Thanks, I have always wanted to be excomulgated from Catholicism, which i’m baptised thanks a lot

But i can’t go along atheism, is so rational that sucks, is the brain against the heart, is the other extreme of religion, and, in my opinion, a rational religion as well. Extremes don’t work for me

Love and kisses.

That’s an interesting point of view and I appreciate you sharing it with me. I would like to suggest, though, that perhaps you are confining atheism within too tight a fence.

There are many kinds of atheist. Personally, I am an atheist because I see no compelling reason to believe that deities exist. That is the extent of my atheism.

There is nothing about my being an atheist that forces me to discard emotion in favor of reason. I love my family, enjoy escapist books, cry at movies, and love the smell of the forest or the feel of sunlight on my skin at the beach. I treasure life’s mysteries and adore new discoveries, and I find myself in awe of nature far more now than I was back when I thought that it was all part of some divine plan.

Being an atheist helps me see just how precious and special life is, and reminds me that it is a thing to be treasured and protected. Atheism leads me to help others through my own work and through charitable organizations, because if humans do not act to end suffering and preserve the things we treasure, nobody will.

I don’t believe in God, but I do believe in love, hope, charity, kindness, trust, justice, and many other things that theists also believe in. I think that there are many important questions science is unequipped to address. I even believe in miracles, in a way.

So before you discard atheism for its lack of heart, please consider atheism as something that can feed both your head and your heart. It might make all the difference.

Hi you say you are atheist does that mean you are against religions in general?

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity and nothing more. One can think religion is awful, think religion is beneficial, think religion is a mixed bag, or have no opinion on religion at all and still be an atheist.

Personally, I am not against religion in general. I am against some specific religious beliefs because I think they are harmful and difficult to morally justify. I am also against any belief system — whether religious or not — that is against reason or urges its followers to abandon reason. I think that there are people who are happier or lead more personally fulfilling lives because they are religious, even though I think their religion is likely false at its core.

I do believe that it is possible to be intelligent, moral, consistent, rational, self-examined, and religious. However, I think that such people are rare. On the other hand, I think that intelligent, moral, consistent, rational, self-examined, non-religious people are rare as well. It is my opinion that, in general, people do not spend enough time examining their beliefs, and that we could all improve ourselves by doing so.

064_atheists-evil.pdf

Individual atheists may be good or bad, just as individual theists may be good or bad. But what about atheism itself? Is atheism, as some would argue, evil? The answer depends on what we mean by “evil.”

Is evil anything that causes significant harm, like a tornado or a thumbtack accidentally left where someone might step on it? This seems to be setting a pretty low bar for evil, but even so it’s difficult to call atheism evil by this definition. There are plenty of atheists who are not harmed by their beliefs and are not lead by their beliefs to harm others. Sure, there are some atheists who are depressed or immoral, but there are copious theists with these qualities as well.

Is committing a sin — by breaking one of the Ten Commandments, for example — evil? Atheism certainly breaks the first one or two commandments, but if that makes atheism evil then any set of beliefs that does not include the Judeo-Christian God — or that includes a “false” version of that god — could be called evil. In this case, “evil” becomes a synonym for “doesn’t obey Biblical morality,” and it’s trivial to point out that atheists don’t follow the Bible.

Morally objectionable things might be said to be evil, but atheism wouldn’t be evil under this definition. There is no moral requirement to believe in deities, and atheism does not require any behavior that could be said to be immoral.

You might say that things that arise from bad behavior — such as graffiti and crime — are evil. But to say that atheism is evil in this sense is to say that atheism arises from bad behavior, and that is not the case.

Perhaps you call anything that encourages or prefers bad behavior evil. Unless you can show that not believing in deities is in and of itself bad behavior, you won’t catch atheism in this net.

Similarly, it can be said that anything that takes a stand against good is evil. But atheism isn’t against good. Maybe you mean that anything that takes a stand against Christianity is evil. Although atheists don’t agree with Christianity, atheists aren’t all against Christianity. And this definition is probably not a good one, particularly considering that by using this definition one might have been able to call Martin Luther “evil” in his day since he took a stand against the established church.

Finally, perhaps you are keeping things simple and defining evil as something that forward’s Satan’s goals. But how do you know what Satan’s goals are? If Satan wants a certain politician elected to office because he knows it will lead to war, is electing that politician evil? Or perhaps Satan wants to make humanity subservient to him by ridding the world of scientific thinking and free thought, in which case moral atheism is working counter to Satan’s plans. The fact is, you don’t know for sure what Satan wants, so you shouldn’t pretend that you do.

And while you’re at it, you shouldn’t call atheists evil until you can explain exactly what you mean.

061_atheist-faq2.pdf

If you cease to exist when you die, why bother trying to accomplish anything?

I only get one life, so I want to make the most of it.

How can there be absolute moral truths without God?

Some moral truths are logically required. Many others — like murder being immoral — have definitions that aren’t universally agreed upon.

Do you disbelieve in God so that you can enjoy a sinful life without guilt?

I don’t lead an immoral life.

Do you disbelieve in God because of something bad that happened when you were a child?

No. Do you believe in God for that kind of reason?

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Why not?

If every effect has a cause, what caused the universe?

We don’t yet know enough about how the universe works to answer that question. There are many possibilities, though.

How did life on Earth begin?

We don’t yet know for sure. There are many possibilities currently being investigated.

Do you think that science has all the answers?

Science can’t answer questions outside its realm. E.g., morality can’t be investigated scientifically.

If God doesn’t exist, how were math and logic created?

Math and logic are features of reality that humanity has discovered. Any imaginable working universe has them. They weren’t created.

How can you say the Bible isn’t true when it is correct about so many things?

A historical document may be correct about some things and incorrect about others. Many historical records have this property, particularly when they concern religion or mythology.

How can you not believe the Bible when it is filled with prophecies that came true?

Biblical prophecies are generally vague, made after the fact, or not even really prophecies.

If the Bible isn’t true, why did the apostles die to support its lies?

Someone can whole-heartedly believe something even if it’s completely false.

Don’t near-death experiences prove that there is an afterlife?

No. These experiences are easily explained by science.

Do you celebrate Christmas?

Some atheists celebrate Christmas secularly.

What would you say to a dying child?

I would attempt to comfort a dying child, but I wouldn’t offer it false hopes of life after death.

What would convince you that God exists?

An unassailable logical proof of God’s existence, a state of affairs for which God is obviously the only possible solution, or personal revelation, directly from God.

059_atheist-faq.pdf

What is atheism?

A lack of belief in deities?

How can you prove that God doesn’t exist?

I don’t need to. You need to prove God’s existence to me.

Isn’t that agnosticism?

Agnostics believe that proofs for or against God’s existence are impossible. Not all atheists are agnostics.

What if you are wrong?

If I find out I’m wrong, I’ll change my mind.

Isn’t atheism depressing?

No. Why would it be?

How can you have hope without God?

Hope can be based on things other than the existence of supernatural beings.

How can there be justice without God?

Often there can’t. Justice isn’t guaranteed.

Why do you reject the church?

I only “reject” the church in the same sense I reject anything I think is incorrect. It’s not personal.

How can you believe everything comes from nothing?

I don’t.

Without God, why be moral?

It makes logical sense to be moral.

How do you know right from wrong?

By following a well-thought-out moral system.

How can there be free will without a soul?

The brain is so complex, that it just seems like we have free will.

If life is meaningless, why care about anything?

I wouldn’t say that life is meaningless.

Who gives life meaning if not God?

We give our own lives meaning.

If people are just machines, why hold us responsible for our actions?

We hold machines responsible for their actions. Broken machines are replaced, repaired, upgraded, etc.

How are humans any different from animals?

We have the ability to consider our own behavior.

Why should we treat humans as more valuable than animals?

Because we’re humans.

Do you think all religious people are stupid?

No.

How can all reports of miracles be false?

There are many ways for inaccurate stories to spread.

Isn’t it obvious that the world is designed?

No.

What about all the millions of people whose lives have been improved by religion?

Something doesn’t have to be true to make a positive difference in someone’s life.

Do atheists think Jesus was a real person?

Some do; some don’t.

What if you found out the Gospels were completely true?

I’d change my opinion about the Gospels.

058_believe-in-supernatural.pdf

A moral atheist uses reason to conclude that it is likely that no deities exist. But does this imply that nothing supernatural exists? Can a moral atheist believe in things that are not deities but are also not part of nature?

The big question here is how one would have any knowledge of a supernatural thing — reincarnation, fate, the soul, etc. — if it was not part of nature. Is it a gut feeling? A philosophical deduction? Something else? Whatever the evidence is, why does it act as proof that the supernatural exists without also possibly acting as proof that a deity exists?

But odds are that if a moral atheist believes in something seemingly supernatural, it’s not because of mere feeling or philosophy, but because there is some kind of more tangible evidence — an inexplicable psychic feat, ghost sighting, etc., The problem is that as soon as you start talking about evidence, you’re talking about something that can be scientifically tested, and when you talk about scientific testing of strange things, you’re not talking about the supernatural, you’re talking about the paranormal.

Something paranormal is apparently inexplicable by our current knowledge of science, but it’s still part of the natural universe. If such a thing is investigated scientifically, it will eventually be understood and no longer classified as paranormal.

For example, there was a time when a hot rock falling out of the sky might have been considered a paranormal occurrence. But today, we understand that rocks in space may occasionally enter Earth’s atmosphere, and we consider that part of science.

Similarly, if it was found that a certain group of people could predict coin flips with statistically significant accuracy, we would consider these people to have a paranormal ability. With further study, we would likely discover the mechanism for this ability and it would no longer be considered paranormal — simply rare but explainable.

There is nothing wrong with a moral atheist believing in something paranormal, so long as the atheist is being consistent in terms of how much evidence is required for something to be considered likely.

For example, if the atheist thinks that three eyewitness account are sufficient evidence that the ghost of a Victorian woman still lives in what was her house, the atheist must consider carefully what three eyewitness accounts of visions of Jesus imply.

You will find that, in practice, moral atheists are not accepting of the supernatural, paranormal, or other extraordinarily hard-to-evidence beliefs. This is to be expected, since their entire philosophy has its roots in skepticism. But this does not mean than an atheist can’t be convinced by sufficient evidence. Being intellectually rigorous means always being willing to change your mind in the face of proof that what you believe is wrong.

056_intolerance.pdf

Are atheists intolerant of religion and religious beliefs? In large part, that depends on how you define “intolerant.”

“How dare you disagree with me!”

Some religious people equate disagreement with intolerance. They might respond to “I doubt that Jesus performed miracles” with something like “How dare you say such a thing!” or “Are you calling me a liar?”

But an atheist who disagrees with religious beliefs is just disagreeing with religious beliefs. She isn’t saying those beliefs are ridiculous, denying someone’s faith, or calling them stupid. If you’re religious, you disagree with plenty of other peoples’ beliefs. Do you think that all of those people you disagree with are fools? If so, it sound like you are the one who’s intolerant.

“If you’re not with me, you’re against me.”

Atheists may decline to participate in some activities that are explicitly religious or are based on religious traditions. These might include saying prayers, taking oaths that involve God, singing religious songs, or participating in religious ceremonies.

But declining an invitation to participate in something that doesn’t mesh well with one’s philosophy isn’t an insult. If an atheist passes on an opportunity to say the blessing before dinner, it’s because atheists don’t believe in blessings, not because the atheist wants to insult the meal, publicly reject your deity, or spoil the moment. Declining the invitation is not intended as an insult to theism any more than the invitation itself was intended as an insult to atheism.

Sure, it might make people feel a little uncomfortable when the person invited to say the blessing declines, but odds are good that the atheist felt rather uncomfortable when the invitation was offered. There is plenty of social awkwardness to go around. And while it’s true that the atheist could have just delivered a blessing so that there would be no conflict, it’s also true that the religious people could have skipped the blessing for the same reason.

“Give me equal time!”

Atheists often think that there are certain places and situations in which religious thought and expressions of belief are not appropriate. These might include public school rooms, discussions of the law, and business or workplace situations.

But thinking that religion does not belong in certain places is not a sign of intolerance for religion. Believing that schools should not teach creationism alongside evolution has nothing to do with being intolerant of religion and everything to do with respecting science. Asking a judge to remove a copy of the Ten Commandments from the courtroom wall isn’t about discarding Christian morality, it’s about upholding the U.S. Constitution. Stopping someone from handing out religious tracts at work is not oppressing religion, but maintaining an equitable workplace.

In many of these situations, theists would protest if roles were reversed, They would not appreciate demands that religion change in the face of science, and would complain if atheist tracts were handed out at work. Before accusing others of intolerance, you had best be sure you are free of it yourself.

051_attacking-religion.pdf

Religious people sometimes feel like they are under attack by atheists — and, sometimes, they’re right. Other times, they feel attacked when they are not being attacked at all. Let’s consider a few examples.

• Polite disagreement. “I think the Bible is a work of fiction,” isn’t an attack on religion; it’s a statement of opinion. If you disagree, say why and start a conversation.
• Saying “Happy holidays” isn’t an attack on Christianity any more than “Merry Christmas” is an attack on Judaism, atheism, Islam, or any other belief system.
• Declining to participate in a group prayer or other religious practice isn’t an attack on that practice. It’s not even necessarily a statement of disapproval of that practice. Similarly, a Canadian who refused to say the American “Pledge of Allegiance” isn’t insulting America; she’s just refusing to take a false oath.
• A lawsuit attempting to stop government from participating in religion isn’t an attack on religion, even if the result is inconvenience for a religious group. In almost all cases, such lawsuits are not about limiting religion, but about stopping religion from being imposed on others or stopping one religion from being favored over another by the government. Those are things all Americans should approve of.
• Agreeing with a scientific fact (such as evolution) which some people do not think is compatible with religion is not an attack on religion. Science does not make religious statements.
• Depending on the context, trying to disrupt a conversation with ridicule, derision, or inflammatory speech might rightly be seen as an attack on religion. Attacks on atheism are often carried out in the same way. Such attacks are juvenile and help nobody.
• Some atheists might more significantly attack religion by (for example) disrupting ceremonies, vandalizing religious property or things, or trying to interfere with legitimate freedom of speech. Such acts are rare, and moral atheists detest these people just as much as theists do. Regardless of the context, there is no glory in being a thug.

It has been popular to say that attempts to grant legal rights for homosexual couples is an “assault on Christianity” or that asking companies not to alienate their non-Christian customers is a “war on Christmas,” and certainly there is a strange sort of appeal to being able to say that you are part of a persecuted group (a persecuted majority, in the case of Christians). But the world would be a much better place if we all tried to get along and understand each other’s point of view instead of treating every disagreement as an insult and every difference of opinion as an attack.

050_freedom-from-responsibility.pdf

It is not uncommon for an atheist to be told, “You reject God because you want to lead a sinful life without having to feel responsible for your actions.” For a moral atheist, this accusation fails on at least three levels.

The truth

Moral atheism isn’t about believing what one wants to believe, it’s about believing what is likely to be true. An atheist cannot disbelieve in God solely because God punishes evil any more than an atheist could disbelieve in trolls solely because trolls eat naughty children.

Either God exists or God does not exist — personal desires have nothing to do with the matter.

A moral life

Many — even most — atheists lead lives that are not particularly “sinful.” The author of this tract is married, monogamous, honest, and polite, and does not smoke, drink, use recreational drugs, or gamble (aside from buying an occasional lottery). Does this sound like someone who has rejected God for the purpose of indulging vices?

You might consider an atheist to be leaving a sinful life in the sense of breaking those of the Ten Commandments which demand worship and respect for God. But in that case, the original argument becomes, “You reject God because you want to sinfully not believe in God,” and that’s not much of an accusation.

Still restricted

The biggest problem with this accusation is that it assumes that an atheist does not have a compelling, objective reason to behave morally.

A moral atheist has a strong, well-thought-out personal morality that plays an important part in everything he or she does. Atheists believe that lying, murder, stealing, infidelity, and a whole host of other behaviors are morally wrong, whether or not they lead to divine punishment.

If you are religious, ask yourself if you would behave immorally if you knew there was no God. If you say yes, then aren’t you being moral only because you fear punishment?

Now think about the moral atheist who behaves morally because it is the right thing to do, even though there is no fear of a tortured afterlife for those who break moral laws. Which of you is more laudable? The person being good under threat, or the one being good on principle alone?

It’s a question worth thinking about before you accuse all atheists of immorality.

You say that atheists try to have as little faith as possible, but atheists have just as much faith as Christians do. Atheists have faith that science will eventually solve all problems. Atheists have faith that there will one day be a unified theory of physics. Atheists have faith that the origin of life on earth will be discovered. Neither of these things can be proven. I’d even say that there is more proof that God exists than proof of any of these things.

I don’t have faith that science will eventually solve all problems or that there will one day be a unified theory of physics. In fact, some questions are definitely beyond science’s reach because they either are not in the realm of science (as with questions about morality and ethics) or there is no way for science to investigate them (the question of precisely how life began on Earth may fit into this category).