Recently in Atheism and society Category

If religions have really been such a positive influence on the planet, why are there still gross disparities between the have's and have-not's? Never mind all the drivel about original sin, there's no good reason that so many "charitable" institutions who are always begging for more funding (like George Carlin says, god seems to be really bad at managing money, he always needs more and more) aren't having more of an impact than they are. Yet atheists are always being taken to task for not being more conscious of the needy in the world. Perhaps that's true, perhaps all of us in the Western world living in relative luxury need to get more involved in making life bearable for the rest of the world. In the 21st century should children still be malnourished, should entire villages still be living in mud shacks?

Watch and consider:

"Do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god?" (OK, that's the old form...play along with me here)

First off, your honor, the Bible is a book of proverbs and mythology. I can't believe any reasonable person thinks some god is going to swoop down from his cloud and strike me dead if I do lie. Both Nixon and Bush swore on a Bible they'd defend the Constitution of the United States and neither of them did. I don't recall any divine retribution in their cases. How many people are currently in prison for perjury? How many have been charged? Has any god taken action against them?

My testimony is the truth only as far as I know it. I don't claim to have an objective viewpoint that allows me to observe reality free of the bias of my experiences and mental abilities. Maybe I'm not even aware of the truth of this matter but only think I am. I can't say that everything I give testimony to is going to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I'm only human. I get confused, my memory isn't perfect, I'm a bit intimidated just being here, treated like some authority on the facts when I know I'm not. So I can only promise on my word (and since none of you really know me, how comforting is that?) that I'll relate what I think I remember. Perhaps I'll lie without meaning to. I'm not perfect. It's quite possible that what I remember regarding this case is so far from reality that it will only detract from the court's desire to uncover what really happened here.

You know, your honor, perhaps it's best that I just don't testify at all. I don't believe in your god, so the only fear you can put in my mind is the fear of going to jail for perjury, and with the economy the way it is at least there I'd get some sleep and regular meals. I might even have the opportunity to have sexual relations again. It's been quite a while, your honor.

Further, I have no idea if what I think I remember is the truth or even remotely related to the truth. I'd sure hate for anyone to take my testimony for the whole truth, whatever that is. At best it would be my imperfect recollection of events that may or may not have any relation to this case. It would be unfair and sadden me to have someone convicted based on my personal perception of reality.

My statement is all I can really be sure of in this matter. Can I go now, your honor?

The following was posted at the Christian Post, so I'm not surprised by the drivel it contains. It's a fairly nice piece of condescension, but it contains sufficient nonsense to get my attention.

Given the recent wild popularity of books that have been touting the benefits of atheism, one might wonder if an overpopulation of turkeys is going to be our next environmental crisis. (I'm guessing he means turkeys-the bird and not turkeys-unthinking people who post articles like this)

Say again? What’s the link? According to Gallup surveys, every year one out of every eight Americans either plan a non-traditional Thanksgiving or do not observe the holiday at all. Who are those least likely to head over the river and through the woods to gather for the annual family feast? Atheists. These polls report that people who have no religious preference or who never attend church services are more than twice as likely to skip the traditional thanksgiving observance compared to those with stronger ties to religion and religious communities. (Let's just ignore non-traditional families, vegetarians or anyone else who might have a reason to celebrate a holiday in a non-traditional fashion) Over a century ago, poet and painter Dante Rossetti said “the worst moment in the life of an atheist is when he or she feels thankful and has no one to thank.” (Isn't qouting obscure sources wonderful, especially when it makes it appear your nonsensical attitude is actually logical?) On the other hand, gratitude and thanksgiving are concepts that are very much at home in religious discourse. (Just how does he determine the difference between formulaic gratitude and genuine thanks giving?)

But is it true that atheists have no one to thank? The rejection of God need not mean the rejection of Thanksgiving, and the attitude upon which it is based, gratitude. Although there may be no atheists in foxholes (presumptuous, irrelevant and wrong), surely there can be atheists at the Thanksgiving table. Why can’t they use their annual Thanksgiving dinner as a brief occasion to pause and remember to be thankful for family, friends, and food? (What does he presume we do now? Stay at home, sacrifice infants?) They may have to work a little harder at being thankful. Scientists (Which scientists, where? Cite a source, professor) studying the cognitive basis of religious belief and non-belief contend that atheism does not come naturally (unsupported and nonsensical), but rather flourishes under certain environmental circumstances (urbanization, post-modernism, and technologies that sever the link between moral behavior and material consequences) (Trotting out the old "atheists have no morals" dodge again. Of course the non-critical thinking sheeple will agree). Conversely, according to this cognitive science perspective, belief comes naturally (Religious belief or simply belief? An obvious attempt to mislead through non-specificity). We are born to believe. From early in life, the tendency to see the world as purposefully designed and to detect signs of supernatural agency appears to be built into our psychological architecture (Again, unsupported. Cite your sources or admit you're making this up as you go along). It takes extraordinary means (e.g. communist regimes) to strip people of this natural tendency to believe in God (Oh, geez, the old "communist=atheist" crap again. How does he account for findings suggesting that higher intelligence leads to diminished religious belief? By the way, which gods are we inclined to believe in according to your scientists?).

If these scientists are correct (which they're not, so there goes the rest of your argument), then, it is easy to understand why people would believe that the good things that they have in life—those blessings that they are grateful for—were intentionally given to them for their benefit. Our mental tools support such an inferential process. It would be far more unnatural to see these blessings as randomly occurring, or attribute them to luck or fate, or solely to human intervention (Unnatural? It's gods who are unnatural. Luck and fate are superstitious cousins to religious belief and have nothing to do with atheism). This being the case, gratitude is a nearly inevitable outcome of how our mind works. When the blessings that we have cannot be attributed to human benevolence, attributions to God’s goodness become all the more likely. Therefore, people are more likely to sense a divine hand in cherished experiences that cannot easily be attributed to human effort—the birth of a child (Birth cannot be attributed to human effort?), a miraculous recovery from illness (The restoration of a severed limb without medical attention might qualify as a miracle, otherwise give thanks where thanks are due; to the doctors and staff and to science which developed the drugs and surgical techniques they use), the restoration of an estranged relationship (Oh yeah, that could never happen without god's intervention)—for which gratitude to God—and the Thanksgiving celebration are apt responses.

The culture wars between atheists and believers show no signs of cooling off (Christians do love to imagine themselves martyrs to their faith and skepticism and doubt as declarations of war against them). Atheists are offended when believers give credit to God for good fortune in their lives (Honestly, we don't care a bit what you do), erroneously assuming this means they are not giving credit to those who are truly deserving of their thanks. Believers, on the other hand, assume that atheists are miserable and lonely because they have no one to thank (We have thousands of people to be thankful for. They aren't imaginary super beings in the sky, they're real flesh-and-blood humans). Perhaps each side can pause gratefully on this Thanksgiving to give thanks, each in their own way. Gratitude is one of the building blocks of civil and humane society, and surely civility and humanity are gifts we can give each other this holiday season (Common sense and realism will produce a civil and humane society long before one built on the teachings of the Bible).

Robert A. Emmons is Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis (Return your degree and take a few more classes. May I recommend critical thinking and humanism) and author of Thanks! How the New Science of Gratitude Can Make You Happier (2007, Houghton-Mifflin)

This is my reply to Craig Biddle, who writes in the Objective Standard:

This (the previous paragraph) is yet another example of the feckless nature of mere atheism. While religion holds that morality comes from God via faith and revelation—and while religion posits all sorts of divine laws that are supposed to provide people with moral guidance (e.g., the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes)—atheism provides no moral guidance at all. Atheism says nothing about what is good or bad, right or wrong; nothing about how people should live; nothing about what we should and shouldn’t do. All atheism says is: “There is no god.”

So far I'm in complete agreement. Then Craig's observations start to go a bit sideways:

It is true that there is no god, but that truth alone is of no value to anyone.

If religion is wrong, then what is right? It is not enough to say “Go by reason, not faith.” What does it mean to go by reason? To what moral principles does reason lead? How are those principles validated? And what do they mean in practice?

It's not a function of atheism to determine what atheist will believe in, what will guide their morals and principles. Atheism, as you said yourself, Craig, is simply the contention that the existence of gods is unsupported by evidence. We are non-believers, period. Those things in which we do believe are not determined by what we don't believe.

Until atheists come to understand and embrace a positive, rational moral philosophy, they will continue to default to the ethics of religion (i.e., altruism and collectivism); consequently, they will continue to accomplish nothing of significance in the battle against religion. And in order to understand and embrace a positive, rational moral philosophy, they will have to find the courage not only to be atheists but also to be egoists—because egoism is the only morality supported by observation and logic.

This is nothing less than an attempt to turn atheism into another religion, a codified system of belief. Craig, you can't dictate to people who are only allied in one point of disbelief what they should believe or how they should develop their ethics. It's as nonsensical as my saying that in order for those of us who don't believe in Santa to adapt to our society we must find some other fictional character to replace Santa with.

The only unifying factor among atheists is a disbelief in gods. What we choose to believe, how we form and adhere to our ethics, what we do with the rest of our lives is ours to decide. We are not trying to recruit others into our atheistic camp, so we don't need to invent an ethical code we all agree to adopt. Atheism is a conclusion that those who care to examine religion deeply and skeptically enough will arrive at in their own time. Where they go from there is their own business, not ours to establish for them.

If you'd like to interact more with like-minded people (and I can't convince you to join our forum), you may want to check out Richard Dawkin's social networking site. Think of it as the beginnings of an atheistic MySpace.

It's just getting started, yet already has attracted over 2000 members. You may find it difficult to get to the site at the moment, as it's being mentioned on PlanetAtheism and most likely getting mobbed.

If you join up, please consider adding me as a friend. You'll find my profile at http://www.richarddawkins.net/social/?jeber.

Two of my favorite writers and bloggers, Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan, go head to head via email on the topics of religious fundamentalism and the role of religion in our lives and our society.
Check it out on beliefnet.

Most Americans oppose violence spurred by religious fundamentalism, but few agree on how to address it. In books like The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, author Sam Harris contends that religion itself--not its more extreme forms--is to blame. This week, Harris debates blogger and Conservative Soul author Andrew Sullivan in a no-holds-barred blogalogueTM.

First off, I find it odd that we still seem to subconciously believe that sneezing is a means to expell evil spirits. How else do you account for the habit most Americans have of saying "god bless you" when someone nearby sneezes?

Surely we don't think all sneezing is a sign of ill health. It should be obvious to us that some sneezes are nothing more than an automatic response by the body to foreign matter in our nasal passages.

Here's another almost insignificant occasion when being a non-believer makes one appear callous or unaware.

First of all, ContraCostaTimes, your headline is potentially misleading. When discussing theism, the term "believers" carries certain connotations contrary to your usage in the headline.

"...no longer a 'dirty word'" was said by an atheist, not a "believer". Like many others, I don't consider atheism a religion. Therefore I don't think the term "believer" is appropriate when speaking of one who is most assuredly a non-believer.

Otherwise it's pretty good news. I don't expect the number of atheists to increase dramatically. Intellectualism is never going to be a priority with the majority of humans. Religion and superstition will continue their predominance But as long as the numbers increase, at whatever rate, is good news.
0101010101010101010101010101010101010101
By Rebecca Rosen Lum
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

When Richard Golden put the word out that he was starting a group for atheists in Walnut Creek, about a dozen people showed up.

Two years later, 80 are dues-paying members and several more drop in on twice-monthly meetings to chew on everything from particle physics to court cases.

Horrified by escalating religious violence and alarmed by the Bush administration's "faith-based initiatives," which make government money available to religious organizations, atheists are coming out of the closet -- and organizing.

{Essay originally publish in June of 2004}

I always enjoy saying that.
Anyway, yes, I'm an atheist. Not an agnostic, not unsure, not waiting for god to show him/herself by letting me win the lottery. I don't believe in the supernatural, in all that statement's literal interpretations. The idea of life after death is as silly as the belief you can contact and speak to the dead. Some of the saints were really nice people, as, I'm sure, was Jesus...but what's wrong with thinking of them as just great examples of what any human could be if they wanted? The Bible, Koran and other tomes of religious belief? Just that, a codified book written by believers to extend their traditions and beliefs. I've been a deeply religious person for many years, so I know what I'm talking about. I've read the books, followed the commandments, paid my dues. So I guess you can call me a born-again atheist. Reality is more convincing than abstract belief.