"... no "Atheist" has ever proclaimed that they have personal proof that God does not exist. That is why I call it Agnostic, and not Atheistic. An Agnostic admits that they do not know for certain. That is what I am hearing you say, and therefore why I describe you as Agnostic, rather than Atheistic."

The other one told me that I shouldn't even say I'm an atheist because it's offensive, suggesting I think all theists are stupid.

I attempted to educate them about what atheism really is, but I'm afraid it fell on deaf ears. I am afraid I will have other opportunities.

When I say I'm an atheist, I am indicating simply that I don't believe in a deity. They can dissect it any way they want but the bottom line is that I simply don't believe.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 12/10/2011 - 05:56

Sorry my reply is up here. There wasn't a link under your most recent post to reply to.

"How popular a belief is does not affect what is true."

Apparently you've never investigated this. Scholars, Christian and non, have all confirmed the existence of a man named Jesus Christ from around that time.

"They just hold different opinions from Christians as to who he was."

Yes, I knew what each one of these believed. Thanks for clarifying that!

"What evidence do you have to prove that faries/Big-Foot doesn't exist?"

We're talking about a historical person here.

I am well aware of the apparent contradictions that biblical accounts have from each other. But you can't dismiss something as false or that it did not happen based on differences in petty little details. You have to understand that they are writing from different points of view. For example, one source may say that it was snowing the night that George Washington led the charge at Valley Forge. Another source may say it wasn't snowing. They could have both been right. It may have been snowing at one part of the night but not in the other. But just because two sources may contradict on a small detail, it doesn't mean that the event didn't happen. Numerous other historical records have apparent contradictions as well....the Bible is not the only one.

Yes, the example you gave regarding the dating of Jesus' birth appears as a greater contradiction. Did you know that Quirinius served two terms? The first one dates around the time of Jesus' birth. Yes, Josephus' records indicate that there was a census taken during Quirinius' second term. (But, according to you, Josephus' records must have been forgeries since they account for a historical Jesus.) But, records of Caesar Augustus show that he held several censuses during his reign, both locally and across the empire, ranging from 28 B.C. through about 14 A.D. So, it is very possible that Quirinius held office while Herod was still alive, and while a census was taken.

Why did Luke and Matthew mention two different rulers? Matthew's gospel was written with a Jewish understanding, while Luke sought to make his gospel understandable to the Gentiles. Ancient writers did not give nearly as much attention to detail as modern writers do (that can be shown in other ancient documents as well). Plus, their purpose was not simply to record history, per se, but to share the message of God's salvation through the historical events of the life of Jesus.

"While there might have been a historical Jesus..." Glad you're open to that possibility now!

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 12/14/2011 - 06:59

"Since GOD has not been proven to not exist, therefore, He must exist”

No one person that has ever lived and died on this planet has ever proven that fairies, leprechauns, aliens, big foot, the loch ness monster, chubacabra, trolls, and elves do not exist. By your logic, you are saying that all those things are real and that it makes sense to believe in them. It is impossible to conclusively conclude a negative statement such as "X does not exist" or "X does not have a hand in the process Y"; because of that, believing in something until it has been proven false is illogical. In other words, I don't have to prove that fairies don't exist; I just have to prove that you can't prove that they DO exist. If I can prove that, then I have proven that there is no good reason to believe that fairies exist. God might exist, in the same way that fairies might exist, but without evidence that they exist, there's no reason to believe that they do.

"Since most everyone who posted here, seems to know it all, do you know who I just quoted?"

No one here claims to "know it all". We claim to know relative things and to not know other things. If you truly think that atheism is the belief that "God has been proven not to exist" than you are mistaken. Atheism is nothing more than disbelief in the existence of a God, whether that is because a person thinks that the concept of a specific God has been disproven or because they don't see the evidence for a specific God is completely up to the person.

Anonymous (not verified) / Tue, 12/13/2011 - 22:59

I really enjoyed reading everyones posts. Back and forth, back and forth, neither side ever gaining. I wanted to remind everybody that not one person that has ever lived and died on this planet has EVER proven GOD does not exist. So, know what I say to that? As another once said, "Since GOD has not been proven to not exist, therefore, He must exist". Since most everyone who posted here, seems to know it all, do you know who I just quoted?

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 12/14/2011 - 04:57

Why do we bother???

Never debate about the existence of Jesus (or other known god) with any pious person because he or she will always reference the bible and use it as facts. Their thinking is too warped beyond repair. They cannot be saved.

Let's move on and spend our time and energy laughing at them...

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 12/15/2011 - 06:49

It may seem futile to argue religion when you engage in debate with someone who thinks they are right. (That statement can be used by either side.) No one wants to lose an argument nor do they want to come to the realization that what they believe is false. So why do we bother? Not everytime, but sometimes it will plant a seed of doubt. If the argument is civil, minimizing rash emotional responses, and you can provide references for them to check on their own (and encourage that) then it can change the warped thinking. I cite my own transition from "truly" believing there was a God and that Jesus was really going to save my soul to one that looked hard enough behind the curtain to realize there is nothing there. I truly believe that there is no God to a point that I claim (albeit only to myself) that I KNOW there isn't a God. I can understand how people believe in a skyman because I used to. I also understand that folks can come around to realize and acknowledge that the source of their belief, the Bible, is surrounded more in questions than answers. All that is needed is to point out a few of the rediculous stories within and the suspicious history of how the Bible was actually put together and most importantly that the story of Jesus isn't an orginal one, but a rehash of previous "heretic" religions. Tell them the facts as nice as possible, tell them where to check it out on thier own and wish them luck. I have wonderful reactions with that approach. Kill 'em with kindness, as they say...

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 12/14/2011 - 05:25

I come from a family that claims to be deeply religious but do not see how much they do things for a price...to attain "eternal life". Most of what they do is pray, saying that is the best thing anyone can do for others.

In contrast to what they "do", I work out in the community and in my job to help facilitate others become the strongest people they can be. I do this because it gives me great joy, I learn from these people, and it is my passion to teach, love, give.

This is the moment now. There is no other promised to us. This is what atheism is about to me. It may be vastly different to others.

Anonymous (not verified) / Sat, 12/17/2011 - 11:05

I had to chuckle reading the graphic included with the "What is Atheism" post. I reads: "Atheism - a Personal Relationship with Reality".

Reality is nothing more that what one's brain perceives it to be. And if others' brains agree on that interpretation of what is real, then they have the joy of strength in numbers, but are no closer to having a handle on truth than anyone else.

If a man's belief in a god or gods helps him achieve happiness in life, then who is anyone else to claim that man's belief is not real? The same goes for a man who does not believe in a god or gods. The verisimilitude of any belief lies within the individual, not some organization, creed or symbol.

Anonymous (not verified) / Mon, 12/19/2011 - 06:05

Good point. There is plenty of room in science (at least right now) to believe in a creator of the universe or something of that sort. Although it would seem unnecessary to assume the existence of something without evidence, there is nothing that can disprove it either.

Reality is nothing more than what the brain perceives it to be. But we have tools like logic, reason and experiment to assume the best possible truths we can out of this reality. It's really all we CAN do. An experiment can be reproduced and shown to another (given their level of understanding) and evidence can be shown to prove or contradict a certain statement. This is where the "my opinion is just as good as yours" standpoint can start to fail. One is most certainly allowed to believe the earth is the center of the universe if they want but if evidence shows otherwise, wouldn't it be a safer to assume the most logical? This is my problem with the "gods" presented by the ancient religions that are popular. Perhaps they worked to explain things in past but the real tools we have to establish truth and fact seem to discount a good deal of it.

Anonymous (not verified) / Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:55

Like Michael Joseph Tyler, I loved the graphic for a personal relationship with reality too. I hope no one minds that I added it on the right side of my own blog. I linked it to the atheists.org home page.

Anonymous (not verified) / Thu, 12/29/2011 - 16:02

Okay. So first I will say that I had been totally ignorant on the subject of atheism and made it a lot more complicated than it was because I was taught in a Mormon seminary. In the original post, it was stated that Spiritualism has atheism as a piece of it's philosophy. I guess I need a definition of the word "god". The first principle of Spiritualism, as declared by the Spiritualist Church of Revelation in Monrovia, California states "We believe in an infinite intelligence." I am doing research because I am very curious and for my religious studies. I'm just wondering because I guess my thinking was that any kind of higher power, even if it might be the Universe or an energy field from which I can draw information could be considered a type of divine thing and therefore not qualify its believers as atheistic. Thanks for your help.
Leena