For this argument, we should distinguish again between weak atheists and strong atheists. Weak atheists do not have a specific belief, so there is nothing to be proven or disproven. Asking a weak atheist to prove his world view would be like asking you to prove that you have no belief in Khonvoum. (see >Strong). Strong atheism, in contrast, is the belief that gods do not exist. So can we ever prove that strong atheism would be right?
Proving inexistence is not impossible on principle. As soon as something has verifiable properties, we may attempt to prove that this thing does not exist (with these properties). For example, we can prove that there exists no mountain on Earth that is higher than the Mount Everest. We simply look at all high mountains and verify that they are smaller than the Mount Everest.
Sometimes, we can prove even without physical experiments that some things cannot exist. This is the case whenever the definition of that thing is logically inconsistent in itself. For example, "married bachelors" cannot exist. This is also the case if the definition of a thing is inconsistent with known axioms. For example, there cannot be a natural number that is greater than all other natural numbers.
Thus, we have at least two ways for proving that something does not exist, an empirical one and a logical one. Hence we could in theory prove whether atheism is right or wrong. So the conclusion is that, yes, atheism is open to scientific verification or rejection — it's just that nobody has ever succeeded in this matter and it is unclear whether someone ever will. This position is different from the attitude pursued by some religions, which claim that their god's existence cannot be proven on principle. This way, they evade a scientific analysis a priori. See >Supported for a discussion.
It is true that many atheists like discussing about God. Does this not already imply that they believe in his existence?
This is a treacherous conclusion. One of the key features of humans is that they can discuss about things that do not exist (unlike animals, which seem to exchange information only about existing things). People discuss about witches, paradise or fictional characters without actually believing in their existence.
Atheism is opposed to the belief in gods. By the definition of religion, this entails that an atheist cannot adhere to a religion. Most atheists reject several aspects of existing religions, but certainly not all aspects of all religions. See also >SecSociety.
The previous section has clarified doubts about the consistency of atheism. This section treats claims claims that a god exists. If a god existed, atheism would be wrong.
This is a simple claim. It does not need to be true. An atheist could simply claim "God does not exist". To find out which of these claims are true (or at least more convincing), we need to support the claims by arguments.
If you do not think that God needs a proof, see >NeedNoProof1.
Similarly to the previous statement >GodExists, this statement is a simple claim. It needs arguments to support it.
If you do not think that gods need a proof, see >NeedNoProof1.
Many people feel that God exists. The question arises whether this is not enough evidence for his existence.
In general, a feeling for something does not imply that it is true. Strong atheists, for example, feel that God does not exist.
The feeling that God exists is one of the most common arguments for the existence of God (see e.g. [AtheismsFlaws]). Note, however, how these feelings differ between different individuals and also how they changed through the course of time: Hindus, for example, feel that there exist multiple gods. They feel this just as strongly as others feel that there exists only one god. The Romans felt that there were gods for all aspects of life and possibly even unknown gods. Monotheists would reject these believes. Their argument for monotheism (their feeling), however, is not stronger or weaker than the Romans' argument (their feeling) or an atheist's feelings.
This is true. However, it does not imply that God actually exists, because the Bible could be wrong. Writing something in a book does not make it true.
If you think that the Bible is special, because it is the word of God, refer to the >BibleWordOfGod question. If you think that the Bible is special because it it holy, refer to the >BibleHoly question.
For this argument, we have to presume that the Bible or the Koran is the word of God. This can only be if God exists. Thus, we presume that God exists in order to prove that God exists. This is an invalid argument (petitio principii).
The Bible is often considered a sacred and divine book, thus justifying its authorative value.
Some people think that the Bible was written by God. However, history shows us that the Bible is a compilation of different books that were written by humans. It were humans who decided which books should be added to the Bible and which books should be destroyed. Thus, the Bible is the work of mankind. (See [Wikipedia / Bible] for a detailed history of the Bible.)
Furthermore, the Bible is not as monolithic or unique as people generally assume. There exist different versions of the Bible (accepted or rejected by different denominations), different translations of the Bible (accepted or rejected at different times in history) and different books of the Bible (included or excluded in different versions of the Bible). These variations hamper the view of the Bible as absolute truth.
Moreover, the Bible contains a respectable number of inconsistencies, if read literally (see [SkepticsBible], [BibleAnalyis]). Certain parts of the Bible seem to contradict other parts of the Bible factually. Furthermore, the Bible contains prophecies that are not fulfilled. This does not yet include the perceived contradictions of the biblical texts with history. It is difficult to uphold the divinity of a book that appears contradictory in itself and inconsistent with history. Even if some of the perceived contradictions can be resolved, considerable interpretation is necessary to do so (see [DOI], [AAG], [CARM]). Once we need interpretation to determine the true meaning of the Bible, it is unclear whether we can be sure it is the right interpretation. The need for interpretation, again, hampers the view of the Bible as canonic truth.
Last, it is still disputed to which degree the Bible shall be taken literally. Some denomitations interpret the Bible according to modern circumstances, whereas others take each word literally. Some centuries ago it was a blasphemy to assume that Jesus did not literally walk on the water, whereas today this is the common view in some countries. Today, there are 20,800 different Christian denominations [Rejection / Variants]. All of them draw slightly different conclusions from the Bible. If a book gives rise to so many interpretations and to so many disputes about its "real intention", atheists find it difficult to believe that it is divine.
However, there is a way out. Once we accept that the Bible is a human-made collection of stories, it is much easier to appreciate its value. The Bible is a rich source of parables, thoughts and wisdoms. In fact, if the Bible was clear and straight-forward, it would probably not have fascinated people for such a long time.
See >Clear for a discussion of Bible interpretation.
Blasphemy is the defamation of the name of a God [Wikipedia / Blasphemy]. In this sense, the denial of God is certainly a blasphemy. However, since there is no god in an atheist's world, an atheist does not have to be afraid that he is harming him.
We could argue that the denial of God may not hurt God, but may insult his believers. However, if voicing a disbelief in God insulted theists, then voicing a belief in God insults atheists. This conclusion, however, is usually not drawn. See >Insult for a discussion.
It is true that there is a large overlap between religious believes. This overlap, however, generally applies only to the 3 big abrahamic religions — Islam, Christianity and Judaism. It does not apply to
- Indian religions, such as Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism, which usually believe in multiple gods or multiple forms of gods.
- East Asian religions, such as Taoism and Confucianism, which are different in nature from the occidental/oriental concept of religion.
- Tribal religions, such as African traditional religions, Asian Shamanism, Native American religions, Austronesian and Australian Aboriginal traditions and Chinese folk religion, which are mostly polytheistic.
- Newer religious movements, such as Hindu revivalism, Ayyavazhior polytheistic reconstructionism, which do not always share the abrahamic concept of God.
In contrast to the religions listed above, the abrahamic religions do share a belief in a unique God. But even among the abrahamic religions, the concepts of God differ:
- Islam believes in the one unique God.
- Christianity also believes in the one unique God. However, the core belief of Christianity is that Jesus was the son of God. For Christianity, God has a triple-fold nature of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. This concept, however, is rejected by Islam. Islam holds that Jesus was a human and that he was neither crucified nor surrected. The Koran says:
- People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a 'Trinity', that is better for you — God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust. [Koran / 4:171]
- Those people who say that God is the third of three are defying [the truth]: there is only One God. If they persist in what they are saying, a painful punishment will afflict those of them who persist. [Koran / 5:72]
- That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God"; — but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: — Nay, God raised him up unto the himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise. [Koran / 4:157]
- Judaism shares the concept of the abrahamic God, but does not know the concept of trinity. It also does not share the belief that Jesus were the son of God. Thereby, the concept of God in Judaism is different from the concept of God in Christianity.
The Jewish concept of God and the Muslim concept of God seem closer. However, Judaism and Islam differ in the acceptance of Muhammed as a prophet — a concept that is central to Islam, but denied in Judaism.
Going beyond the concept of God, people find a great number of similarities between the religions. The concepts of justice and truth seeking, for example, are present in many believes. Most atheists will actually share them. These common concepts have given rise to many of our modern values. See >Moral for a discussion of secular values.
- Christianity claims to be the successor of Judaism. This continuity is mirrored in the Bible, which consists of the Old Testament (taken over from previous schools of thought) and the New Testament (introducing the pillars of the new religion). Yet, the concept of God in the Old Testament is radically different from the concept of God in the New Testament: While the old God is revengeful and rather brutal [Dwindling / Killings by God, EvilBible / Evil Bible], the new God is loving and forgiving. Here, the connection to the previous school of thought came at the expense of two different images of God (see also >SRchristianGods).
- Islam is often presented as the successor of Judaism and Christianity. Yet, it rejects the pillars of Christianity: The resurrection of Jesus and the Trinity of God. Thereby, it is incompatible with its predecessor.
- People often think that Islam is the latest religion among the abrahamic ones. This is not true. The Bahai Faith (with around 6 million adherents) claims to be the successor of Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism altogether [Wikipedia / Bahai]. The Bahai Faith teaches that all of the previous prophets (Jesus, Budda, Mohammed, and Abraham) taught essentially the same thoughts, just adapted to their respective times and societies. The Bahai Faith itself is based the teachings of the prophet Bahaullah, who is seen as the newest prophet in the sequence, and as the one whose teachings are adequate for today's society. Thereby, the Bahai Faith actively uses the pattern of consecutive religious replacements. Naturally, the previous religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) all reject the Bahai Faith as their successor.
This pragmatic argument tells us to believe in God in order to maximize the chance of personal gain. Unfortunately, the argument has at least two flaws:
- It does not tell you which god(s) to believe in. If you believe in the wrong gods, the true gods may put you to hell anyway.
- Even if you believe in the true god(s), the argument does not guarantee that the true gods appreciate your opportunistic behaviour. The gods of most religions require wholehearted devotion. As most gods are omniscient, they would discover your false faith.
Furthermore, it is not true that you don't lose anything by adhering to a religion. You may run into questions (see >FFV), inconveniences (see >Disadvantages) and doubts (see >Doubts).
The argument goes that Jesus stated that God exist. If he was wrong, then Jesus would have been a liar.
We do not know whether Jesus really claimed that God exists, because our only source is the Bible, which is of questionable accuracy (see >BibleHoly). Furthermore, even if he claimed that God exists, this claim does not need to be true. Over time, many people have claimed that some god or another exists.
Einstein is often cited as a believer. This is seen as an argument for the belief in God.
In general, it is questionable whether a famous person's belief is necessarily right. However, if we adopt this assumption, we see that the list of famous people or scientists who believe in God is matched by another list of famous people or scientists who do not believe in God. Examples for such lists are [CelebAtheists] or [WikipediaAtheists].
Interestingly, Einstein himself could also belong to such a list, as he once wrote:
We can continue this argument: Assume that we continue our walk on the beach and that we find a watchmaker lying on the beach. Would we assume that the watchmaker had no cause and that he was born without parents? Surely, we assume he has parents. This contradicts the claim that God has no cause.
Again, we continue our walk and we find an atomic power plant. Would you assume that the watchmaker made it? Probably not. Probably, the heads behind the power plant were some unrelated people. This contradicts the claim that God made everything in the universe by himself.
This suggests that it is inherently difficult to prove the existence of something by analogy. The watchmaker analogy seems to be triggered by the human tendency to suspect a human originator behind things. See also >Design2.
It is a fact that the huge majority of people on this planet believe in supernatural beings. It is assumed that they have some reason for it, implying that supernatural beings do indeed exist.
However, it is not possible to conclude from a belief to the truth (this is a fallacy known as the Argumentum ad populum). In fact, it is sometimes even dangerous to conclude that something must be true because many people believe in it. Here are some examples of false things that millions of people believed in:
- The earth is flat
- Dancing certain dances makes rain
- Slavery is a good thing
- Witches must be burnt
Furthermore, people believe in quite different gods: Single gods, multiple gods, good gods or evil gods. Some people also believe in ghosts and witches. It is difficult to derive any consistent statement of existence from these believes.
Throughout the history of mankind, it has often proven useful to adopt values and concepts that are already widely accepted. Accepted values have the benefit of being tested by time. Furthermore, taking over existing ideas saves the effort of re-developing them and it consolidates the social structure of a group. However, this mechanism is not always useful. It may backfire if the traditional values are false.
Religion is a very old human phenomenon. This is taken as evidence that there must be something true about the existence of gods.
However, if people believe in something for a long time, this does not mean that the thing is true. See the previous question >90 for examples.
It is sometimes argued that the belief in a supernatural being can have a positive influence on one's well-being.
It is certainly true that the belief in God can have a positive effect on some people. Still, it does not make God exist. Likewise, believing that there is a treasure buried in the backyard might make the home-owner happy. Nevertheless, the belief does not make the treasure pop into existence. Atheists tend to prefer truth to imaginary happiness.
It is sometimes argued that the very fact of us having an intuition of God implies that he exists. However, a precise imagination of something does not allow us to conclude that this thing exists. For example, we have a very precise imagination of dragons, but they don't exist.
This argument defines God in such a way that he must exist. However, this definition may be simply inconsistent with reality.
To show this flaw of the ontological argument, we can use it to prove the existence of unicorns: A unicorn is a horse with one horn. If unicorns did not exist, they would not have a horn. Hence they must exist. Nevertheless, they don't.
People are often fascinated by the idea that everything repeats itself. This certainly applies to the seasons and the tide. Nevertheless, there are also things that do not go in cycles. If a pencil is used up, it never comes back. If you got a chance in life, the chance may possibly never be there again. The second law of thermodynamics even says that the entropy of the universe will steadily increase without any chance of ever being reversed [Wikipedia / Thermo]
Thus, if certain things repeat themselves, this does not mean that everything repeats itself. Just like the fact that some things do not repeat themselves does not allow us to conclude that nothing repeats itself.
In general, conclusions by analogy are difficult. They can only convince us that a rule holds for an unknown fact if that rule holds for all observed facts. However, in the case of ubiquous cycles, it is impossible to find a clearly defined rule that holds for all observed facts. And even if there was such a rule, it still would not need to be divine. Even if everything repeated itself, it would not allow us to conclude that a god existed.
We, as humans, seem to like universal, simple hypotheses. This may explain the appeal of the idea that "everything goes in cycles". However, these hypotheses are rarely true, see >ConceptOfSense.
- (1) matter gives rise to thought.
- (2) thought gives rise to matter.
The first problem is that the argument can be continued: If God (the thought) gave rise to this world (the matter), then it follows by (1) that there must be a matter that gave rise to God. This is usually denied.
Some people leave away (1) and postulate only (2): Thought gives rise to matter. Thereby, they deduce that a thought must have preceded our material world and they call this thought "God". We would first need to clarify what (2) means exactly. It can be read as "There exists matter that has risen from a thought". This claim is surely true, given that humans often plan and then construct things. However, this claim cannot be used to deduce that the world has risen from a thought, because it says only that some material things have risen from a thought — and our physical world may not be among them.
If we read (2) as "All matter has risen from
thought", the claim becomes much stronger — but ultimately hard to verify.
It is true that some material things have risen from thought (basically all
human creations). Yet there are numerous material things where we have no evidence
for a preceding thought (e.g. stones, trees or clouds). Interestingly, the
things where we do
This hypothesis (and in fact the whole idea of the dualism between thought and matter) is an example of an abstract universal hypothesis: It offers a simple all-embracing schema for our world, but it is so weakly defined and it has been generalized from so few evidence that it is of no use. These hypotheses are very popular, see >ConceptOfSense and the >Meaning of Life.
The argument goes as follows: In our everyday life, we make a natural distinction between living (conscious) and non-living (non-conscious) things. For example, a stone is a non-conscious thing, while a boy is conscious. When a boy throws the stone, we notice that the source of the flying stone is a conscious entity. Now, we observe that the wind blows. Should we not assume a conscious entity behind the wind, just as we assume a conscious entity behind the flying stone?
It is true that we observe conscious beings behind many events in life. However, this does not allow us to conclude that there are conscious beings behind every event in life — notably because the events obviously triggered by conscious beings are far less numerous than the events of which we do not know what triggered them. Thus, it seems implausible to postulate gods for all events, just because some of them are triggered by conscious beings.
Furthermore, all events in (macroscopic) nature can be predicted by the laws of science. The event-gods would be obeying these laws without exception. This would deprive them of arbitrariness, which is a crucial component of active consciousness. Last, these gods can be yoked by humans to move the electrons in a light bulb, to turn the axle in a diesel engine and to heat the food in a microwave. Thus, the gods would be in fact inferior to humans. Hence it seems more plausible to explain the events of nature by the laws of science than by conscious beings.
The idea that everything had some consciousness behind it seems to be driven in part by the human instinct to suspect human-ness in the phenomena of nature (see >SpiritOfNature). Furthermore, it is possibly the all-embracingness of this hypothesis that makes it so appealing (see >ConceptOfSense).
The argument goes as follows: We observe that all things in life have a certain sense: Chairs are made to sit on, cars to drive and the laws of nature have the purpose of holding the material world together. The sense behind this order in nature is God.
It is certainly true that most man-made things (such as chairs and cars) have a certain "sense". Here, sense has the meaning of purpose and ultimately refers to the intention of the maker. Atheists do not doubt this sense of man-made things. When it comes to the laws of nature, however, the only visible similarity to cars and other man-made things is that they have a certain effect on our lives. Sense, however, generally refers to something that precedes this effect. There are lots of things that have an effect on our lives (e.g. volcano eruptions, earthquakes) where nothing entitles us to suspect a "sense". This entails that there may be things that have an effect, but no sense.
We, as humans, seem to like universal, all-embracing hypotheses such as the above. However, these hypotheses are rarely useful; see >ConceptOfSense. Furthermore, we tend to assume human-ness in all phenomena of nature. This intuition may mislead us; see >SpiritOfNature .
This rather philosophical argument bases on the assumption that everything humans have a concept of must be derived somehow from a role-model in nature. The counterpart in nature for the human concept of sense is said to be God.
The assumption of this argument is fallacious: Not everything humans have a concept of needs a role-model in nature. Humans (and some animals) for example have developed the concepts of language, symbols and abstraction. We can be sure that the single-cell animals that preceded the living beings of today had no concept of abstraction. Thus, humans developed a concept for something that had no role-model in nature. Similarly, humans developed the concept of sense (which essentially means the intention of a behavior) without the need for a role-model.
The argument is an example for the proof of a conjecture by an abstract universal hypothesis ("Every human concept needs a role-model in nature"). The hypotheses used for such proofs tend to be so imprecise, that they cannot be proven to be false. This makes the proof appealing. However, the imprecision also entails that the hypotheses cannot be proven to be true either. Thus, they ultimately remain what they are: hypotheses. Due to their all-embracingness, they are even extremely strong hypotheses. Instead of being used to prove yet another hypothesis, they should be put into question themselves.
See also the question concerning the >Meaning of Life.
We observe that the environtamental damage we impose on the world sometimes contributes to natural disasters. Thus, nature appears like a conscious being who "fights back" if it is attacked. This perceived consciousness behind nature is attributed to God.
However, not everything that appears to behave in a human-like pattern has consciousness. Rivers, for example, always find the swiftest way to the ocean. Although this can be interpreted as a conscious search for the optimal way, it is simply a consequence of gravitation. Similar well-known mechanisms are the reasons for other natural phenomena, so that it would be an over-interpretation to suspect consciousness behind nature.
Apart from that, the mechanisms of nature are unfortunately too weak to counter all human activity. Pollution is proceeding relentlessly and species are dying out every day. It would be wrong to rely on the divine consciousness of nature to reverse this process.
Throughout the history of mankind, it has proven extremely important to understand and predict the behavior of fellow humans. It seems that we are now so focused on dealing with humans that we tend to give human traits to things even if we know that they are not human. Children, for example, often give human traits to cuddly toys and to physical objects. Even adults tend to talk about a computer like they talk about a friend. They will say things like "It did not want to read the CD" or "It tried to find the file" — even though a computer has neither desires nor intentions. Despite this metaphorical language, barely somebody suspects the computer to have consciousness. Similarly, metaphors simplify talking about phenomena in nature, but should not be taken as a proof of consciousness.
See also the question concerning the >Meaning of Life.
If God designed the world, then God must be at least as complex as the world. In fact, it is usually assumed that God is far more complex than the world. According to the argument, anything as complex as the world (or more complex than the world) must have been designed by an intelligent being. Hence, God must have been designed by an intelligent being.
This is usually denied by the followers of the Theory of Design. The reason could be that the designer of God must be again as complex as God. Thus, the designer of God must have been designed himself by some intelligent being. This creates an infinite sequence of intelligent beings who designed each other. This makes the Theory of Design seem implausible.
To break the loop in the Theory of Design (>Design1), we can assert that God designed the world, but that God does not need a designer.
Still, atheists find the theory of intelligent design not very convincing. This is not only because it involves the designer, but also because, to them, the "design of the world" seems flawed. Atheists observe a considerable amount of cruelty in the animal kingdom: Some spider species eat their mates, lions kill innocent baby lions when they take over a harem, and some wasps lay their eggs in their prey without killing it, so that the larvae eat their host slowly alive. In principle, all carnivore existence continuously tortures other animals. Atheists find it difficult to believe that an intelligent, benevolent and omnipotent designer has not found a less painful way to design life. Some species (such as the Neanderthal man or dinosaurs) simply died out. Again others exhibit a clearly non-perfect design (giraffes, for example, have a nerve that runs from the brain down the neck and then back up to get to the voice box under the throat). This is why, for atheists, the premise of the argument by intelligent design ("The world is perfectly designed") is not strong enough to justify the existence of God.
Atheists think that the world does not need a designer. In their view, this does away with the need for a god. Atheists cannot explain why the world should not need a designer. Likewise, theists cannot explain why God should not need a designer. Thus, both theories are equally unsatisfying. However, the Theory of Design adds a new entity. This gives rise to a questions ("Who is God?", "Why did he create the universe?" etc.). Thus, instead of solving the original question, the theory adds new questions. (see >Questions for a more general treatise).
Most atheists adhere to the theory of the Big Bang and evolution (henceforth the "theory of evolution"). Roughly speaking, this theory says that the universe started from a single point of infinite density. We admit that we do not know why this point was there. The single point of density expanded to become the universe. During this process, it happened by chance that the necessary ingredients and conditions for life were met on our planet. From this point on, natural laws and the principle of "survival of the fittest" shaped the world as we know it. In this view, the complexity of the world can be explained without the need for a designer.
Today, the majority of scientists accepts the theory of evolution. Of course, this alone does not make the theory of evolution true. However, scientists base their conclusions on facts that can be analyzed, questioned and verified. They see first the facts and then try to find an explanation — and not vice versa.
Fossils of humans in their different stages of evolutionary development. The left-most species was unable to speak [W] and did not walk fully upright [W].
At the
California Academy of Science.
It is sometimes argued that the theory of evolution is implausible because it says that humans are better developed species than other types of animals. In fact, the theory makes no such claim. It only says that each living animal is adapted to its environment. Some animals are less well adapted, because the environment changes faster than they can adapt (think of climate change). These animals are threatened by extinction. Other animals are better adapted to their environment (like ants, which seem to survive even most poisons). These animals will survive. In fact, ants may be better adapted to the changing enviroment than humans (which do not survive some toxic products of civilization). In summary, the theory of evolution does not say that humans are superior to other animals.
It might seem highly counterintuitive that the conditions for life could be met by chance. To counterbalance this intuition, consider the size of the universe (1022 stars in the observable universe alone) and its age (1010 years) [Wikipedia]. Of course, this informal argument does not prove the theory of evolution. However, it could make the theory less counterintuitive.
To some people, it seems an incredible coincidence that the conditions of life were met on exactly the planet we live on (and not on some other planet). The explanation to this coincidence is that our existence and the conditions of life are not independent variables. The conditions of life made it possible for us to evolve in the first place. Every conscious being will, by definition, find itself in an environment where the conditions of life are met. Being surprised about that is a little bit like being a flower that wonders why its seeds came exactly to a place where there is enough water and sun.
It is sometimes argued that a list of notable scientists supports the theory of design. This could be seen as an argument in favor of the theory, because these persons are supposed to have scientific evidence for the theory. However, the list of notable scientists who condemn the theory of design is much longer. The [ProjectSteve] maintains a list of scientists in favor of the Evolution Theory. They restricted themselves to scientists named "Steve". Scientists named "Steve" make up roughly 1% of all scientists. Still, the list features tens of thousands of names.
As a side-remark, the theory of design does not show why the designer of the universe should be the God worshipped by the monotheistic religions (and not some other god). Furthermore, the argument does not prove that the designer still exists. He might have ceased to exist after having designed the universe.
The idea that the world was designed seems to have its roots in our human instinct to assume human-ness: We assume a human-like creator just because we are used to the scheme of humans creating complex objects. This intuition, however, may fail; see >SpiritOfNature .
If everything has a cause, the question is: Who caused God? Commonly, the answer is that God is the only being that did not have a cause. This, in turn, contradicts the premise of the argument ("Everything has a cause").
To resolve the contradiction in the cosmological argument (>Cause1), we can restate it: Everything has a cause, except for God. Atheists, however, postulate: Everything has a cause, except for the universe. In this world view, God as the cause of the universe is not required.
Atheists cannot explain why the universe does not have a cause. Likewise, theists cannot explain why God should not have a cause. Thus, both theories are equally unsatisfying. However, the theistic theory introduces a new entity. This gives rise to new questions ("Who is God?", "Why did he create the universe?" etc.). Thus, instead of solving the original question, the theistic theory adds new questions (see >Questions for a more general treatise).
Some theists argue that God does not need a cause because he is outside the realm of time (see [AA]). The same argument is usually applied to the universe itself: There was no time in the beginning of the universe and thus it is meaningless to ask for its cause.
As a side-remark, note that the argument of the first cause does not show why the creator of the universe should be the God worshipped by the monotheistic religions (and not some other god). Furthermore, the argument does not prove that the creator still exists. He might have ceased to exist after the creation of the universe.
Unfortunately, the question for the ultimate reason (of anything) can never be answered. This is because, for every theory that explains one thing through another thing, one of the following cases applies:
- There is one thing in the theory that does not have a reason. This is unsatisfactory, because then the theory does not provide a reason for everything. If the thing that does not have a reason is God, then we can argue equally convincingly that the thing that does not have a reason should rather be the universe itself — which eliminates the explanatory necessity of God while being equally plausible. See >Cause2 for a discussion.
- There is a loop in the reasoning. This means that one thing X is the reason for some other things, which are then used as reasons for X. For example, it can be argued that "God loves us humans and hence he created us" and "Since God created us, he loves us". This reasoning seems to explain our existence, but it is circular and hence invalid. We could argue in a similar manner: "Everything that has an extension in space exists. Hence the universe exists." and "Since the universe exists, it has an extension in space.". This seemingly also explains our existence, but is as flawed as the theistic argument.
- The reasoning is infinite. In this case, every thing has as reason again a new thing and this sequence of things never ends. As the number of things in this universe and the existence of this universe is finite according to current scientific conviction (at least in the direction of the past), such an argument is unsatisfactory. In fact, theists also avoid it; see >Design1.
R0(x) := { x }
=> (∃ x: R1(x) = ∅) ∨ ~(∃ x: R1(x) = ∅)
=> ∀ x: R1(x) ≠ ∅
=> ∀ x,i: Ri(x) ≠ ∅
=> ( ∀ x,i: Ri(x) ∩ ∪j<i Rj(x) = ∅ ) ∨ ~( ∀ x,i: Ri(x) ∩ ∪j<i Rj(x) = ∅ )
=> ( ∀ x,i: Ri(x) ∩ ∪j<i Rj(x) = ∅ ) ∨ ∃ x,i: Ri(x) ∩ ∪j<i Rj(x) ≠ ∅
=> ( ∀ x,i: Ri(x) ∩ ∪j<i Rj(x) = ∅ ) ∨ ∃ x,i,y: y ∈ Ri(x) ∧ y ∈ ∪j<i Rj(x)
=> ( ∀ x,i: Ri(x) ∩ ∪j<i Rj(x) = ∅ ) ∨ ∃ x,i,y,j: y ∈ Ri(x) ∧ y ∈ Rj(x)
=> ( ∀ x,i: Ri(x) ∩ ∪j<i Rj(x) = ∅ ) ∨ ∃ z,k: z ∈ Rk(z)
=> ∀ x,i: |Ri(x) ∪ ∪j<i Rj(x)| > |∪j<i Rj(x)|
=> ∀ x,i: |∪j<i+1 Rj(x)| > |∪j<i Rj(x)|
=> ∀ x,i: |D| > |∪j<i Rj(x)| > i
=> ∀ i: |D| > i
At first glance, morality is just a restriction of personal liberty. Thus, there seems to be no raison-d'etre for morality in a god-less world. Throughout the evolution of mankind, however, it turned out that societies that did not have a moral codex were much less successful than societies that did. The restriction of personal liberty is outweighted quickly by the gains in security and trust, which in turn facilitate commitments, co-operation and task sharing. These benefits, to be sure, do not come immediately to the individual who decides to behave morally. But if all members of a group obey certain norms, they create a stable social environment, which ultimately benefits everybody.
A stable social environment promotes the survival of the group and ensures procreation. Hence, we can hypothesize that evolution favored those groups that had a concept of justice. This might be the reason why humans today seem to have some built-in sense of justice. This sense of justice is surely not evenly distributed. But most people abhor violence and most people feel compassion if they see somebody suffering.
Given, on an emotional level, this detastation of injustice and given, on a rational level, the desire for a stable environment, it is very natural for people to develop moral norms. Still today, societies that do have a functioning legal system and the rule of law are much more stable than societies that don't. It is interesting to observe that even supposedly lawless groups such as the Mafia, drug dealing gangs, groups of outlawed people and criminal gangs always develop rules for their members and punish offenders -- purely out of self-interest.
This is the atheistic response to the question of morality. A theistic response is that humans have to behave morally because God wants them to do so. From an atheistic point of view, it is deplorable that humans shall uphold justice because of respect for God. Rather, justice shall be upheld because of respect for the fellow human. Furthermore, the theistic answer just shifts the question by one instance: Why does God want us to behave morally? Or, by extension, why did God choose to be a good God? These questions are as difficult to answer as the original question. Last, this theory does not explain the other attributes commonly ascribed to God (omnipotence, omniscience etc.). See >Questions for a more general treatise.
See >BibleMoral for a treatise of Muslim and Christian Moral, see >Moral for an atheist's view on moral issues.
There is considerable debate about how mental abilities of humans are connected to the realm of physics, biology and chemistry. The exact relationship between body and soul is a conundrum for most atheists as well. Numerous explanations involving God have been proposed.
However, an explanation involving God raises more questions than it answers: How does God give us the ability to think? Why does he give more of it to some and less to others? Furthermore, such an explanation does not prove that this god is actually the God of the monotheistic religions (and not some other god). See >Questions for a more general treatise.
It is one of the fascinating (and sometimes frightening) facts of life that some things are just outside our control. A loved one may suffer an accident, a friend may fall terminally ill or you may win a million dollars in a lottery. These events are beyond our understanding, let alone influence. This unexplainable randomness in life makes some people believe that there must be some kind of superior being, who makes these things happen.
This is an understandable conjecture. It is assumed that the supreme coordinator makes things happen through his own decisions. These decisions cannot be influenced by humans. They are outside the realm of human comprehension. Thus, the very same problem appears again: Things happen that cannot be understood by humans. The arbitrariness of the supreme coordinator is itself a kind of randomness. It makes little difference whether humans are surrendered to the randomness of nature or to the arbitrariness of a supreme being.
Thus, the hypothesis of a god does not solve the problem. On the contrary: The hypothesis of a god creates numerous other questions ("How does God make these things happen?", "Where is this god?"). This is why atheists prefer to refrain from using a god as an explanation for the randomness. See >Question for a general treatise.
The assumption of a God to explain the randomness in life seems to be driven by the human instinct to suspect human-ness in the phenomena of nature; see >SpiritOfNature .
Here, the "Meaning of Life" is understood as the "Purpose of life" (see >Meaning for other readings). The purpose of a thing is ultimately the intention of its creator or user. Since atheism knows no creator, it cannot assign a purpose to life.
A belief in God, in contrast, does allow for the notion of a purpose of life: It is God's intention for our existence. Whatever this intention is, it is at least an understandable idea of the Meaning of Life.
Unfortunately, this solution just shifts the question: If our purpose is given by God, then who gives God purpose? In other words: Why does God exist? Here, the very same problem appears again, albeit on the divine level. Thus, defining the Meaning of Life through God just shifts the question, but does not solve it. Worse, additional may questions arise, leaving the atheist even more troubled than before ("How can God exist if he was not created?" etc.). See >Questions for a general treatise.
Throughout the history of mankind, it has proven useful to descry other people's intentions and to understand our own ones. It seems to be a human instinct that we always search for the purpose of things. Unfortunately, this instinct cannot be applied to everything. There are simply things that do not have a purpose: What, for example, is the purpose of an asteroid floating around light years outside of this galaxy? [Wikipedia / Meaning of Life] There is simply no purpose. Thus, there may be things that do not have purpose. For atheists, life itself is one of them. It is our futile search for purpose that creates a conundrum here that does not really exist in the first place. See also >SpiritOfNature
See >GivesMeaning for a treatise of religiously inspired Meanings of Life. See >Meaning for an atheistic answer to the meaning of Life.
It is true that many unclear phenomena could be explained through the existence of God (e.g. >Design2, >Cause2, >Morality, >Soul, >Randomness, >WhatMeaning, >Ultimate).
However, accepting a god as the cause of a phenomenon does not prove the existence of one specific good, because any god might be the cause of the phenomenon. In particular, it does not need to be the omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God of the monotheistic religions. Likewise, accepting a god as the cause of a phenomenon cannot be used to justify the believes, dogmata, values, practices, institutions and rituals of a particular religion. Thus, the claim is only that there exists some (unspecified) god.
However, in an atheist's view, explaining a phenomenon by a god just shifts the problem by one instance:
- The explanation "A god created the universe" entails the question "Who created the god?" or "Why does he not have a creator?". (>Design2, >Cause2)
- The explanation "A god wants us to behave morally" entails the question "Why does the god want us to behave morally?" or "Why did the god choose to be a good god?". (>Morality)
- The explanation "A god gives us soul and mind" entails the question "Why did he do that?" or "How did he do that?". (>Soul)
- The explanation "A god makes the things happen which we do not understand" entails the question "Why does he make these things happen?". (>Randomness)
- The explanation "God gives us the Meaning of Life" entails the answer "Who gave the Meaning of Life to God?". (>WhatMeaning)
Believers can point out that the concept of God is a monolithic concept that answers all of the above questions at once. So it suffices to believe one unproven thing (the existence of the Christian God) to answer all the questions of life with one strike. The concept of the Christian God, however, is not monolithic. It is a set of believes about different things (God created the universe, he is benevolent, he is omniscient, he wants us to behave in this way, etc.). Each of these things can be (and has been) questioned separately. Different people and different denominations believe different properties of their god(s) in order to answer the questions. For example, Hinduism has the concept of being born again, while Christianity has not. Christianity is only one of the possible (contradicting) answers. Thus, a belief in the Christian God means a belief in multiple dogmata. To an atheist, these dogmata are as unsatisfying as the original questions.
Thus, for an atheist, the theory of a god does not solve the problem. The existence of a god is just an additional unjustified assumption. To illustrate this, consider an example: Small children like playing the game of "Why". They simply always ask "Why?". Each answer entails again a "Why?" and the game continues until the unnerved parent finally says "Because it's like that". A theist can handle many questions that an atheist cannot answer, because he can answer with "Because God wants it that way". However, the next "Why" (namely why does God want that?) will finally force him to say "It's like that" as well. Thus, atheists would think that the "It's like that" is only postponed, but not avoided. See >Ultimate for a discussion.
Worse, the hypothesis of a god entails many other questions for an atheist ("Where is god?", "How does he interact with the world if he is not physical?"). (See >FFV for a list) Thus, instead of solving the original question, the assumption of god adds new questions. This is why atheists would not postulate the existence of a god to explain a phenomenon. Atheists prefer to admit that, up to now, we simply do not know the answer to everything.
Last, using a supernatural being as an explanation for the mysteries of life obstructs the search for scientific answers. If God is the answer to the questions of life, then it would be superfluous (or even blasphemic) to search for other answers. Therefore, atheists prefer to insist that these questions are unsolved — to inspire mankind to find scientific answers.
God's interactions with the world fall into different categories:
- Some people say they had personal contact with God. These claims are hard to verify. It is difficult to see them as a proof for God, because other people have claimed things that we will not believe (e.g. they have been visited by the ghost of Elvis). How can we distinguish true claims of personal contact from false claims of personal contact?
- Churches, religious celebrations and praying people are sometimes considered a result of God's interaction with the world. At a closer look, however, it turns out that these phenomena are not due to God, but due to the faith in God. Atheism does not question the existence of faith. It just questions the existence of God.
- Sometimes, it is said that God works wonders (such as weeping statues or miraculous healings). However, there is also considerable doubt about these wonders. Up to date, we do not know of a scientifically rigorous analysis of these events. Furthermore, even if a phenomenon is accepted as a miracle (i.e. something that cannot be explained by science), this does not imply that God caused the wonder. It may still be some other supernatural influence. It may also be a purely natural phenomenon that science does not yet cover. Thus, even miracles do not need to be a proof for God.
Positive experience with prayers is certainly an argument for God that convinces many people. People pray for recovery from illnesses, luck or success. Sometimes, these wishes become reality. This is seen as a proof for God.
It is undisputed that a prayer helps the praying person to prepare for upcoming difficulties, to think about their day, to discover and pronounce one's wishes and fears and to meditate about one's behavior.
It is also known that praying can have a positive effect on the prayer's health (see [Wikipedia / Prayer] ). However, this positive effect is independent of the gods the person prays to. It is also known that a patient's symptoms can be alleviated by an otherwise ineffective treatment, just because the individual believes that it will work (see [Wikipedia / Placebo Effect] for a treatise). As praying commonly implies this confidence, the success could be attributed either to God or to the Placebo effect. Given that we have two possible causes, we are not allowed to conclude that God exists.
It is also known that praying for an ill person can help, if the ill individual knows about it. However, some experiments also show that praying may aggravate the healing (see again [Wikipedia / Prayer] for references). Again, the evidence is too inconclusive to derive the existence of God.
It is surely possible that a wish that somebody prayed for becomes reality. However, the success may also have happened without the prayer. To find out whether a prayer has a true effect on the world (as it is claimed), one would need to show that praying increases the probability of the effect. This is not being done for several reasons:
- Religions usually discourage praying for something that has direct visible effects. (This allows sceptics to criticize that the religion fears a proof of ineffectiveness.)
- Nobody collects the cases where a prayer did not have the desired effect. These cases may be quite numerous: Consider the developing nations, where many people live in misery. These places happen to be among the most religious places on Earth. Thus, it may be assumed that every day, millions of people pray to God. Many of them will complain about their misery. Atheists remark that it does not seem as if their prayers were being heard.
In general, negative events are not ascribed to God in the Christian denominations. Illness, for example, is not seen as a punishment by God (inspired by [Bible / John 9]). In contrast, positive events, like healing from illness, are often ascribed to God (inspired by the Gospels, where Jesus heals people through divine power [Bible / Gospels]). Thus, no matter what happens, God's reputation cannot but increase. Positive events are seen as a proof of the effectiveness of prayers, whereas negative events are ignored. See the sideremark >SRnonFalsifiability at >Strength for thoughts on the psychological effect of this.
It is commonly pointed out that God himself decides whether to fulfill a wish or not. This decision is beyond the prayer's control, i.e. a prayer may be heard or may not be heard. Ultimately, this makes the prayer as effective as any wish, which may become true or not. Prayers would then be as effective as lucky charms, which also work sometimes and sometimes not. Hence, this evidence can not be used to prove the existence of God. (see also >Randomness)
In fact, people have always assumed that they can influence the world through spiritual rituals. People have danced to produce rain and they have sacrificed virgins to win a war. As we know today, none of these rituals ever had an influence on the world. Nevertheless, people have been convinced for centuries that they work.
One theory says that it is in the human nature to believe in God. We first observe that this does not make all people believe in the same way, let alone in the same gods. In particular, it is certainly not natural that everybody believes in the God of the monotheistic religions. Thus, we have to conjecture more generally instead that the belief in gods could be in the human nature.
We first note that, even if it is in the human nature to believe in gods, this does not mean that we have to support it. There are other things in the human nature that we do not support either (like the desire for power or the preference for chocolate). Thus, being in the human nature is no justification for appreciation.
It is even questionable whether the belief in gods is innate. Atheists for example are human without believing in gods. Children tend to believe in all sorts of things and correlations, but they typically give up supersticious believes at a certain age. The fact that some children do not give up the belief in God along with the belief in ghosts may be attributed to the parents' influence rather than the child's nature.
It is true that people are fascinated by the idea of a god. Even atheists may be fascinated by this idea. Nevertheless, this does not imply that a god exists. Through the centuries, people have been fascinated or even obsessed by magic and witchcraft. Nevertheless, both do not exist.
This is similar to the idea that God must exist because we have such a precise concept of him, see >Imagination.
The previous section has addressed claims that gods exist. This section treats doubts whether the scientific concept of truth is adequate for a discussion about gods.
Some people find that reason is not the right tool to talk about God. In this view, all rational arguments about the existence of God are vain. Catholicism, however, teaches that God can be grasped by reason [CCC / 1.1.1.36]. Therefore, the claim that God is outside the realm of human comprehension cannot be upheld in Catholicism.
If you do not share this official view of Catholicism, read on at the next question >OutsideComprehension2.
This implies that they are outside the the realm of science. Read on here >OutsideScience.
From a scientific point of view, the question is whether God has verifiable properties. If he created the universe, if he interacts with mankind, if he influences their thoughts or their destiny, then God has verifiable properties. In this case, science can be used to study his influence on the world. Up to now, science has not confirmed an influence of God.
By contrast, if God does not have a verifiable influence on the world, then he did not create the universe, he does not interact with mankind in any way and he has absolutely no influence on the world. Then, the question arises whether he exists at all. If something has no influence on the world, atheists consider it safe to assume that it does not exist. This applies e.g. to ghosts and dragons. Atheists see no reason why it should not apply to God. Read on at >Occam for a detailed treatise. See >Supported for a discussion of the scientific aspects. See the sideremark >SRnonFalsifiability at >Strength for hypotheses on the psychological effect of non-falsifiability in religion.
We can argue that belief in God is a purely personal experience. In this view, it would be wrong to argue about the objective existence of God.
Both Islam and Christianity maintain a claim of absoluteness, i.e. they assume that their religious truth is the only genuine one. Along with Sikhism, they see God as an absolute, objectively existing being. Thus, it is not possible to believe in God as subjective truth, because, by definition, believing in God implies you believe he is an absolute, objectively existing being.
If you do not share this official view of Islam, Christianity or Sikhism, read on at the next question >Subjective2.
It is true that people possess subjective truths (in the form of believes or feelings). In a believers' subjective truth, gods do exist. In an atheist's subjective truth, gods do not exist. Most atheists would consider this a very harmonious situation.
Unfortunately, things are not always like this. Often, one group of people starts imposing their subjective truth on other people, claims that people with other subjective truths will burn in hell or takes political influence. An atheist thinks people should not do that with subjective truths. If you agree, read on at >NoProblem1.
If you would like to know why gods do not exist in an atheist's subjective truth, read on at >Occam.
Many people dislike discussing about God and religion in general. However, both Islam and Christianity are proselytising religions. This means that believers have the duty to bring their faith to other people (see >BibleMoral for sources). This duty implies that they have to be willing to discuss about God.
The respective sources for the duty to be open to discussion are:
- Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.[Bible / 1 Peter 3:15]You shall invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind enlightenment, and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who has strayed from His path, and He knows best who are the guided ones.[Qur'an / 16:125]
If you do not share the official view of Islam or Christianity, read on at the next question >CantDiscuss2.
It is often argued that it is not possible to discuss about gods or faith. However, people apply this view mostly only to their own faith. Most people will happily discuss about natural religions, sects, superstition in Africa, mysticism or Scientology. This shows that a discussion about gods and faith is not only possible, but also quite common. Even if one person or the other does not discuss about faith at all, the fact that most others do shows that it cannot be impossible. In general, atheists can discuss about all faiths and gods, thus proving that it cannot be impossible.
It seems that the claim "It is impossible to discuss about a god" expresses an aversion to a discussion rather than the impossibility. Of course, nobody is forced to talk about his or her faith. In fact, many people prefer to retain their faith as a purely personal experience. There is nothing wrong with that, even though it does not mean that a discussion would be impossible.
If combined with a religion, a personal faith may have an influence on other people. The influence may be small (like Church bell ringing, Muezzin calls or public holidays), but it may also be of considerable intellectual impact (like claims of sole moral authority, condemnation of other people's believes or attempts to proselytise the world) and it may even hamper other people's lives (like religious legislation that discriminates against others, intervention in education or faith-based wars). In these cases, the religion is no longer a personal experience, but a system that penetrates everyday life for believers and non-believers alike. Nobody can expect the non-believer to just stand by without discussion.
It is a common claim that God does not need a proof. The problem is that there exist numerous other believes on Earth: Some people believe in witches, children believe in ghosts, different religious communities believe in different good and evil gods, numerous individuals believe in lucky charms.
If God does not need a proof, then there is no reason to expect that other believes need a proof. Thus, if we accept that something exists when somebody believes in it, all of the above creatures would exist. This would imply that we would have to change our lives considerably in order to obey the commandments of the good creatures and to protect ourselves from the bad creatures. It would also create a highly inconsistent world.
Why should your belief be absolutely right and all others wrong? This view would be highly intolerant. If you are of this opinion in spite of that, read on at >Occam.
This may be true. However, this observation does not force us to uphold this faith. We can simply abandon both the faith and the belief in God.
Concerning weak atheism, there is no burden of proof to be distributed. Weak atheism is not a belief, but the absence of belief. Asking a weak atheist to prove his view is like asking you to prove that you do not believe in Khonvoum (see >Strong).
Strong atheism, in contrast, is a belief. Thus, one might demand a proof for the claim that gods do not exist. This has nothing to do with "normality", though. Sure, theism is sometimes considered more normal, because a majority of the world's population believe in a god. However, if something is normal, it does not mean it is true (see >90). Thus, everybody who is interested in truth should seek for evidences — independently of whether the majority of people believes in something or not. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies on those who care.
One could even argue that the burden of proof lies on theists. This is because it is extremely easy to claim something that can only be disproven with an immense amount of effort. (Citing from [Rejection / Definition of Atheism]:) Suppose someone comes up to you and say "I believe there are three headed flying snakes in Jupiter. If you cannot prove me wrong, then my belief is as valid as yours." Given that there is no reason for these snakes to exist and given that it would be extremely complicated (or even impossible) to prove that these snakes do not exist, we would ask the snake-believer for evidence for these snakes — and not the sceptic for counterevidence.
It has been argued that we cannot be sure whether the physical system in which we perceive ourselves really exists. There could be no such system at all. There could be also multiple such systems. Then, our sensations would be just impressions. We cannot verify whether there are other realities and how our impressions relate to these other realities.
As we have no way of escaping our reality, no way of perceiving other realities and no way of determining whether there exist other realities, the existence of other realities is completely irrelevant in everyday life. Thus, it seems best to confine ourselves to our reality.
As a matter of fact, all readers of this essay live in my reality. Consequently, they are invited to discuss the concept of atheism in this reality, as all other realities (should they exist) are irrelevant to us.
Logical proofs and scientific proofs are so popular, because they can predict truth. For example, if it has been proven by the laws of science and logic that a stone dropped from a tower will fall down, then the stone will indeed fall down. This predictive power makes science and logic highly useful. If you have an alternative technique that can predict facts with verifiable certainity, you are invited to propose it.
If you have no alternative technique of predicting unknown things with verifiable certainity, then your arguments will not convince people — simply because the arguments may not lead to true conclusions. (See [Wikipedia / Scientific method] for details)
If you do not wish to bring arguments for your faith at all, read on here >NoDiscussion1.
Followers of Islam and Christianity have the duty of communicating their faith to others (see >CantDiscuss1 for sources).
If you do not share the official view of Islam or Christianity, read on at the next question >NoDiscussion2.
Nobody is forced to discuss about his or her faith (except if the faith requires it, see the >CantDiscuss1). If you have some questions or objections to atheism, you are invited to read the respective sections of this essay. If you have no such questions or objections or if you have them and do not wish to talk about them, you can stop reading this document anytime you wish.
The problem is that it is your duty to convince me of your faith (see >CantDiscuss1).
If you do not share the official view of Islam or Christianity, read on at the next question >NoProblem2.
There is no problem. I assume that you are reading this essay not because there is a problem, but because you would like to know more about atheism.
Many believers observe that their belief has a number of positive effects on their lifes. This section will argue that the positive effects of religion can also be achieved (with less overhead) by secular alternatives.
This is true. Most religions comprise of a multitude of values, including moral values, social values, spiritual values and ritual values. Atheism, by contrast, is just the absence of a belief in supernatural beings. This definition does not entail any values. Atheism is, in its most general sense, not even a belief. Implicit atheists do not even know that they are atheists. Thus, we may not expect any social or moral dimension from atheism.
It may seem inconvenient that atheism does not offer any values. However, this does not mean that atheists cannot have values. It just means that their values are not determined by their atheism. An atheist may even choose to observe principles that have a religious origin. (See >SecConstructive for atheistic values)
It may be criticised that the free choice of life dimensions makes an atheist's life look like a patchwork, whereas a religion can offer a coherent whole. Atheists, however, usually prefer to have the free choice rather than being obliged to accept a whole.
It is true that, if atheism is not complemented by social and cultural dimensions, it may be unsatisfactory. If atheism is not complemented by a moral dimension, it is reproachable. The following questions will treat each dimension of religion and compare it to the secular alternatives that atheists have.
You may also have look at >SecConstructive for constructive aspects of atheism.
Unfortunately, the messages of the Koran and the Bible are often less clear than it may seem. Both the Bible and the Koran suffer from a number of inconsistencies if read painstakingly literally (see [SkepticsBible], [BibleAnalysis] and [SkepticsKoran]). Interpretative reading and a more abstract form of understanding is necessary to resolve these supposed contradictions. For the Bible, the problem is also that it has been altered throughout the course of history (see >BibleHoly). For the Koran, the difficulty seems that it employs a poetic and metaphoric language, so that consultation of context and potentially other verses in other chapters is necessary to understand a given verse [Wikipedia / Koran]. Hence, it is a common assumption nowadays that the books have not to be taken literally sentence by sentence. Thereby, a certain degree of interpretation becomes a part of reading the holy books. The next section lists some of these different interpretations.
- For the Bible
- The Ten Commandments have been interpreted as either prohibiting the depiction of an "idol" [Wikipedia / Ten Commandments / English translation] or prohibiting the deptiction of God [Wikipedia / Ten Commandments / German translation]. These are two different readings.
- Verses that talk about the "beginning and the end of the world" have traditionally been interpreted as suggesting that the Earth is flat. This interpretation was later changed, when people sailed around the world and thus proved that it was round. In this case, people have misinterpreted the Bible.
People also have different interpretations concerning the Theory of Evolution. Some people are convinced it is incompatible with the Bible. Others see no conflict [Wikipedia / Creation-evolution controversy]. Independently of whether the theory is true or false, people derive strong, but different views from the Bible. - [Bible|Torah / Leviticus 20:13] talks about homosexuality:
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."This seems to mean that homosexuals shall be executed. However, this is not necessarily the modern interpretation. Rather, the positions towards homosexuality differ today [Wikipedia / Table of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality]. In this case, different positions are being derived from the book.
- Some Christian denominations proscribe celibacy for priests (following [Bible / Matthew 19:11-12]) while others don't (following [Bible / 1 Timothy 3:5]: "If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?"). Two contradictory positions are deduced from the same book.
- In [Bible / Matthew 28:16-20], Jesus talks about spreading the faith:
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. 20 And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."From these verses, Christianity derives what is called "The great commission" (see [Wikipedia / Great Commission]). It is the duty to bring Christianity to other people. In times of the Inquisition, this instruction has been interpreted so as to justify any degree of force — with thousands of people tortured or killed. Nowadays, however, the part with "all authority" is interpreted in a more limited way and torture and killing are no longer considered valid means of spreading the faith (see picture).
The current interpretation of the Bible prohibits torture. Church in San Francisco.
- In general, the attitude towards force has changed. While the Bible was used some centuries ago to justify witch burning and the Crusades, it is used today to advocate tolerance and peaceful co-existence of the peoples — which is a different message.
As a concrete example, look at the numerous behaviors that carry the death penalty in the Bible (if it is read literally). These behaviors include sorcery, homosexuality, fortune telling, and worshipping another god [EvilBible / Murder]. While, in the Middle Ages, these verses were understood as the instruction to kill those deemed guilty, that is no longer the case today. Different readings of the Bible have lead to killings and to tolerance, respectively.- [Bible / Colossians 3:22-25] talks about slaves:
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.This has traditionally been seen as a justification for slavery. The Ten Commandments, either, do not prohibit kidnapping a person. Hence, slavery was accepted and supported by Christian leaders during centuries, see [Rejection / Slavery]. Nowadays, however, slavery is seen as a contradiction with the value of neighborly love. Therefore, current Christian denominations denounce slavery. The commandment of neighborly love has always been there in the Bible. Its interpretation, however, changed. - In [Bible / Matthew 28:16-20], Jesus talks about spreading the faith:
- For the Koran
- The verse [Koran / 33:59], which talks about the clothing requirements for women, has led to the following English translations:
- only breast and bosom should be covered [Koran / Muhammad Sarwar]
- a chador is to be worn [Koran / Ali Quli]
- the arms are also to be covered [Koran / Amatul Omar]
- the curvatures have to be hidden [Koran / Bijan Moeinian]
- everything except for the eyes is to be covered [Koran / Hilali Khan, Koran / Faridul Haque]
- the instruction is omitted completely [Koran / En Muhammad Sarwar]
- the clothing instructions apply when the woman is in public [Koran / Ali Quli]
- they apply when she is abroad [Koran / Marmaduke Pickthall]
- they apply when she is with relatives [Koran / Ali Unal]
- The Koran tells the story of the creation of the world in 6 time-units. This is sometimes seen as a proof that the Theory of Evolution (and notably the descent of the human race from the apes) is not true. Therefore, some Islamic countries prohibit teaching Evolution in school. Other people see no contradiction between the Koran and the Theory of Evolution. In Egypt, Evolution is taught in school [Wikipedia / Creation Evolution Controversy / Islamic Countries]. Independently of whether the theory of Evolution is right or wrong, we observe that some people interpret the Koran in a way that disallows the theory, while others interpret the Koran in a way that allows the theory.
- The stance towards people who decide to abandon their faith is discussed in [Qur'an / 2:217]:
"[...] And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein."By many muslim scholars (and their governments), this verse is seen as a justification for capital punishment for people who whish to abandon their faith [Wikipedia / Apostacy in Islam]. Other interpretations say that this has to be seen in the context of [Qur'an / 2:256], which seems to suggest that there is no compulsion in religion [Wikipedia / Apostacy in Islam / Opposition to Execution]. In this case, different conclusions are drawn from the holy book.
- Verse [Qur'an / 5:35] seems to suggest that thiefes should be punished by amputation:
As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.Similarly, Verse [Qur'an / 24:2] seems to prescribe flogging for adultery. While this is implemented in some Muslim countries, it is not implemented in all, suggesting that different interpretations exist [Wikipedia / Sharia / Contemporary practice].
- Verse [Qur'an / 2:223] talks about the relationship between men and women:
Your wives are your tilth; go, then, unto your tilth as you may desire, but first provide something for your souls, and remain conscious of God, and know that you are destined to meet Him. And give glad tidings unto those who believe.This verse, together with other verses, is often interpreted as a justification for supressing women (see >BibelMoral). Other verses, however, stress the equality of men and women. Therefore, positions towards the equality of sexes differ, from conservative views (such as in Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to drive a car) to moderate views (such as in Algeria, where men and women enjoy equal rights, but muslim women are not allowed to marry non-muslim men) and liberal views (such as in Tunisia, which grants equal rights to men and women). Discussions include whether certain types of testimony should not be accepted from women, whether rape requires 4 witnesses or not, whether honor killings are justified or not, and whether a women can marry a non-muslim man or not [Wikipedia / Women in Islam].
- Verse [Qur'an / 2:178] talks about slaves:
O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.This verse, and other verses about slavery, as well as some Hadiths that mention slavery, have traditionally been seen as a justification for slavery. Until the 19th century, slaves were common in Muslim lands [Wikipedia / Slavery in Islam]. Nowadays, however, attention has turned to another verse [Qur'an / 4:92], which sees freeing a slave as a sign of goodwill. This, in turn, has lead to the interpretation that slavery is something bad. Today, this is the mainstream interpretation in Muslim countries. Again, different conclusions have been drawn from the book over time.
- The verse [Koran / 33:59], which talks about the clothing requirements for women, has led to the following English translations:
This suggests that different people interpret the same book in different ways. This divergence has a geographic dimension (with different countries crafting different legislation), a temporal dimension (with different societies in history implementing different rules) and a personal dimension (with different people in the same society and at the same time drawing different conclusions). Over the past centuries, and also today, people have interpreted the books in various ways. There are 20,800 different Christian denominations [Rejection / Variants]. They draw slightly different conclusions from the Bible. Analogously, the Muslim denominations, communities and countries sometimes arrive at different conclusions from the Koran (see [Wikipedia / Islamic schools and branches] for a list). If a book gives rise to different interpretations and to disputes about its "real intention", then we have to be cautious as to what is the right interpretation.
Had the books been more explicit, they would not have been misinterpreted. Consider for example the phrasing that secular sources used to abolish slavery:
- Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.(13th Amendment to the American Constitution)
- No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.(Article 4 of the Human Rights)
- All Slaves [...] shall from and after the passing of this Act be absolutely and entirely free to all Intents and Purposes whatsoever.(Abolition of Slavery Act of the UK)
Despite the different interpretations, people are convinced that their own interpretation is the right one. Scholars and laymen alike can find prooves in the books to show that what they believe is the right interpretation. The believes of millions of other people, and thousands of years with other viewpoints, are dismissed as wrong. Yet, how can we be sure that the current interpretation is the right one — and not the medieval one or another one that is still to come? Atheists find it surprising that people uphold their own interpretation against other interpretations, but do not consider that the reason for the variety of interpretations might be that the holy books are ambiguous.
The fact that the holy books allow for different interpretations can be seen as a proof of their flexibility. A guideline that can be interpreted in different ways is able to adapt to different epochs. However, if a guideline allows two contradictory interpretations, then, in the end, it is up to the reader to decide for one of them. For example, if the guideline allows both the interpretation that slavery is allowed and the interpretation that slavery is prohibited, then it is up to the reader to decide what to do with slavery. If it is up to the reader to decide, however, then the guideline is superfluous. Worse, it puts an additional burden on the reader, because, apart from deciding what is the right thing to do in life, he has to find a justification for his decision in the guideline. Thereby, attention is distracted from the real subject to the discussion of whether the interpretation of the guideline is correct.
If we take the holy books as a guide, then there is no incentive to change the current interpretation. The books do not tell us when a new epoch and a new interpetation would be appropriate. Consequently, the books have a tendency to secure the current status quo. The change of mind concerning slavery, the status of women or Evolution did not come from within the books. It came from independent thinking. But whenever someone indulges independent thinking, he has to make sure not just that his thoughts are reasonable and good, but also that he can find a suitable interpretation in the books and that he can convince people of this interpretation. This may be difficult, because usually the new interpretation is something less obvious than the old interpretation, which causes resistance. Therefore, the books have acted not as a motor of progress, but as an additional hurdle in the issues of slavery, the status of women and evolution.
Certainly, secular values and theories also change over time. This is known and appreciated, because secular values and theories are believed to be the results of human insights and these insights may improve over time. If a law no longer seems right, it is changed. If a scientific theory has been proven wrong, it is abandoned. In contrast, religious values are promoted as absolute and divine. Questioning religious values is not encouraged — entailing that religious values often lag behind secular ones by some centuries.
Atheists believe that people should think by themselves — without the need to justify their thoughts with holy books.
See >Values for a discussion of values in general. See >SameGod for a discussion of the concepts of God.
See [Dwindling / Killings by God] for a list of killings performed by God in the Old Testament. For other atrocities in the Old Testament, see [EvilBible / Evil Bible]. For a discussion of a hypothetical reason for joining the Old and the New Testament, see >SRsuccession.
Over the centuries, religions have given people both a set of values and a strong incentive to follow them. In the Christian world and the Muslim world, the Bible and the Koran, respectively, have made considerable contributions to civilization and still shape moral understanding today. This makes some people think that the Bible or the Koran still provide a clear moral guidance for today.
Critics see two problems with taking the holy books as moral guidance. The first is that the values promoted in the books could be vulnerable to interpretation. The second is that the values may be in conflict with modern values. The following paragraphs will elaborate on these problems and then propose a solution.
This human interpretation is achieved by the Sharia in Islam, Canon Law in Christianity and Halakha in Judaism. Once we move over to human interpretation, however, it is difficult to say whether a conclusion is really the conclusion intended by the holy book or merely the opinion of the interpreters. Once interpretation slips in, it may be possible that we, as humans, misinterpret the holy book. In an atheist's view, this questions the claim that religious values would be absolute or divine.
The problem of interpretation becomes more evident for the Bible, when one looks at the numerous biblical values that are not obeyed at all [CafeteriaChristianity, EvilBible]:
- People enjoy religious paintings that show God even though this is prohibited in certain translations of the Ten Commandments [Wikipedia / Zehn Gebote].
- Some Christian denominations let women speak in church, although
this is prohibited in [Bible / 1 Corinthians 14:34-35].
- Misbehaving children are not stoned to death as requested in [Bible / Deuteronomy 21:18-21].
- Women who had premaritial sex are not stoned to death as required by [Bible / Deuteronomy 22:13-21].
- People who pick up firewood on Sabbath days are not stoned to death as requested by [Bible / Numbers 15]
- People eat crabs although [Bible / Leviticus 11:10] identifies shellfish as an abomination to God.
- People wear cloths made of different materials, even though [Bible / Leviticus 19:19] states "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
- People charge interest on loans, even though [Bible / Deuteronomy 23:19] prohibits it.
- Misbehaving children are not stoned to death as requested in [Bible / Deuteronomy 21:18-21].
In fact, people make active use of interpretational freedom. See the previous question >Clear for a survey of different interpretations that have been drawn from the Koran and the Bible.
To an atheist, these considerations suggest that we cannot be sure whether the values that we see in the holy books are really the values that were intended. Thus, we have to be careful with claiming that certain values would be divine.
Worse, some of the values that people read in the Koran or in the Bible are in friction with modern values. The Sharia, for example, was found to be unacceptable for a democratic society because of its hostility to democracy, human rights and public freedom (Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights [ECHRSharia]). Here are some examples for debatable values that people read in the Koran and in the Bible. Since the interpretation of the holy books differs (see >Clear), we focus here on interpretations that either (1) seem obvious to a laymen reader and have therefore been upheld throughout long periods of history or (2) are still actively upheld today by at least one denomination:
- The prohibition of interfaith marriage
- Bible:
- Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteouness? And what communion has light with darkness?[Bible / 2 Corinthians:14]
-
- Koran:
- O ye who believe! When believing women come unto you as fugitives, examine them. Allah is best aware of their faith. Then, if ye know them for true believers, send them not back unto the disbelievers. They are not lawful for them (the disbelievers), nor are they the disbelievers lawful for them. And give them the disbelievers that which they have spent (upon them). And it is no sin for you to marry such women when ye have given them their dues. And hold not to the ties of disbelieving women; and ask for (the return of) that which ye have spent; and let the the disbelievers ask for that which they have spent. That is the judgment of Allah. He judgeth between you. Allah is Knower, Wise.[Koran / 60:10]
-
- Bible:
- Proselytism, i.e. the duty to convince others of one's faith
- Bible:
- 16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. 20 And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."[Bible / Matthew 28:16-20]14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. 15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."[Bible / Mark 16:14-18]
-
- Koran:
- Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance."[Qur'an / 16:125]
-
- Bible:
- The condemnation of homosexuality
- The Koran wants homosexuals to be punished by death or
whipping:
- "Against those of your women who commit adultery, call witnesses four in number from among yourselves; and if these bear witness, then keep the women in houses until death release them, or God shall make for them a way. And if two (men) of you commit it, then hurt them both; but if they turn again and amend, leave them alone, verily, God is easily turned, compassionate."[Qur'an / 4:20-21]
- The Bible wants homosexuals to be punished by death:
-
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."[Bible|Torah / Leviticus 20:13]"Do not have sexual relations with a man as you would with a woman; that is detestable."[Bible|Torah / Leviticus 18:22]
-
"Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."[Bible / Romans 1:26-27]"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"[Bible / Corinthians 6:9]
-
- The Koran wants homosexuals to be punished by death or
whipping:
- The supression of women
- Bible:
- 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her[Bible / Ephesians 5:22-24]1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. 7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.[Bible / 1 Peter 3:1-6]1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. 2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. 3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head — it is just as though her head were shaved. 6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. 11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice — nor do the churches of God.[Bible / 1 Corinthians 11:1-16]As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[Bible / 1 Corinthians 14:34-35]18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. 20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. 21 Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged. 22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.[Bible / Colossians 3:18-25]
- 13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.[Bible / Deuteronomy 22:13-21]
-
- Koran:
- Your wives are your tilth; go, then, unto your tilth as you may desire, but first provide something for your souls, and remain conscious of God, and know that you are destined to meet Him. And give glad tidings unto those who believe.[Qur'an / 2:223]Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient.[Qur'an / 4:34]As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them first, next, refuse to share their beds, and last beat them lightly; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means of annoyance: For Allah is Most High, great above you all."[Qur'an / 4:34]
-
- Bible:
- Acceptance of Slavery:
- Bible:
- 1 "These are the laws you are to set before them: 2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. 5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. 7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.[Bible / Exodus 21:1-7]22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.[Bible / Colossians 3:22-25]9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.[Bible / Titus 2:9-10]18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.[Bible / 1 Peter 2:18]
-
- Koran:
-
O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.[Qur'an / 2:178]Allah has bestowed His gifts of sustenance more freely on some of you than on others: those more favoured are not going to throw back their gifts to those whom their right hands possess, so as to be equal in that respect. Will they then deny the favours of Allah?[Qur'an / 16:71]And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer except by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave, and blood-money should be paid to his people unless they remit it as alms; but if he be from a tribe hostile to you and he is a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (suffices), and if he is from a tribe between whom and you there is a convenant, the blood-money should be paid to his people along with the freeing of a believing slave; but he who cannot find (a slave) should fast for two months successively: a penance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.[Qur'an / 4:92]And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.[Qur'an / 24:32]
In Koran, the freeing of a slave is seen as a sign of goodwill. However, the Koran has been interpreted for centuries so as to allow slavery. A guideline should be so clear on these matters that it cannot be misinterpreted in such a fundamental way [Wikipedia / Slavery in Islam].
-
- Bible:
- Condemnation of Apostasy (turning away from the faith)
- For Koran:
- "[...] And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein."[Qur'an / 2:217]
- For the Bible:
- 6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.[Bible / Deuteronomy 13:6-11]
- For Koran:
Proponents of the holy books may object that there are many passages in the Koran and the Bible that stress tolerance and equal rights, thus implementing by and large the human rights. On the other hand, we can argue that, if the Koran or the Bible shall be "moral guidances", it is unacceptable that they seem to promote tolerance in one verse and condemn it in another. If they do not promote the basic rights actively and consistently, they should not be considered absolute guidelines in ethic matters.
Proponents may also argue that the holy books do enforce the Human Rights, but just in a more subtle way. For example, they do not ban slavery explicity, but implicitly through the commandment to love your neighbor (in the Bible) or the advice to free slaves (in the Koran). The conclusion that slavery is banned, however, is a modern interpretation (it dates roughly to the 15th century for Christianity and the 19th century for Islam [Wikipedia / Slavery in Islam, Slavery in Christianity]). During hundred of years, millions of people thought that slavery was accepted or even justified in their holy books. Modern interpretation holds that these people misinterpreted the holy books. Yet, the very fact that the books could be misinterpreted in such a fundamental way makes them untrustworthy in atheist eyes. (See >Clear for a discussion.)
We may argue that the holy books do not provide a prescription for the ideal world, but rather show us a path to how the world should be. For example, the Koran does not ban slavery, but it awarded slaves for the first time the status of humans. Thereby, the Koran drastically improved the status of slaves. (A similar observation can be made for the status of women.) This can be seen as a first step towards a society where slaves are no longer slaves. In this view, it is up to us to extrapolate this initial hint given by the Koran. The problem is that everybody can extrapolate them in different directions. If the directions were clear, people would not have needed 1500 years to find them. Some things are also very hard to extrapolate (e.g., the instruction to wear veils). Furthermore, if the holy books only point the direction, this means that their literal word is becoming obsolete over time.
Many people argue that the holy books have to be seen in the light of their time to understand them. All Muslim people with whom the author of the present essay has had the pleasure to talk, for example, stress that the Koran emphasizes the role of human rational thinking when applying its principles to life. This idea appeals to atheists and could point to a way out.
These values, seen from a secular point of view, have given rise to a philosophy of secular values. See >Moral for a discussion of secular values and their differences to religious values.
The "Meaning of Life" is mostly understood as the "Purpose of one's life" (see >Meaning for a treatise of different readings). The "purpose" of a being can be intepreted as the intention of its creator. In this sense, the "Meaning of your Life" would be what your creator or your supervisor wants you to do. This way, a religion allows its adherents a Meaning of Life, whereas atheists enjoy no such comfort.
Religions offer multiple answers to the Meaning of Life. Let us take a look at the most common ones:
- People exist to love their neighbors / People exist to live a moral lifeMost religions consider it the purpose or at least the duty of human beings to behave morally. This view is nothing specific to religions: Even though their motivations may differ, virtually all world views, including humanist atheism (see >Moral), want humans to behave morally. Thus, this Meaning of Life applies to atheists and believers alike.
- People exist to worship and love GodSome religions assume that God created humans to praise him. This view is e.g. shared by the abrahamic religions (Christianity: [Bible / Mark 12:28-31]; Islam: [Qur'an / 51:56]; Judaism: The Shema [Bible|Torah / Deut 6:4-9]). These religions also assert that God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. If we were created with the purpose of praising God, then it seems to atheists that we would be a kind of worship slaves. We would be the toys of an almighty being. Why does an almighty God create some creatures that have to play theatre for him? The abrahamic religions teach that God hampered our task deliberately by subjecting us to earthly pains and by making us inclined to doubt. Atheists find this observation hard to reconcile with his benevolence. Why do people on Earth have to suffer from misery only to ensure that an almighty God gets his devotion?People exist to reach HeavenThis view appears predominantly in the abrahamic religions. It says that Heaven should be our ultimate goal and that our life on Earth is our qualification for entrance. Although this is currently not the official view of the grand Christian denominations, it has been an influential view in the past and is still commonly encountered today (search the Web for "Meaning of Life"). If the goal of our lives lies in the afterlive, then life on Earth is just an intermediate stage in our life, which we should overcome as quickly as possible. This entails that the importance of our earthly life dwindles. Furthermore, compared to Heaven, life on Earth is unpleasant and cumbersome. As an unofficial Christian-oriented Web page puts it [MOL]:"God, in his infinite goodness, has arranged a way for us to return to Paradise. All it requires is a short stay in this hard world of temptation and pain."This Meaning of Life inspires a view of life as an unpleasant, temporary and unimportant step — which seems deplorable, given the joys that life offers to those who love it.Life is a big test for the afterlifeIn this view, life is a sequence of temptations and we as humans are to resist them. If we succeed, we may go to Heaven. To atheists, it is unclear why God would want to test his own creatures — given that he is omniscient and knows the outcome anyway. This view of the world as a test allows sceptics to compare our earthly existence to a dog-fighting scenario, where we are left to fight each other for the entertainment of a divine spectator.People exist to be fruitful, and multiply; fill the earth, and subdue itThis view is assumed by Christianity [Bible / Genesis 1:28]. Species that do not multiply die out. Hence all species that have survived until today have an inclination to multiply. Hence humans have an inclination to multiply. Hence it is futile to prescribe being fruitful as a purpose for our lives: It is not the purpose, but the cause of our existence.People exist to "play" the game of lifeThis notion is e.g. found in Hinduism, where it is known as the principle of "lila" (literally, "play"). It explains the universe as a cosmic puppet theater, in which people are assigned roles by the gods [Wikipedia / Lila]. Unfortunately, these roles are beyond human control in Hindu philosophy. Thus, this world view tells us that our lives have meaning, but it does not tell us which meaning. See also >Randomness
Looking more closely, though, God's love is very conditional. First, it generally applies only to those who believe in him. Should you consciously decide to abandon his path, his love ceases. This contrasts with human love: A person who truely loves you will continue to like you (or even love you) if you abandon that person. Thus, God's love does not stand for genuine affection for the person. Rather, it functions as a reward for following him [Wikipedia / Classical Conditioning]. Worse, you are punished if you do not accept this love. The literal readings of the Bible and the Koran (see >Clear) both designate non-believers to hell:
- Bible:
- 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.[Bible / John 3:16-21]
- Koran:
- Surely, those who disbelieve after their believing, then increase in unbelief, their repentance shall not be accepted, and these are they that go astray.[Koran / 3:90]
- He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement.[Koran / 16:106]
Religious communities often support hospitals, kindergardens and social centers. Thus, they make a contribution to the social services of a nation.
It is true that this contribution is often valuable. However, especially when it comes to education, consultation for pregnant women or help to the distressed, atheists pont out that the ideological dimension of this contribution should not be neglected. Children and people in need are especially vulnerable to taking over ideas without challenging them, so that the social service, besides its contribution to society, may have a missionary effect. This, in turn, might not be desired by the receivers or their legal guardians.
There also exist secular humanitarian organizations. Atheists can support these organizations instead of religious ones, thereby making their contribution to the welfare of their country. In Germany, for example, one national group that offers secular social services is the Humanistischer Verband Deutschlands ([HVD], [Wikipedia / HVD]).
People who support a religious group merely because of its charity services could think about supporting secular organizations instead, because usually only a fraction of the capital of a religious group goes to charity. In Germany, for example, the big churches are financed by a membership fee, which is collected by the state in form of a tax on behalf of the churches. In the Catholic church, only a fifth of the money is used for social services [BistumMainz]. Catholic or Protestant hospitals do not get money at all [Kirchensteuer]. This is not to criticize the church. It is the right of the church to do with its membership fees whatever it considers reasonable. It is just to point out that the tax does not go only to the social services, as some people think.
See >Charities for a discussion of religious services to the community by means of charities.
Unfortunately, as we know, this has not always been the case. In the past, religion has been used to justify such detestable things as witch burning or the Inquisition. And it is still not the case everywhere. Way too often, religion is used as a reason for dispute, discrimination, or even war. We may argue that these are deplorable misinterpretations of the true (peaceful) messages that most religions are based on (see >Clear).
Still, even if we take the peaceful, forgiving and kind messages, religion can lead to tolerance and acceptance, but not to true equality among people. This is because religions typically draw a boundary between their adherents and the non-adherents. Even in today's tolerant religions, this boundary is systematically fortified:
- Adherents are typically not encouraged to, and in most cases even punished for changing their faith. (see [Wikipedia / Apostacy] and >BibleMoral)
- Adherents are typically not allowed to marry adherents of other faiths (see [Wikipedia / Interfaith marriage] and >Marry).
In a truly harmonious world, people would regard one trait that is dictated by chance as good as any other such trait. For example, few people would have the idea of forbidding brown-eyed people to marry black-eyed people. Or to forbid green-eyed people from putting blue-eyed contact lenses. Yet, this is what the above rules do. Thus, while it is true that most modern religions foster tolerance among the peoples, it is also true that they do not aim for true equality and compatibility across faiths.
However, it is not obvious that the effect of religion on society would be automatically positive. If religiosity can be measured at all, then countries that are more religious (see map at [Wikipedia / Religiosity]) tend to be
- more corrupt (see map at [Wikipedia / Corruption by country])
- poorer (see map at [Wikipedia / Poverty])
- less developed (see map at [Wikipedia / Human development index])
- less democratic (see map at [Wikipedia / Democracy index])
- less free (see map at [Wikipedia / Press Freedom Index])
- less peaceful (see map at [Wikipedia / Global Peace Index])
- with less life expectancy (see map at [Wikipedia / Life expectancy])
The reason for the problems of these countries is probably not lack of religious seriousness or devotion. Religious education is often compulsory in religious countries, people spend much time with religious devotion (in Egypt, e.g., on average 40 minutes a day [Economist / 2010-07-15 / Special report on Egypt: Saving Faith]) and we may assume that most people obey religious rules such as praying and food restrictions. Still, people are not more healthy than atheist people, they do not live longer than non-religious folks and they are not more honest or less corrupt. We can certainly find aspects on which religious societies score better than non-religious ones (notably care for the poor, stability of the families, or happiness). But at the same time, religious countries also have difficulties on many accounts. This makes it difficult to uphold the claim that religion would make a society better in general.
People are not perfect, some people are malicious — and unfortunately, religion cannot change this.
The same observation applies throughout history. Religious waves have often helped societies (such as during the Islamic Golden Age, in Puritanism, or in the ancient polytheistic empires of Egypt, Rome and Greece). At the same time, they have often also correlated with backwardness (such as during the Middle Ages, in polytheistic Africa or, on the above accounts, modern Arab countries). Furthermore, they have also often contributed to social conflicts (such as during the Inquisition and the Crusades, in the Middle East Conflict, or in context with religious violence in India). The same applies to atheism. While today, some rather atheist countries have some of the highest living standards (e.g., in Scandinavia), atheist Stalinism some decades ago has terrorized millions in the USSR (see [Wikipedia / Stalinism]). Thus, it turns out that neither religious conviction nor absence thereof would automatically lead to better societies.
Most people in the West believe that what does lead to better societies are education, the rule of law and scientific progress. These are values that many religious people will subscribe to — as do most atheists (see >Values).
Religious groups often offer a ritual framework for the most important stages in life: Birth, adolescence, marriage and death. Surely, a religious ceremony is a touching way to celebrate the steps in life.
It is a pity that some people adhere to a religion only because they like its ceremonies. Not only is this a false testimony of faith, it is also a misuse of the religious group, especially if combined with dishonest promises (such as the promise at a wedding to raise ones's children in the spirit of the church).
People who like religious ceremonies but have no appreciation of its spiritual dimension enjoy mostly its secular components: The community, the ritual sequence of acts and sayings, the symbolism, the pathetic atmosphere and the celebration afterwards. These aspects can also be delivered by secular ceremonies. This is what some atheists turn to. For weddings, a secular ceremony has become the standard in most western nations. Unfortunately, there are still very few organizations that offer secular ceremonies for adolescence or funerals.
There are numerous movements for liberty or against poverty that draw their strength from religious motivations. One example are the Monday Demonstrations in Germany, which ultimately led to the fall of the Berlin Wall.
However, not only positive movements have drawn their strength from religious motivations. The Crusades and Inquisition are historical examples for horrible movements fuelled by religious convictions, but there exist also contemporary ones: Fundamentalist Christian movements in the United States menace proponents of Darwinism, Islamism is considered a main threat to internal security in some nations [BAVS] and it is a religion that lends its strength to the fights in the Middle East.
In summary, it is true that a religion can give force to a group movement. Still, whether this is good or bad depends on the movement itself, and not on the force contributed by the religion.
Religious organizations support numerous charities. They make valuable contributions to welfare and the fight against poverty in many countries.
There exist also numerous secular organisations that make similar contributions: The largest charity for example, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, is a secular organisation. Nothing in its principles or statutes mentions God, Christianity or Islam; even its symbol is not-religious [RC / Symbol]. The same applies to the other huge charities such as Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders, and the charity organizations of the United Nations (like UNICEF).
Many religious denominations are credited with giving their believers a strong feeling of community. This feeling becomes manifest in gatherings, festivities or joint prayers.
The feeling of community seems to convince many people that their faith must be somehow right. Unfortunately, this conclusion is fallacious. Joint activities are always likely to induce a feeling of community — independently of their deeper meaning. People tend to be entrained by the synergy of a strike, the atmosphere of a pop concert or the chants in a soccer match — even if they do not know the exact legal conditions of the strike, the deeper meaning of the pop song or the penalty rule of the soccer match. It seems to be in the human nature that people are fascinated by joint activities — no matter what the activity is or who organized it. Thus, we should not conclude that the believes of a certain denomiation are true if it gives us the feeling of community.
In fact, it is so easy to generate community by joint activities, that this has repeatedly been misused for political purposes (e.g. in the Nazi era or in the German Democratic Republic) or economic purposes (which some sects stand accused of). In these cases, people were seduced by the community effect into following a certain ideology. This suggests that people should not adhere to a view of life because of the community — but rather vice versa.
Fortunately, people who seek community can choose from numerous community-offering groups. Surely, religious groups are one option. According to the preceding arguments, one should choose a religious group if one agrees with its set of believes, rites and values. There are also numerous groups that provide the feeling of community with less ideological cargo. These include youth clubs, choirs, sports clubs, performing art groups or humanitarian organizations.
In summary, the pleasure of community should not be used as a justification for a certain denomination or ideology. People who seek community should carefully choose a group with whose ideology they agree fully. There are numerous such groups, religious ones as well as secular ones.
Personal strength is one of the most cited arguments for religious faith. Millions of people, some of them politicians, scientists or celebrities, define themselves by their belief in God.
For an atheist, it is difficult to understand how a belief in God can give personal strength. This is because, for an atheist, a belief in God would raise numerous questions (e.g. "Why should I thank God for all the good things in my life, but I'm not allowed to blame him for the bad things in my life?", see >Doubts for a list).
For atheists, an obvious alternative is to draw one's personal strength not from a religion, but from the values themselves: From devotion to the good, to friendship and to honesty. This philosophy makes people concentrate on the essential things in life — without the need for difficult questions. See >Spirit for an atheistic view of life.
Another way of dealing with bad things is to assume that God caused them, but did so with a good intention. If, later in the sequel of events, something nice happens, the believer can assume that God made the bad thing happen in order to facilitate that good thing. For example, if your parents break up and you find yourself facing new challenges, you may assume that God made the parents break up in order to teach you the new challenges. This view has two effects: First, the benevolence of God remains unchallenged, no matter what bad things happen in life (see also >Supported). Second, a believer will try to see the positive consequences of whatever bad thing happened. He might be able to bury the bad things in his life more easily, because he has his eyes on the positive effects that the bad thing brought along. He will assume that, whatever happens, it happens with God's good intention and will turn out to be good for him on the long run. This is also surely a beneficial effect of the religion. Unfortunately, these mechanisms are unlikely to work for an atheist. This is because in his eyes, the duty to see the positive side of things serves mainly to cover the mystery of why God doesn't simply make only the good things happen — if he is benevolent and omnipotent enough to do so.
It is true that there are fewer books, inventions or cultural contributions by atheists than by religious people. One simple reason is that there are fewer atheists than religious people. Another reason is that Christianity is a social community that has existed throughout centuries, whereas atheism is not.
In the past, any non-religious activity was either unpopular or dangerous or both. During most of the past centuries, atheists were persecuted as heretics (including the 20th, see >Easy). Thus, any contribution to society had to happen necessarily in the frame of religion. Hence, in retrospect, any creativity or charity appears to have been religiously motivated. Asking why there are so few books by self-confessing atheists in the last centuries is like asking why there are so few books by women from that time: It is not because they were less intelligent, but because life was made more difficult for them.
Still today, atheistic contributions to our culture may be less visible than religious contributions. This is because atheistic contributions are not marked explicitly as "atheistic". Most atheists put their energy into the cause itself and not into advertising atheism. Thus, asking why there are so few books marked as "atheistic" is like asking why there are so few books marked as "written by a black-eyed person": For the author, the work itself is more important than the fact that he is an atheist.
All of this does not prevent atheists from appreciating the Christian contributions to our culture. Atheists also make contributions to our culture by themselves, just as Christians do. See >SecConstructive for atheistic contributions to the culture of thought.
This is certainly true for the large world religions. They have shaped our culture, our values and our thinking.
This, however, does not mean that we may not abandon the religions. Culture is not the boundary of human activity, but its product. There is no accepted moral rule that prevents us from changing our culture.
In fact, it would be not only dumb, but even dangerous to accept the frame of our culture without questioning. If humans had not questioned and changed their culture, we would live in caves, refrain from technology and enslave the weak. Mankind has made advances by changing the culture. Thus, culture cannot be a reason to maintain the status quo. This includes religion.
The previous sections tried to refute various proofs for a god and various alternative concepts of truth. The previous sections also tried to show that the advantages of religions can be achieved (with less overhead) by secular means. This section will argue that under these conditions, faith is a question of personal preference. The section will explain why for explicit atheists, the choice is atheism.
Here, we discuss the following state:
- There is no proof for the god. In particular, this means that the god did not create the universe, he does not interact with mankind in any way and he has absolutely no influence on the world. If you disagree, see Section >SecGod to find responses to perceived proofs for the existence of a god.
- There is no proof against the god.
- There is no moral or opportunistic reason to believe in the god. All positive effects that a religion of that god has on people's lives can also be achieved through secular means. For possible objections, see Section >SecReligionEffects.
The question is why atheists give preference to disbelief, given that there are no definite arguments for or against a god. For implicit atheists, the answer is easy: They have never thought of gods and thus had no chance to believe. Asking an implicit atheist why he does not believe in God is like asking you why you do not believe in Khonvoum. You do not believe in Khonvoum because it never came to your mind to believe in this god (see >Strong).
Now we try to see why explicit atheists do not believe in gods. As discussed in the previous question (>Preference), we are not arguing about truth, we are not arguing about morality and we are not arguing about usefulness. We are talking about personal preference.
For an atheist, the personal preference in this issue is simplicity. Given the two options, he considers disbelief the simpler one. Therefore, he chooses disbelief.
Disbelief is considered simpler due to a principle called "Occam's Razor". Occam's Razor says that if an entity is not necessary to explain the world, then this entity should not be assumed (see [Wikipedia / Occam's Razor] for a detailed treatise). Atheists feel that a world with less entities is simpler and thus more convenient.
This argument is commonly used to keep unicorns and ghosts out of our lives. There is no proof against unicorns, but there is also no proof in favor of them and thus it is best to assume that they do not exist. Atheists apply this argument to gods as well.
Furthermore, in an atheist's view, the assumption of a god entails a number of questions (like "Where is that god?", "How many gods are there?" etc.). See >FFV for a treatise. For atheists, life is simpler without these questions.
If the existence of a god is combined with a religion, even more questions result ("Why do I have to thank God for the good things in my life, but I'm not allowed to blame him for the bad things in my life?"). See >Doubts for a treatise. Again, atheists think that life is simpler without these questions.
Last, atheists think that numerous additional inconveniences result from adhering to a religion. See >Disadvantages for a treatise.
Thus, since there are no definite reasons for or against the god, and since atheists feel that life is significantly easier without the belief in gods, they do not believe in gods.
Atheists consider atheism the simpler option in life. The simpler option, however, does not have to be the right one.
Certainly, it is not always good to go for the simplest option in life. But if there is no reason against the simpler option, then the simpler option is a legitimate choice. Read the first question >Preference of this section for a treatise on when the simplest option is legitimate.
Atheists think that some things must be inconvenient for believers:
- The religion usually prescribes a set of rites, which a believer
is expected to follow. These may include
- regular praying (in Islam, e.g., 5 times a day)
- going to church
- abstinence before marriage
- Lenten fast (Christanity and Islam)
- pilgrimage (Islam)
- dietary laws (e.g. no alcool, no pork, as in Islam)
- proselytism (e.g. in Christianity and Islam, see >BibleMoral)
- slaughtering rites (as required e.g. for halal food for Muslims or for Kosher food for Jews)
- prudery (e.g. the Yichud law in Judaism, which prohibits a man and a woman from being in a closed room alone together if they are not married [Wikipedia / Yichud])
- special clothing (e.g. veils for women in some denominations of Islam)
- inactivity on one day a week (as e.g. in Judaism, where the mainstream interpretation of the Jewish Shabbat law prohibits even to press buttons in elevators on Sabbats [Wikipedia / Sabbath Elevator])
- rejecting medicine (as in some Christian sects)
- The fact that the religious rules are often so exhaustive and cover all aspects of life makes it difficult to obey all of them (consider, e.g., the rule of abstinence before marriage, which is hardly observed in Western societies). Therefore, few people actually do obey all of them. Consequently, unable to live a perfect life, the atheist would find himself under the permanent pressure of a bad conscience. See the sideremark >SRperfectLife at >Moral.
- Some values put forward or accepted by some religions are incompatible with modern values (see >BibleMoral). An atheist thinks that, in these cases, it is difficult to belong to a group that claims moral authority, but is not entirely supportive on human rights (or changed its interpretation in recent centuries to become supportive).
- In their official versions, most religions consist of a rather complex system of values, believes and duties. For example, officially, the Roman-Catholic faith incorporates the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], the [Bible] as interpreted by the Vatican and the declarations of the Vatican Councils. This includes doctrines like the Virgin Birth or Immaculate Conception. Furthermore, for most religions, scholars have developed quite complex terms and concepts. For Catholicism, e.g., these are Trinity, the Original Sin, Salvation, the Mortal Sins and Transubstantiation. In fact, most religions (not only Catholicism) turn out to be extremely complex frameworks if studied seriously. Try looking up any religion on [Wikipedia]. An atheist wonders how a believer can truly understand all aspects of his faith completely. If he does not understand all aspects of his faith, then an atheist wonders how he can exercise wholehearted devotion.
- Some religions maintain a world view that is incompatible with findings of science (e.g. the doctrine of Virgin Birth in Catholicism or the creation of the Earth in 7 days in some flavors of Christianity). Atheists think that it must be difficult for believers to believe in such world views. If the world view was adjusted in recent centuries to fit the findings of science (e.g. by admitting that the Earth does rotate), the atheist wonders how the world view can still be considered universal and god-given. See >Clear for a discussion.
- Unease with the official moral values or interpretations and ignorance of the official interpretations may entail that a believer practices in fact a rather personal version of the religion. Then, atheists find it difficult to understand why the believer chose to believe in one thing and not in another and how he can still be convinced that his belief is absolute.
- For an atheist, the concept of a god raises a number questions that cannot be answered easily (see >FFV).
- An atheist would have questions about the concept of religion in general (see >Doubts).
For an atheist, the following questions arise from the idea of a god:
- How is that god? Is he intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient? Is he benevolent or evil? If he has one of these properties, how can we know for sure?
- Is the god omniscient? If yes, he cannot have free will, because he would know the future and could not change it. [Rejection / Attributes of God]
- Who created the god? Or why does he not have a creator?
- How many gods are there?
- Is this god really the God of Islam or Christianity? If he is, why? If he is not, how does the god relate to the God of Islam or Christianity?
- Is the god still alive or has he ceased to exist? How could we know?
- How does god interact with the world if he is not physical?
- Why does this god exist and other things (like ghosts) do not exist?
For an atheist, these questions arise from the very concept of a god. Each answer to a question would be again a dogma (i.e. something that has to be believed). In an atheistic view, dogmata are an unsatisfactory way of dealing with questions. Furthermore, dogmata are likely to generate new questions. Therefore, atheists find it easier to drop the assumption of gods.
Believers may point out that the concept of God naturally entails the answers to all of the questions. For them, the belief in God is a monolithic concept that incorporates not just the existence of God, but also all of his properties. Thus, it suffices to believe one thing (that God exists) and all the other things follow. However, for an atheist, the idea of God is not so monolithic: In his view, each property of God is still an independent statement that he would have to believe in. And in fact, most religions provide different answers to the above questions, proving that belief in the existence of God does not automatically answer the questions. In an atheistic view, a set of dogmata does not become any simpler by combining them to a single entity ("God").
For an atheist, the following questions arise from the common monotheistic religions:
- If one deserves something from God, why does one need to pray for it? (see >Pray)
- Why do people pray? Doesn't God know their thoughts?
- Why do people pray for something? Don't they trust God's divine plan for their lives?
- Why should people thank God for all the good things in their lives, but are not allowed to blame him for the bad things?
- How can a benevolent God create the world in such a way that animals eat animals? After all, this is a cruel design, by which "every mouth is a slaughter-house and every stomach is a tomb". [McDonald]
- Why is one specific religion the right one, given that there are so many others? (See [Wikipedia / List of Religions] for a list) If one had been born in another culture, another religion would seem the right one. This makes the choice of the religion seem completely arbitrary.
- How do we know that the current interpretation of a religion is the right one (and not the medieval one or another one that is yet to come)? (see >Clear)
- Why does a religious view of the world require churches, prayers and rites, whereas an atheist can live happily and morally without that? (see >Better)
- For Christianity: Why does God let his own son (Jesus) die to be able to forgive the sins of mankind ? Can't he just forgive without, given that he is ever-loving and forgiving?
- For Christianity: How can a death pay for somebody else's sins [Bible / Mark 10:45]?
In other words: How can something bad make something else good?
(See [Rejection / Atonement] for a further treatise. See also the sideremarks at >Moral) - How can God allow so much misery on Earth?
- Religious answers to the sense of life all prompt more questions, see >GivesMeaning.
[AAG] and [CARM] provide Christian replies to many of these questions. Atheists will find the answers unconvincing, because they portray God as a being that is omnipotent, but in desperate need of devotion. But maybe you see it differently.
This section treats questions concerning the relation between atheistic people and society.
Most (explicit) atheists support a strong separation of state and religion. This is because atheists find it unfair if the state favors one belief group over the others. In particular, state-sponsored references to any religion are perceived as unfair towards atheists. Unfortunately, these are still abundant (see >Easy).
The support for the separation of state and religion does not mean, however, that atheists in general wished to abolish religion (see also >Convert). Most public atheistic voices demand the separation of state and church and criticize certain religious practices, but they do not demand the abolition of religions (see e.g. [HVD], [IHEU], [IBKA]).
Yes, of course! Just as you can deal with people who have a different opinion. In fact, you will mostly not be able to tell the difference between an atheist and a believer in everyday life.
See [CARM] for some constructive thoughts on atheists from a Christian point of view.
Whether an atheist may attend a religious ceremony or not is foremost the decision of the respective religious group. Some groups disesteem atheists and it is their natural right to forbid an atheist to participate in their ceremonies. Other groups do not have an explicit opinion on the matter and again others explicitly welcome foreigners (as "lost sheep").
Some religious ceremonies serve to express a certain intention. A public credo, for example, is a public expression of faith. A wedding ceremony expresses the desire of two people to marry. In general, it is reproachable to participate in these ceremonies if one does not share these intentions. Naturally, this applies also to atheists.
Other parts of religious ceremonies are uncritical. For example, an atheist can listen to a sermon or he may sing religious songs if he likes (just as we can sing a love song not because we love somebody, but because we like the melody). In this respect, an atheist's attending a religious ceremony is much like your attending a Khonvoum ceremony at a Bambuti tribe (see >Strong): You are interested in the ceremony and you respect the believers' faith, but you do not share it.
Today, Christmas is a mixture of several aspects — religious ones as well as pagan ones and secular ones. One religious aspect is certainly the celebration of Jesus' birth. Clearly, this aspect is of lesser importance to atheists. Another aspect of Christmas is a social one: The reunion of the family, the giving of gifts and the time spent together. This aspect can be enjoyed without any reference to religion. For many people, including many atheists, it is the most important aspect of Christmas. Another function of Christmas is to counterbalance the depressing fact that the days get shorter. Instead of thinking about the shorter days, people prepare for the celebration, they buy presents and they plan their holidays. This positive distractive effect gets artificially prolonged by the Advent season, which starts already 4 weeks before the actual festival. After Christmas, the darkest point of the year is overcome and people look forward to the spring. Thus, in principle, Christmas still serves the same purpose as the old pagan celebration at the end of the winter. Last, Christmas also has an economic function. Christmas makes people spend money and this makes it the largest annual stimulus for the economy in many nations. In summary, most aspects of Christmas can be enjoyed by believers and non-believers alike. Given that the origins of the celebration are not Christian at all, it would be a pity to leave Christmas to the Christians.
Nothing in the concept of atheism prohibits an atheist from marrying a religious person. Atheists would think that the decision to form a family lies in the hands of the couple, and should not be made a priori based on the world view.
Things are sometimes a bit different from a believer's perspective. Most religions urge their followers to marry within their own denomination. Some even forbid interreligious marriage explicitly [Wikipedia / Interfaith Marriage]. (See >BibleMoral for sources.) Therefore, a reason against an atheist-theist marriage is more likely to come from the believer's side.
Child education is another point where opinions might differ. If the religion maintains that all other world views are wrong, and if this is taught to children, problems could arise (see >Superior). Other than that, though, there is no principal reason against an atheist-theist marriage from an atheist point of view.
- familiarity with very intimate traits of your partner
- the feeling of being cared for
- physical intimacy
- Familiarity will appear with whomever you share life
- The feeling of being cared for will appear with any close relationship in which the partners depend on each other
- Physical intimacy has long been known to be independent of love
Now let us look at societies that arrange, prescribe or suggest wedding partners to their children. There is always the danger that the child does not like the prescribed partner. If, however, the society prohibits pre-marital relationships, then the arranged marriage will be the first relationship for the child. Thus, all of the above factors kick in. These factors make the partners believe that they love each other — even if they don't. This seems to be the purpose of keeping one's pre-maritial virginity in times of contraception. A few years later, children are on the way and there is no time to think about whether one loves the partner or not. Later, social pressure keeps the couple together, even if the couple finds out that it does not match well. Then, the story repeats itself in the next generation.
The high-school love factors, however, are no substitute for love. If the partners do not love each other, there is the danger that, one day in life, they find a person whom they really love. This may destabilize or even break the relationship, making it more vulnerable than a love-based relationship. Worse, such an encounter may make the person think that they wasted their life with someone they do not love — leading to regret, unhappiness and dispair.
In liberal societies, in contrast, people usually have pre-maritial relationships. These allow them to understand that the high-school love factors are rather arbitrary. They also allow them to learn what they want and what they don't want. Hopes are that this increases their chances of deciding for a partner that is indeed a match for life. And if it does not, then at least they had a fair chance to try.
See also the remarks on marriage in >BibleMoral.
Since atheism may be implicit, we may not conclude anything about an atheist except that he does not believe in gods. Explicit atheism, in contrast, is a conscious attitude and explicit atheists seem to agree on some points concerning their view of life in general.
Most atheists believe that nothing happens after death. Life ends.
This might seem a depressing outlook. But being re-born in an eternal cycle doesn't look too attractive either. Burning in hell is even worse, and also eternal life in heaven actually seems quite boring to atheists.
More seriously, disbelief in afterlife teaches us something: It means that we have only one single chance to live our life. There is no way to live a better life in the next cycle of re-incarnation and there is no way to make up for the missed pleasures of life. Also, there is no way to make the bad guys pay for their sins in the afterlife. This means: Live your life now, fight the ill and don't hope for eternal judgement, live your life thoughtfully and enjoy its pleasures.
Religions typically maintain that their values and their world views are divine and absolute. Belief is seen as a virtue, doubt is rejected as heresy. This apparent consistency gives them their authority. However, religious values are not constant at all: Witness the changing role of women in the Christian denominations, the proscription of the once-popular caste system, the change of mind concerning slavery, the decline of religious chauvinism and the rise of tolerance as a value and the numerous moral rules that have been changed over time (>Clear).
The philosophy of the Enlightment states that instead of reluctantly admitting change, people shall actively contribute to it! Values and theories are the results of human insights and these insights may improve over time. If a value, theory or law no longer seems right, it has to be changed. Thus, the basic value is not a set of rules but the permission and the duty to develop such rules. Instead of teaching people to obey values, one should educate them to develop, interpret and improve values. The same goes for world views: If a scientific theory has been proven wrong, it has to be abandoned. Instead of seeing the world in such a way that it fits a framework, one should modify the framework such that it fits the world. Instead of trying to understand a given view of the world, one should try to understand the world itself. Instead of justifying our believes on a holy book, we should justify our believes on reality. Instead of changing our interpretion of a source, we should change the source. Instead of taking authority as the truth, one should take truth as the authority [Zeitgeist]. The philosophy of the Enlightment is a plea for education, for reason, for development and for discussion.
See >Moral for the fruits of this plea.
As we already saw (>Morality), it makes perfect sense for an atheist to have norms and values. However, in an atheistic world view, there is no god from whom such values could be taken. Also, atheists would consider it inappropriate to take over values that are said to be revealed by a god or that have been developed thousands of years ago. Instead, most atheists are humanists: They believe that it is our job as humans to work out our values.
Consequently, numerous secular (non-religious) moral theories have emerged [Wikipedia / Secular Ethics]. The most prominent ones have had a deep philosophical impact. This includes, e.g., Immanuel Kant's theory of the Categorial Imparative [Wikipedia / Kantianism], John Stuart Mill's theory of Utilitarism [Wikipedia / Utilitarism] or the movement of Humanism itself, as born out of the Enlightment [Wikipedia / Humanism]. The latter has been particularly sucessful: Its values are enshrined for example in the Human Rights [HR] and in the legislations of most Western nations.
Humanistic ethics do not base on the desire to please God or to avoid divine punishment. Instead, humanistic ethics base on two things: The desire to eliminate suffering and the goal to create a stable social environment. Humanism is not centered on supernatural beings, the afterlife, traditions or transcendental agreement, but on people's lives. Humanists think that people are not made to serve moral norms, but that moral norms are made to serve people. (See >BibleMoral for a treatise on Muslim and Christian values)
Humanists do not judge something as bad if it displeases a god, but if it causes a human to suffer. Most secular ethics, and humanism in its most prominent form, advocate self-responsibility, solidarity and the Golden Rule ("treat others as you would like to be treated", [Wikipedia / Ethic of Reciprocity]). Humanism defends the basic rights of life, liberty and property. In addition, it pursues more idealistic values as well: The right of free speech, democracy and equal rights independent of gender, race and world view. These values have become a cornerstone of our modern societies. And only through the process of incessant questioning of traditional values have achievements such as the abolition of slavery or the emancipation of women become possible.
Some religions, in contrast, also forbid things that do not cause direct suffering: Blasphemy, for example, the use of contraceptives or apostacy do not cause any suffering to any human or animal. Nevertheless, they are prohibited. The fact that no suffering happens detaches morality from the effect on mankind. Morality becomes a self-runner, advocated purely for its own sake. This makes the idea of compensation pointless. Hence the importance of the compensation decreases. In return, the importance of punishment increases. This leads to the idea that the punishment (i.e. a suffering by itself) could make up for a bad deed. In this view (which is inspired by [Bible / Mark 10:45], but which is not the official Christian view), Jesus' death pays for the sins of mankind. From a secular point of view, it is absurd that a death shall repair other people's bad deeds. Some people even think that sacrifices or self-castigation could repair a bad deed. From a secular point of view, of course, sacrifices and self-punishment are nothing else than additional, needless suffering. Rather than adding new pains, one should fight the existing ones.
If the rules are hard to uphold to perfection, then it is likely that the believer will violate one rule or the other in his life — earlier or later or even continuously. This entails that a sincere believer may find himself in a conflict of life and belief. Unable to live a perfect life, he may find himself in an enduring state of bad conscience. Caught in the gap between how he is and how he knows he should be, he might be pushed into hypocrisy. Thereby, the religion maintains a grip over the conscience of the believer. This effect is independent of the actual use of the rules for mankind.
The alternative is, of course, to obey the rules only selectively. This appears to be what happens in reality (see >BibleMoral at "Cafeteria Christianity"). If certain rules are obeyed and others are not, however, it seems a reasonable idea to rethink the whole system of rules altogether. If the rules were reduced to the necessary ones, people could obey them more easily [TOE / Liberalism]. See >Values for thoughts in this direction.
For a discussion of moral values in the Bible and the Koran, see >BibleMoral.
I think it feels a little bit strange in the beginning. You suddenly realize that the world consists just of humans, animals and a huge amount of other atoms. You realize that you are nothing more than a by-product of evolution. And that we humans are here alone.
This insight heaps an enormeous responsibility on you: You realize that it's you who has to decide what's right and wrong, it's you who has to take care for yourself and your fellow humans and it's you, together with the other humans, who hold this world in their hands. There are no supernatural beings to guide you, to protect you or to help you.
At the same time, this has the convenient side-effect that there is also no hell to dread, no gods to please and no demons to fear. It is completely safe to ignore the supernatural. You can concentrate all your efforts on this world. You can leave all mythology behind you and immerge into reality.
There are no dogmata you have to believe, no rites you have to follow and no rules you cannot question. You can drop all needless hypotheses. You can lift the lock of divinity from traditional values and world views and discuss and improve them.
And you finally find out that you have both the freedom and the capabilities to accept your challenge. You have hands, you have a mouth, you have a brain and you have a heart. You can use them to make this world a better place.
The question "What is the meaning of life?" is so difficult to answer not because we lack knowledge, but because the question is so ill-defined. The question may refer to different things [Wikipedia / Meaning of Life]:
- "What is the origin of life?"An atheistic answer to this question is here: >Design2
- "What is the nature of life?"From an atheistic viewpoint, this question falls into the domain of the sciences, see e.g. [Wikipedia / Life] for a good starting point.
- "What is the significance of life?""Significance" is a purely personal concept. Things are not significant by themselves, but they are significant for a certain individual. It seems that for most individuals, life is very significant — in particular for atheists, because they believe that they only have a single one (see >Afterlife).
- "What is valuable in life?"This question is about morality. See >Moral for a survey of atheistic ethic values and >Morality for their reason.
- "What is the ultimate reason of our existence?"It can be argued that this question cannot have a satisfactory answer on principle. See >Ultimate.
- "What is the purpose of life?"The purpose of a thing can be seen as the intention of its creator. In an atheistic world, there is no such creator for the concept of life. Thus, the concept of life cannot have a purpose. Nobody pursues special intentions with us: We simply exist.
This might seem a troubling insight. However, the trouble just comes from our perpetual search for purpose (see >WhatMeaning). We always assume a purpose, so we are confounded when we encounter something where we cannot find one. But not everything has a purpose. Some things simply exist. We could just accept that life is one of them.
Furthermore, we tend to love universal, all-embracing hypotheses: >Cycles, >ConsciousBeings, >SenseBehindEverything, >ConceptOfSense, >Dualism,. We feel aleniated when the hypotheses cause difficulties. But the solution is not to try to reconcile reality with the hypothesis, but to abandon the hypothesis (see >Values). And thus the atheistic conclusion is: Do not suspect a sense if there is none.
This, however, does not mean that life must be meaningless! It merely means that the goals in life are not god-given. It means that people have to define the goals in their lives by themselves. See the next question >Spirit for some constructive thoughts on life. See >GivesMeaning for a treatise of religious answers to the meaning of life.
It is certainly impossible to make a statement about the atheistic "life spirit" in general. However, the American atheistic community has compiled a definition of atheism that will probably appeal to most explicit atheists. Personally, I think that it is one of the best descriptions of atheism:
An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.
An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.
He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.
He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.
He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now."
The previous section completed the content of this essay. This section treats meta-questions about the essay.
For the same reason that makes you read this essay: I find it interesting.
From the point of view of a secular ethics, people should avoid harm to other beings. Everything else they do and don't do, they like and don't like or they find interesting and uninteresting is their personal choice. Some people find it desirable to eat chocolate, others find it important to pray 5 times a day and again others like writing essays about atheism.
Besides, this essay may help readers to find out more about their believes. I consider this extremely reasonable.
I am not fightig. I am writing about atheism. Nobody is hurt.
Technically speaking, this essay is my intellectual property. This allows me to state conditions under which the essay may be used (see [TOE / Intellectual Property] for a treatise). One condition for reading this essay is that I may not be held responsible for the reader's personal unease. Should the reader not agree with that, she or he should not read the text. Nobody is forced to read this essay.
One might argue that it would be more responsible to abstain from publishing this essay in the first place. This, however, would also make it impossible for interested readers to profit from this text. Withholding this essay would mean depriving the reader of his choice.
I think this is nothing bad. I think people should follow the world view they feel most comfortable with (following moral constraints, of course, see >Morality). The world view that you feel comfortable with may be different from the world view you were born into. Besides, if religious people are allowed to publish their view in the form of books like the Bible and the Koran, I do not see why I should feel constrained.
On the contrary, I think it is a good idea to publish alternative views. Unlike the Koran and the Bible, no sentence or interpretation of the present essay asks people to consider their world view better than others (see >Superior), to convert mankind to a particular world view (see >Convert) or to kill other people (see >BibleMoral). Therefore, I consider the world view described in the present essay less dangerous than the world views advocated in the afore-mentioned books — for both the weak-hearted and the strong-hearted.
This essay distinguishes between "a god" (a divine being) and "God" (the Christian God, or the god of monotheistic religions). "God" is considered a proper name and thus written with a capital "G". However, references to God by the pronoun "he" are not capitalized, because capitalization of the pronoun is a deference and not a syntactic necessity. Please note that using "God" as a proper name does not imply that God exists (just like using the proper name "Zeus" does not imply that Zeus exists).
[Wikipedia] usually provides a good set of sources and justifications for its claims. This makes it a verifiable and trustworthy encyclopedia. Furthermore, it is constantly edited and corrected by thousands of volunteers. This minimizes biased descriptions.
Last, Wikipedia is freely and readily available to every Internet user. Everybody can contribute to articles in Wikipedia. If you disagree with some statement in Wikipedia, you can enter a discussion with the editors and even write an article by yourself.
Christianity is the religion that has the greatest impact in my cultural environment. It is also the religion that I know most about. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to cover all other faiths in this essay.
Remember, however, that this essay is about atheism, not about religions. Asking an atheist to argue against all religions he does not believe in is like asking a vegetarian to enumerate all animals he does not eat. Atheism is meaningful independently of the religions >WithoutReligion.
Thank you for reading this essay. The purpose of this text was not to proselytise you (see >Convert), but to answer your questions. I would be happy if this essay dispersed some of your doubts on atheism.
The following people deserve my thanks:
- The numerous authors of Wikipedia [Wikipedia] for creating such a marvellous free encyclopedia.
- The authors of the Atheism Web [AtheismWeb] for their exhaustive, accurate and nevertheless diplomatic summary on atheism.
- Abby Aaron for her thoughtful and respectful criticism of atheism [AtheismsFlaws]. I tried to integrate the answers to her questions into this essay.
- Again Abby Aaron for her critical essay "What drives atheism?" [AtheismDrives]. Although atheists may not agree on all of her statements, some characteristics of atheism are elaborated in a very thoughtful way.
- The guys who annotated the Bible and the Koran for [SkepticsBible] and [SkepticsKoran] in such a painstaking way.
- [AAG] for giving Christian answers to many questions
- Gjergji Kasneci for the sophisticated philosophical arguments in favor of a deeper meaning of life (>ConceptOfSense, >SenseBehindEverything, >Dualism)
- Georgiana Ifrim for helpful discussions
- Maya Ramanath for the interesting discussions from a Hindu perspective
- Paul N. Tobin for his excellent collection of essays on atheism "The Rejection of Pascal's Wager" [Rejection]
-
[Bible] The Bible
e.g. http://www.bible.com -
[Qur'an] The Koran / The Qur'an / The Quran / Al-Quran
e.g. http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/ -
[Wikipedia] The free online encyclopedia "Wikipedia"
http://www.wikipedia.org -
[Wiktionary] The free dictionary "Wiktionary"
http://www.wiktionary.org -
[EinsteinGod] This quote is from a letter Einstein wrote in English,
dated 1954-03-24. It is included in "Albert Einstein: The Human
Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by
Princeton University Press.
This citation is from [AtheismWeb]. -
[AtheismWeb] A shared resource for atheists, agnostics and freethinkers
on the Internet
By Jeff Lowder and mathew (http://meta.ath0.com)
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html -
[CelebAtheists] A collection of notable individuals who have been
public about their lack of belief in deities.
http://www.celebatheists.com/ -
[AtheismsFlaws] For Christians: Atheism's thirteen biggest flaws
By Abby Aaron.
http://petitecute.home.att.net/flaws.htm -
[AtheismDrives] For Christians: What drives atheism?
By Abby Aaron.
http://petitecute.home.att.net/drives.htm -
[TOE] Thoughts on Ethics
By Fabian M. Suchanek
http://suchanek.name/texts/toe.htm -
[SkepticsBible] The Skeptics Annotated Bible
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ -
[SkepticsKoran] The Skeptics Annotated Koran
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/ -
[WikipediaAtheists] List of Atheists - from Wikipedia, the free
online encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists -
[ORNLU] Ontological Reasoning for Natural Language Understanding
by Fabian M. Suchanek
http://suchanek.name/work/publications/master.pdf -
[The Matrix] The Matrix (a popular movie from 1999)
http://www.whatisthematrix.com/ -
[CCC] The Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm -
[BAVS] German Office for the Protection of the Constitution
http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/en/en_fields_of_work -
[HR] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html -
[ProjectSteve] A list of scientists named "Steve" who are
in favor of the Evolution Theory
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp -
[IHEU] The International Humanist and Ethical Union
http://www.iheu.org -
[IBKA] International League of Non-religious and Atheists
http://ibka.org/en/ -
[BistumMainz] Die Kirche und das Geld - Fragen und Antworten
http://www.bistummainz.de/bm/dcms/sites/bistum/bistum/finanzen/index.html#3 -
[Kirchensteuer] Finanzierung der Krankenhaeuser in kirchlicher Traegerschaft
http://www.kirchensteuer.de/krankenhaeuser.html -
[ECHRSharia] Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights
HREF=http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/29AC6DBD-C3F8-411C-9B97-B42BE466EE7A/0/2004__Wildhaber_Cancado_Trindade_BIL__opening_legal_year.pdf -
[IHR] Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.alhewar.com/ISLAMDECL.html -
[DOI] Response to Skeptic's Annotated Bible.
By Dan of Israel http://danofisrael.com/id80.html -
[RC] American Red Cross
http://www.redcross.org -
[AAG] All about God
http://www.allaboutgod.com -
[Rejection] The Rejection of Pascal's Wager
By Paul N. Tobin
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/ -
[BibleAnalysis] [Rejection]: The Bible
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/bibleanalysis.html -
[WomenInBible] [Rejection]:
The Position of Women in The Bible
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/womenbible.html -
[MoralAtheists] [Rejection]: Are Atheists Immoral People?
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/atheistmoral.html -
[AtheistPrison] A debate on the proportion of imprisoned atheists
from a religious point of view
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html -
[CafeteriaChristianity] Conrad and Blair discuss Cafeteria Christianity
http://www.alabamaatheist.org/awareness/debates/debate024.htm -
[CARM] The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
http://www.carm.org -
[AtheismSupremeCourt] The definition of Atheism for the Supreme Court of
the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83
S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963).
From http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ -
[IsaacAsimov] Quotes by Isaac Asimov
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov -
[McDonald] E.M. McDonald, "Design Argument
Fallacies — An Anthology of Atheism and
Rationalism", ed. Gordon Stein, Buffalo,
NY: Prometheus, 1980, p. 90.
- [Economist] The Economist
Newspaper
http://economist.com- [Atheisme] "Living Without Religion - An Atheist Site"
http://atheisme.ca- [MOL] What is the meaning of life?
http://www.meaning-of-life.info/themeaningoflife.html- [Zeitgeist] Modified quote from: Zeitgeist -- the movie
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/- [EvilBible] EvilBible
A Website "developed to promote atheism"
http://evilbible.com/- [Dwindling] Dwindling in Unbelief
Blog by Steve Wells
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com - [Economist] The Economist