Projecting: Misconceptions About Atheists

Sometimes if I'm drawing a blank on blog topics I'll get ideas when making the blog-rounds. Most of the time the ideas come directly from Theists, namely, Christian Theists. There's never really a shortage of material, actually. And then of course, if Theism didn't exist there'd be no reason for A-theism and the "controversy" that arises from the topic. Ponder that a minute and tell me that you don't see just a wee bit of irony? Yup, if not for Theism, I'd be forced to talk about other things, things that in all likelihood wouldn't ruffle feathers nearly as much as when discussing Theism.

 But alas, Theism is alive and well. Well, scratch that.....it's alive, but not really doing so well. Secularism/Atheism is on the rise(and as it happens, so is knowledge and scientific discovery). Anyhow, today I'm covering misconceptions about Atheists, and we can start with the word, itself: The "A" prefix when attached to the word "theism" means without. A-theists don't have theism, hence, Atheists don't harbor a belief in "God"/gods. For any Christian onlookers, please note that the following proclamation, Atheism is not:

"I believe God doesn't exist!"

Notice that the aforementioned proclamation is not the same as this one: "I don't believe in God". Apparently, a lot of the reason that Theists have this mistaken notion is because they project their own beliefs about what "Atheism" is onto Atheists instead of acquiring it from Atheists. Doing so, it's easier for Theists to shoot down Atheism(or so they think). They can then say things like, "Well, you can't prove that God doesn't exist!". This, of course, is fallacious reasoning, as they are attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Addendum: when it comes to the Christian god, specifically, one can prove its nonexistence with every bit of assurance as one can prove that "square circles" don't exist. Sadly - or luckily, depending on how you look at it - the redactors of the Bible flubbed up big time when they assigned their Protagonist its various "Omni"-characteristics. I have various posts on this very subject.

Moving on, here are several more misconceptions that Theists have about Atheists:

•  Atheists are lonely

I'm only speaking for myself, here, but yes, sometimes I feel lonely. But trust me when I say that if I do feel lonely? ....it's not because I'm missing or longing for an individual whom I cannot see, hear, or touch. No. Usually, finding good company resolves any loneliness..e.g...friends, family members, scantly clothed women serving beer and chicken wings, etc. And then of course, there are some times in life that I want to be alone. Being alone and being lonely are not necessarily the same. 

• Atheists are unhappy

It could very well be that there are some unhappy Atheists. Yes, just like there are some unhappy Christians; just like there are some unhappy Muslims; just like there are some unhappy Scientologists; just like there are some unhappy Hindus, and on and on. IOW, people are people are people, and people become unhappy at times. That's just life as a human being. But just because of the fact that Atheists, too, are unhappy at times, that doesn't mean that they are unhappy a greater percentage of the time than anyone else. And perhaps most importantly of all, even if Atheists were the most miserable, wretched people on the planet, this would not make Theism true. Such thinking on the part of Christians and other Theists is a prime example of a non-sequitur.(fallacy)

• Atheists are big meanies and enjoy attacking other's beliefs

Again, I can only speak for myself, so I'll start here: Suffice it to say that I am not too thrilled about the fact that the people whom I trusted the most indoctrinated me with a certain belief-system, and subsequently, I wasted roughly 2/3 of my life believing something for which there is not only no objective evidence for being true, but mounds of evidence that it is false. So, while "enjoy" probably isn't the right word, I do admittedly find a certain amount of satisfaction in exposing superstitious, legendary thinking. Not because it rips the carpet out from under those who are brave enough to question their beliefs and follow their doubts; not because I'm trying to convert everyone to Atheism, but because I believe that, over time, it will make the world a less dangerous place if superstitious, legendary thinking is weeded out. I just don't want the children I'm raising(or anyone else's children) to grow up in a world where people are superstitious enough to think that they're going to have an orgy with some 13 yr-old virgins in the clouds, but smart enough to build an atomic bomb. In a perfect, ideal world, yes, one could say that kindness and respectfulness should come first when discussing the issues. Okay, but at what cost? Surrender? Complacency? Some beliefs just don't warrant our respect. 

• Atheists just want to sin! 

This is perhaps the most aggravating, and I'm going to say it---it's one of the most idiotic misconceptions among Christians. For starters, "sin" is defined as going against what "God" says/commands. Welp, I don't believe in the Xian god(or any other). Thus, it would be silly of me to believe I could offend or go against someone I don't even believe exists. Secondly, since when can we just cease believing in something that we're convinced exists, supposing that we wanted to avoid the consequences of that something? For example, if I said, "Well, guys, I'm going to stop believing in crocodiles because I want to swim in the Nile River!", and then I had someone video tape me paddling around the Nile River amongst dozens of 15ft + long crocs', you would think I was totally nuts, yes? IOW, if I was genuinely convinced that "sin" was something that had a referent in reality, I'd still be a Christian. But alas, I'm don't believe "sin" has a referent in reality, so that is one of the reasons I'm an Atheist. I'm not an Atheist because I "want to sin". Absurd. 

• There is nothing stopping an Atheist from killing and raping!

Yes, there is. Firstly, there's these things called "laws".(And BTW, "rape" is not listed as a "sin" in the Bible. In fact, it's condoned, as long as the rape-victim marries her rapist). Secondly, there is the lawful taking of a life(e.g..self-defense/war), so, not all killing is "wrong". Lastly, if I know that I don't want my loved ones harmed unnecessarily, I can figure out that I'd better not harm someone else's love ones unnecessarily. 'Pretty simple concept.

• Atheism is a religion  

Like "off" is a TV channel

•  Atheists believe in nothing

That's strange, because I believe in all sorts of things..e.g...love, food, tattoos, coffee, Reese's Cups, equal rights for women, topiary, freedom, music, logic, shopping, turtles, cougars, Sela Ward, irony,  laughter, science, Jupiter, Negra Modelo, yogurt-covered pretzels, horror movies, and a 'few' more :) 

I may add to this list as time goes on. 

Exploring Faith and Trust

Recently the age-old topic of "the meaning of life" came up in the blog rounds. One gentleman chimed in, saying that it would be difficult to answer that question "apart from faith". I came back, pointing out that some people simply lose faith in "faith" because the answers that religion and its respective holy writs give are lacking(at best, lacking). His very next words were, "Who said anything about religion?"

Now, even if I knew not one thing about this gentleman, I feel that it would be quite reasonable of me (or anyone else) to infer that he meant his religious "faith" by his initial remark. I mean, that's one of the biggest things, if not thee biggest thing, that religion provides attempts to provide to its adherents..i.e..the sole, entire meaning of our existence. But alas, it was not my first encounter with said gentleman. No, we had previously exchanged thoughts a half a dozen times or so, and the one thing that I did know about him is that he was a believer in Christianity. Considering all of the above, this, I maintain, is why I concluded that he meant "faith" in a religious context. Notwithstanding, I apologized for making the "assumption", albeit, more or less adding the above..i.e..why it was reasonable for me to assume he meant "faith" in a religious context. But he came back, offering that....."people find meaning in all sorts of faith".

I don't know about anyone else, but this just sounds, I don't know........okay, it just sounds odd to me. It sounds as though he was attempting to conflate "faith" with the word "trust"---IOW, trying to get away from the common connotation of "faith", which, in a religious context, is **believing without seeing; believing, unquestionably, in lack of evidence, and in some cases, believing in the face of evidence to the contrary. But when he added.... "People find meaning in all sorts of faith", then citing "love and kindness" as an example of the object of one's "faith", this confirmed my suspicion that this fellow blogger, while he may be well-meaning and sincere, he was conflating the words "faith" and "trust". The two words are not mutually inclusive. The latter is something built up over time and is something that is based on repeatable, demonstrable results. It is built on a proven track record. The former is employed when there is doubt or uncertainty, albeit, this doubt/uncertainty is rarely acknowledged in circles of the very religious proponents who profess to have/employ "faith". In those instances, it's like wanting their cake and eating it, too.

For those religious proponents who are honest enough to admit that their "faith" means this**, above, they often times like to tell Atheists/nonbelievers that they, too, have "faith" in some things---for instance, "science" and "man". Again, this isn't "faith", but trust. Science is provisional, so for that reason it doesn't deal with absolutes. Nonetheless, it is, to date, the best method for determining what is actually true/real about the world we live in, and, so, I and other Atheists trust it. Science just does not require "faith".

As for "kindness", if we as humans know how we like to be treated, and normally that is kindly, then we can reasonably conclude that our fellow human beings like the same. If we know that avoiding unnecessary harm increases the chances of our own survival, then we know that we shouldn't cause unnecessary harm to others. This doesn't mean that we trust every individual, since we are individuals, after all. Some individuals are amoral, and much of the time this can be directly attributed to mental illness. I certainly wouldn't trust Charles Manson to watch my kids, and I couldn't manufacture enough "faith" to be at ease with the idea.

As for "love", it depends on which kind. I think unconditional love, by definition, should be trustworthy. I can, and do, trust it, for the most part. Romantic love? Ha! Not so much. I would say that romantic love requires a least a bit of "faith", at least until a good track record is established. But even then, all it takes for a good, romantic love relationship to be destroyed is for one person to change their mind.  

Ways that Atheists Can Stand Up for Rationality

The other day on a popular networking website I saw a link to an article, titled: 15 Ways Atheists Can Stand Up for Rationality. Actually there was a flub-up, as there are two # 10s, so it's really 16 ways. But in any case, for now I'm only covering the first 10.

The Author, Jeffrey Tayler, prefaces the article, saying....

I’ve often wondered how the term “New Atheism” gained such currency. It is a misnomer. There is nothing new about nonbelief. All of us, without exception, are born knowing nothing of God or gods, and acquire notions of religion solely through interaction with others – or, most often, indoctrination by others, an indoctrination usually commencing well before we can reason

I'm glad that he added the bit about indoctrination and how it usually occurs at a specific and crucial time in life..i.e..before we have the ability to reason. And note, many times, this is even before we have any theory of the mind..e.g..ages 2, 3, 4 yrs old. This type of indoctrination applies mainly, but not only, to religion---religions such as Christianity and Islam, for example. In order for the data to "stick", it is crucial that it be taught when the subject is young, naive, trusting, and impressionable. If, for example, Christian parents tuck their 4 yr-old into bed each night and make it a ritual of having their child kneel at the bed, close their eyes, clasp their hands together, and say, "Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep", etc., etc., sooner or later the child's going to wonder who this "Lord" guy is, since mom and dad are constantly talking about him as if he's just in the next room down the hall. Needless to say, the child isn't likely to get an unbiased answer if they should ask. I sure as hell didn't get one. But then again, I was just a kid, so I can only kick myself in the butt so much for allowing myself to be duped.

 For a brief run-down, here's how the indoctrination process works: Children, by nature, are very trusting. I mean, if children can't trust mommy 'n daddy(who are the people they love and deal with the most), then who in the hell can they trust? This whole indoctrination (brainwashing) process is a part of religion that I find deplorable, and make no mistake, it is nothing less than child abuse(especially if the child is taught the doctrine of "hell"). At first, the child might be taught prayers and little hymns such as, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so", etc. Naturally, if the child grows up telling themselves, "Jesus loves me!"; and if the child grows up firmly believing that "Jesus" is watching over them, then guess what...they will look for the signs that it is so...i.e..subjectively validate it to themselves.

But many times it's not a "sign" at all, but a claim to actually see "Jesus", literally. Again, timing is crucial, and if we examine the times when these "sightings" occur, we see precisely how subjective validation works. If something traumatic happens and someone lives to tell about it, when statistics might suggest that they shouldn't have lived to tell about it, many times "Jesus" is (claimed to be) spotted at that precise moment, at that precise location. 'Funny how that works, isn't it? There was one story where "Jesus" saved the day, and when asked what "Jesus" looked like, a witness said that he had "blue eyes"!

You don't need three guesses to figure out which country this "sighting" was in, do you? Here's a hint---it wasn't in Jesus' old stomping grounds, the Middle East. Then again, one "sect" firmly believes that "Jesus" did in fact come and stomp around America. I guess I'm waiting for reports of  "Jesus" having an Ipod and a tattoo of Moroni on his bicep. It's only a matter of time.

Moving right along, here are the first 10 of the ways that Atheists can stand up for rationality. Any remarks of mine will be in red:

1.     “Let’s say grace!”

No, let’s not. When you’re seated at the family dinner table and a relative suggests clasping hands, lowering heads and thanking the Lord, say “No thanks. I’m an atheist. So I’ll opt out.” Nonbelievers have every right to object when being asked to take part in superstitious rituals; in fact, if children are present, they are morally obliged to do so. Courteously refusing to pray will set an example of rational behavior for the young, and contribute to furthering the atheist zeitgeist.

If I'm with family at dinner and a prayer is said, I merely keep my eyes open and put my head down. My family knows I'm an Atheist, so no need for me to announce it at dinner. On special occasions I might make what I call a "Secular prayer" after the traditional prayer is said.

2.  “Religion is a personal matter. It’s not polite to bring it up.”

No, religion is fundamentally collective, and since time immemorial has served societies in fostering union, but also in inciting xenophobia and violence (especially against “unchaste” women and “impure” minorities), often on a mass scale. Nonbelievers need to further advance the cause of rationality by discussing it openly; doing so, as uncomfortable as it may be at times, will help puncture the aura of sanctity surrounding faith and expose it for what it is.

I actually agree with the author's response, here. Personal beliefs turn into collective beliefs, collective beliefs more often than not lead to actions, and actions have consequences. A personal "truth" is fine and dandy, and all, and I suppose it would be redundant to state the obvious when it comes to what is subjectively true---that is, that whatever one believes is true to them---but alas, this totally misses the point because the minute that any unfalsifiable, subjective truth endangers the masses, either directly, or indirectly, it is my right and even my moral duty to call that belief out. Example: Once upon a time there were 19 hijackers. It was each hijacker's subjective, "personal truth" that the creator of the universe, "Allah", would reward them with dozens and dozens of virgins if they would just kill some infidels(non-Muslims). This little subjective truth of theirs isn't/wasn't falsifiable, just like claims to see "spirits" and "ghosts" aren't falsifiable. While one subjective belief is clearly more dangerous than the other, we are implicitly being asked to believe these sorts of subjective truths on crap-to-nonexistent evidence. 

3.  “You’re an atheist? I feel sorry for you.”

No, please rejoice for me. I fear no hell, just as I expect no heaven. Nabokov summed up a nonbeliever’s view of the cosmos, and our place in it, thus: “The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.” The 19th-century Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle put it slightly differently: “One life. A little gleam of Time between two Eternities.” Though I have many memories to cherish, I value the present, my time on earth, those around me now. I miss those who have departed, and recognize, painful as it is, that I will never be reunited with them. There is the here and now – no more. But certainly no less. Being an adult means, as Orwell put it, having the “power of facing unpleasant facts.” True adulthood begins with doing just that, with renouncing comforting fables. There is something liberating in recognizing ourselves as mammals with some fourscore years (if we’re lucky) to make the most of on this earth.

'Love his response here. Nothing to add. 

4.  “If you’re an atheist, life has no purpose.”

A purpose derived from a false premise – that a deity has ordained submission to his will – cannot merit respect. The pursuit of Enlightenment-era goals — solving our world’s problems through rational discourse, rather than though religion and tradition – provide ample grounds for a purposive existence. It is not for nothing that the Enlightenment, when atheism truly began to take hold, was also known as the Age of Reason.

Not only does a purpose derived from a false premise not merit respect, but if you live according to someone else's "purpose",  in the case of  theism, "God's Purpose", then guess what.... you have no purpose of your own, in which case, you are technically in the same "purposeless" boat in which you like to place Atheists. Again, the irony is thick.

  5.  “If you abolish religion, nothing will stop people from killing, raping and looting.”

No, killing, raping and looting have been common practices in religious societies, and often carried out with clerical sanction. The catalogue of notorious barbarities – wars and massacres, acts of terrorism, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the chopping off of thieves’ hands, the slicing off of clitorises and labia majora, the use of gang rape as punishment, and manifold other savageries committed in the name of one faith or another — attests to religion’s longstanding propensity to induce barbarity, or at the very least to give it free rein. The Bible and the Quran have served to justify these atrocities and more, with women and gay people suffering disproportionately. There is a reason the Middle Ages in Europe were long referred to as the Dark Ages; the millennium of theocratic rule that ended only with the Renaissance (that is, with Europe’s turn away from God toward humankind) was a violent time.

Morality arises out of our innate desire for safety, stability and order, without which no society can function; basic moral precepts (that murder and theft are wrong, for example) antedated religion. Those who abstain from crime solely because they fear divine wrath, and not because they recognize the difference between right and wrong, are not to be lauded, much less trusted. Just which practices are moral at a given time must be a matter of rational debate. The “master-slave” ethos – obligatory obeisance to a deity — pervading the revealed religions is inimical to such debate. We need to chart our moral course as equals, or there can be no justice.

Right, nothing will stop people from killing, raping, and looting(assuming that all people will suddenly get the urge to kill, rape, and loot if it should be established that one's religion is false). Nothing will stop this from happening, except, gee, I don't know... maybe the laws prohibiting these things and the respective consequences for doing these things??? Now, laws and consequences are obviously not a fail-safe, guarantee that criminals won't commit crime, no. But look!...neither is belief in "God", "heaven", and "hell" a fail-safe guarantee that there won't be crime! 

6.  “Nothing can equal the majesty of God and His creation.”

No need to inject God into this. “Creation” is majestic enough on its own, as anyone who has gazed into the Grand Canyon or the night sky already knows. While paddling a pirogue down the Congo, at night I often marveled to the point of ecstasy at the brilliance of the stars, the salience of the planets against the Milky Way – just one of the many quasi-transcendental experiences I have had as an atheist globetrotter. The world is a thing of wonder that requires no faith, but only alert senses, to appreciate.

 7.  “It is irrational to believe that the world came about without a creator.”

No, it is irrational to infer an invisible omnipotent being from what we see around us. The burden of proof lies on the one making supernatural claims, as the New Atheists have tirelessly pointed out. But here again the New Atheists are really doing nothing novel. Almost 200 years ago, the British poet Shelley, in his essay “The Necessity of Atheism,” noted that “God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi rests on the theist.” This was clear to him even before we had mapped the human genome, discovered the Higgs boson, or even invented the telegraph.

Yes.....the burden of proof lies on the one making the supernatural claims. It can't be said enough, because this is one thing that the theists, "mystics", and other proponents of the "supernatural" of today constantly fail to show they understand. And what I've found, is if they cannot "get" this very basic truth about how logic works, then the more likely they are to pile on other fallacies..e.g...non-sequitur, begging the question, and on and on.

8.  “I will pray for you to see the light.”

Not necessary, but do as you like. Abraham Lincoln noted that, “What is to be, will be, and no prayers of ours can arrest the decree.”

Not only unnecessary, but quite idiotic and even counter productive if we consider that the "God" to whom people pray is supposedly things like "Sovereign" and "omniscient".

 9.  “If you’re wrong about God, you go to hell. It’s safer to believe.” 

Pascal’s wager survives even among people who have never heard the name of the 17th-century French philosopher and mathematician. Leaving aside whether blatant self-interest would please a god demanding to be loved unconditionally, which god will save us from hell? The god of Catholicism? Judaism? Islam? Doctrines of all three Abrahamic faiths prohibit entry into paradise for adherents of rival confessions.

Not to mention, any deity worth the title "God" would surely know if I'm pretending to believe just to avoid a consequence.

10.  “Religion is of great comfort to me, especially in times of loss. Too bad it isn’t for you.”

George Bernard Shaw noted that, “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.” A few shots of vodka will do for me, and are more to the point.

After the passing away of his son, Lincoln, in dire need of solace, nevertheless remarked that, “My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.”

I address(ed) this mindset in my post, "Caught in the Crossfire". In short, if it makes someone comfortable to believe that their deceased loved ones still exist in the clouds somewhere, fine. But if this yet-to-be-proven belief gets caught in the crossfire when exposing the parts of religion that clearly cause harm, I'm essentially saying too bad; not my problem(and I don't apologize for it). It's not that I'm cold and heartless; it's that I understand that sometimes damage must be caused for the greater good. I'm raising kids and I don't want them to grow up in a world that could come to an end over who worships the right invisible being, aka, "God". If they become ill, I don't want them running to a "magnet therapist"; I want them to seek treatment from a real, medically trained doctor who can prescribe, real, proven-to-work medicine. And finally, if they should ever want to know the answers to life's greatest questions..e.g..how we got here, where we get our morality, etc., I want them to use ALL of their resources and go where the scientific evidence leads. In the case that there are unanswered questions, which of course there will be, I want them to feel fine about saying "I don't know". What I do not want them doing is simply plugging those gaps in knowledge with "God did it!", which BTW, answers nothing at all until you know how "God did it!".

One More Rotation!

It's been one more successful rotation of our planet(Earth) around our star(the Sun). So, without further ado....

 Happy New Year!!!!!!!! 

When I think of the fact that the sun is just a one of a bazillion other stars out there, and just like every other star, it will eventually use up/burn up all its energy, and thus, no longer be able to support life here on earth, it's inescapable that this paints a rather grim picture for those of our fellow human race who will inhabit this earth just up to before that end.

WARNING: this is where I start to actually look at things from different a perspective and point out things that are unpopular and not very palatable, so, if you are bothered by people who do this, now's the time to navigate away. On the other hand, if you value different perspectives, even if this happens to point out things that are unsettling, please do keep reading, and join me in deep thought.

When talking about the Sun turning into a "red giant"..i.e..the next-to-the-last phase before it totally burns out, this of course is assuming that something else doesn't wipe out the human race first. There's always a chance of a giant meteor hitting Earth, or just plain overpopulation and the using-up of the necessary, natural resources that sustain human life..e.g...food, water, etc. And then of course there's also the very good chance that we'll blow ourselves up over who worships The One True God one of the many invisible, and to date, unproven story-book characters whom many people believe watch over us and want demand our worship. BTW, if this isn't cause for concern, then IMO, nothing is. This is why I scratch my head when people continually ask me why I talk about religion so much. Uh, really?

In any case, the real eye-opener is that people of my former faith..i.e..Christianity, believe that the end is imminent and near, and get this, many of them(all?) actually welcome it!  This, of course, is because they believe that "Jesus is coming soon" and that he is going to take his followers with him to "Heaven", and the balance will remain on Earth for a period, or get sent straight to "Hell". It really depends on who you ask, or which bible verse you pick.

Before I get to the point and the light at the end of the tunnel(and yes, there's a light at the end of the tunnel for nonbelievers), I'd like to make a few little observations:

1) in no other aspect of day-to-day living do we think of the word "soon" to mean two THOUSAND years. No, and to illustrate the absurdity, try reading the following and let "soon" mean just one year:

Kids, let's try to finish this milk up! It expires soon! 

Okay, honey-bunch, I'll be home soon! 

Me: Hello? IRS? When is my refund check coming? IRS: Soon!

Enough said.

2)   in hypothetical two, above, where I raised the issue of overpopulation and the depletion of natural resources, let's look at what would happen if the Biblical Garden duo, "Adam & Eve", had not eaten the infamous "forbidden fruit". Okay, in Genesis, God told Adam and his better half that if they eat the fruit that they'd surely die. Die, as in, the opposite of live. So, we can logically conclude that, had they not eaten the fruit, they'd live forever. Now, try to imagine what living on Earth would be like, if, from the time Adam and his lover got fruitful 'n multiplied, that no one's offspring ever died!

LOL! Oh, my goodness! 'You think the mall's crowded now? 'You think the line at Space Mountain is long now?

Hopefully you can see the absurdity.

The Light at the End of the Tunnel for Atheists:

Since science tells us that the sun will eventually burn out and expand and that this expansion will likely gobble up the orbits of Mercury, Venus, and Earth, think of all the potential human life that will never be born and get a chance to live. Trillions, and trillions, or better yet, an infinite amount of potential "individuals" who will never know what it even means to live, love, and everything else. For Atheists, yes, it is rather a bleak notion that we'll lose everything, and more importantly, everyone we've ever loved. But on the other hand, we're here, and we have the privilege of spending time with those we love right now, whereas, most individuals will never get that chance. Of course, those "individuals" will never know the better, but that's moot, because we, the living, do know.