Atheism

About Atheism [Index]

Various introductions to atheism, including its definition; its relationship to agnosticism, theism, and noncognitivism; and its value.

Arguments for Atheism [Index]

In this section, "arguments for atheism" means "arguments for the nonexistence of God." In the jargon of the philosophy of religion, such arguments are known as "atheological arguments." The argument from evil (sometimes referred to as 'the problem of evil') is by far the most famous of such arguments, but it is by no means the only such argument. Indeed, in the 1990s atheist philosophers developed a flurry of atheological arguments; arguably the most famous of such arguments is the argument from divine hiddenness (and the related argument from nonbelief).

Atheism, Theism, and the Burden of Proof [Index]

Debates [Index]

Links to transcripts or reviews of debates specifically about atheism (as opposed to debates about Christianity, Islam, creation/evolution, etc.).

Media & Reviews [Index]

Books, magazines, movies, and book reviews having to do with atheism.

Morality and Atheism [Index]

This page addresses the relationship between morality and atheism, especially in the following four areas: (1) on average, are atheists as moral as theists? (2) why should atheists be moral? (3) can life without God have meaning? and (4) does atheism entail a certain view on specific moral questions? (NOTE: this page does not address moral arguments for God's existence, or whether morality is subjective.)

Outreach [Index]

Links to various articles which discuss whether atheists should engage in outreach and, if so, how they may do so effectively.

Recommended Sites [Index]

This page is NOT intended to be a list of all personal home pages maintained by atheists. Rather, this page is only intended to list some exceptionally good home pages on the Internet.

Jeffery Jay Lowder maintains this page.

See the article here:

Atheism

President Obama on Atheism | Real Time with Bill Maher (Web Exclusive)

Subscribe to the Real Time YouTube: http://itsh.bo/10r5A1B

Bill asks President Barack Obama about a growing and underrepresented part of the electorate: nonbelievers.

Connect with Real Time Online:Find Real Time on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MaherFind Real Time on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RealTimersFind Real Time with Bill Maher Official Site: http://itsh.bo/HttKcM.Find Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO GO http://itsh.bo/iioY87.Find Real Time with Bill Maher on Connect: http://connect.hbo.com/real-time-bill...Find Real Time on Instagram: http://instagram.com/realtimersThe Real Time blog: http://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-...Find Real Time merchandise: http://itsh.bo/1p0Doxu

It's HBO.

Connect with HBO OnlineFind HBO on Facebook: http://Facebook.com/HBOFollow @HBO on Twitter: http://Twitter.com/HBOFind HBO on Youtube: http://Youtube.com/HBOFind HBO Official Site: http://HBO.comFind HBO Connect: http://Connect.hbo.comFind HBO GO: http://HBOGO.comFind HBO on Instagram: http://Instagram.com/hboFind HBO on Foursquare: http://Foursquare.com/hboFind the HBO Shop: http://itsh.bo/billmahershop

Check out other HBO ChannelsHBO: http://www.youtube.com/hboGame of Thrones: http://www.youtube.com/GameofThrones HBO Sports: http://www.youtube.com/HBOsports HBO Documentary Films: http://www.youtube.com/HBODocs Cinemax: http://www.youtube.com/Cinemax HBO Latino: http://www.youtube.com/HBOLatino

More here:

President Obama on Atheism | Real Time with Bill Maher (Web Exclusive)

Atheist Websites Directory

Atheist Websites Directory

This directory includes most of the top atheist websites plus some useful small sites. Note that the category structure is necessarily imperfect since some sites in the list could fit into more than one group. Also note that several categories contain links to articles and other resources that might interest an atheist.

Choose a category

General Websites

Many of the sites in this section represent large organizations, but some were created by individuals or small groups. In most cases the link points to the home page.

American Atheists - This pioneering atheist organization was founded in 1963 by Madalyn Murray O'Hair after her successful legal battle against mandatory prayer in U.S. public schools. Since then the organization has engaged in numerous other legal actions to support the separation of church and state, and to end discrimination against non-Christians. Its other activities include publishing books, organizing demonstrations, and providing college scholarships. It also maintains the largest archive of atheist literature in the United States. The website is frequently updated with reports on the latest legal actions, demonstrations, and public controversies relating to atheism.

Freedom From Religion Foundation - This non-profit foundation, which was incorporated in 1978, fights attempts by U.S. religious organizations to use the powers of government to promote religion. Its attorneys have taken part in many legal battles on issues such as the separation of state and church, organized prayer in public schools, and efforts to use taxpayer money to fund religious schools. Another ongoing activity is the effort to protect the rights of women, gays, and minorities from attacks by church groups.

Atheist Alliance International - The goal of this organization, which has affiliates in more than 20 countries, is to create more compassionate and better-informed societies. Its members believe that human activities should be based on reason and science rather than religion or superstition. The U.S. affiliate, Atheist Alliance America, presents the annual Richard Dawkins Award to individuals who make outstanding contributions to freethought.

Evil Bible Website - The main purpose of this well-known site is to spread the terrible truth about Christianity. It points out that the Christian God, according to the bible, has been directly responsible for numerous mass-murders and other atrocious acts. The articles on the site discuss the specific biblical passages which describe these terrible crimes. There are also descriptions of the mass murders and various other atrocities committed by Christians from ancient times to the present day. Many of the articles on the site were written by Charlotte Schnook.

The Freethinker - This is the website of The Freethinker magazine, which has been continuously published in England since its launch in 1881, and is generally regarded as the world's oldest surviving freethought publication. The Victorian age in which it was launched was very hostile to atheists, and after an 1882 issue of the magazine included some irreligious cartoons, its founder G.W. Foote was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with hard labor for violating England's anti-blasphemy law. More than a century later the publication's long campaign against that law finally helped get it repealed. The magazine also played an important role in the movement to legalize birth control in England. This tradition of activism still continues, and is quite apparent to anyone who visits the website.

The Secular Web (Infidels.org) - This is one of the oldest, largest, and most comprehensive freethought resources on the internet. Established in 1995, it contains many articles by prominent scholars, scientists, and historians. The articles cover almost every aspect of the atheism versus religion debate, as well as many related topics in the fields of science, religion and history. This is an excellent resource not only for someone who is just learning about atheism, but also for anyone interested in doing research on the subject.

Rational Response Squad - This well-known site is home to a community of activist free-thinkers who want to promote rational thinking in all matters. Various articles on the site describe the benefits to humanity that have been brought about by logical thought and scientific methods, and compare those benefits to the problems caused by religion and superstition. Anyone can make a contribution by writing articles and participating in an active forum.

The Freethought Society - Founded in 1993 by Margaret Downey, this quickly became one of the most active and influential freethought organizations in the United States. It is especially noteworthy for the militancy of its efforts to bring an end to discrimination against non-theists. Many of its activities, such as organizing protests and putting up billboards, are based on the belief that a strong public voice is necessary to overcome the prejudice against secularists that currently pervades American society. The long-term goal is to help bring about a world in which any freethinker can express his or her beliefs without fear of discrimination or retaliation.

Atheist Revolution - This top site is a valuable resource for skeptics, agnostics, atheists, progressives, or anyone who wants to help bring about a better world. It is especially helpful in revealing the harm caused to society by organized religion, particularly the hate and violence that result from Christian extremism. It points out examples of this harm through frequent posts about recent acts of repression and violence perpetrated by religious groups. It also offers links to other websites and blogs that contain related information.

Center for Inquiry - This nonprofit umbrella organization oversees a diverse group of projects intended to promote science, freedom of inquiry, and secular humanist values. One of its best-known projects is "On Campus", an outreach program that helps secular students organize and operate school groups. Another program, the "Freethought Books Project", provides donations of freethought literature to prisoners and inmates in mental hospitals. The organization is also the sponsor of the annual "Women in Secularism" conference. Other activities include political lobbying, educational projects, and preservation of secular literature. The organization's headquarters is in Amherst, New York, but it also has offices in many U.S. cities as well as many countries. The website contains a press center, a store, and a forums section.

The Center for Inquiry also provides support for the work of two major affiliates, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism, and helps publish their respective periodicals, Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry.

Update (01-24-2016) -- In January 2016 a merger was announced in which the Richard Dawkins Foundation became a new division of the Center for Inquiry.

Atheist Empire - This resource, which was established in 1998, is a good place to find general information about atheism. One especially valuable part of the site is the "Great Minds" section, which describes the philosophical views of famous thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Sigmund Freud, Voltaire, Einstein, and Carl Sagan. Another section contains statistical data on the numbers of adherents of various religions in comparison to the number of atheists and other non-believers. There is also a guide to films and movies that express anti-religious views.

Religious Tolerance - This main purpose of this website is to promote mutual understanding and tolerance among people of all beliefs. Its underlying premise is that every individual should be free to form his or her own opinions and that no one group has the right to impose its practices or beliefs on other groups. It also serves as an educational resource, and contains an archive of more than three thousand articles and essays on a variety of subjects relating to religion, atheism and skepticism. Overall, this is one of the most-visited freethought sites on the internet.

NoBeliefs.com - Launched in 1997, this is still one of the most popular websites for atheists and freethinkers. Many of the numerous articles explain how religion is the root cause of much of the ignorance, intolerance, and violence that has plagued humankind throughout history. The site also contains news reports, a list of common fallacies relating to religion, and a section of book reviews.

The Atheist Scholar - This is an excellent resource for anyone interested in learning about atheism. It contains many well-written articles covering such subjects as the history of atheism, science vs. religion, atheist ethics, atheism and the law, atheist demographics, biblical criticism, and "the new atheism". There are also sections dedicated to atheist films, atheist fiction, and personal narratives of non-believers. All of the articles are very informative, yet easy to read and understand.

American Humanist Association - This organization was founded in 1941 for the purpose of promoting humanism in all societies. Based in the United States, its specific activities include advocating for the full separation of church and state, improving public education, promoting scientific and medical research, and creating a true American democracy. It also publishes the award-winning magazine, the Humanist.

Arguments for Atheism - If you are looking for a general guide to the major arguments for atheism and against religion, you can find it here. Various articles discuss such topics as the existence of evil, the harmful effects of religion on society, God's silence, and moral values. In addition, the site contains articles about the history of atheism, some quotations by famous atheists, and a list of references.

Ask the Atheist - Do you have a question for an atheist? This website provides a simple fill-in form that allows you to ask it, and a reply will normally be posted on the site within a few days for everyone to read. Several very knowledgeable individuals help to provide answers, and the discussions can be expanded by comments from readers. In addition to asking new questions, you can also search for a specific topic in an archive of hundreds of previously-answered questions. Many of these archived questions relate to problems that atheists may encounter in everyday life when dealing with people of different belief systems. Overall this site provides a very large amount of helpful information.

Skeptic Friends - This site was created to promote logic, critical thinking, and science as the best way for a person to arrive at his or her personal beliefs and moral values. Members may conduct polls, submit articles for possible publication on the site, and discuss various religious issues in a group of forums.

Return to Top of Page

Online Communities

Reddit Atheism Forum - With more than a million members, this is undoubtedly the largest and most active atheism forum on the web. Even if you don't join and participate in the discussions, it is still an excellent place to keep up with the latest news stories of interest to atheists. In addition, you will always find many discussions relating to important moral, social, and political issues of modern society, as viewed from a secularist perspective.

Atheist Nexus - This is a major social networking site for non-Christians. Each person who joins is given his or her own profile page for displaying personal information and photos. Members may also express their views in forums, make blog posts, join special groups, announce events, and upload videos.

Talk Freethought - This is one of the better-known and most active freethought forums on the internet. In addition to the usual discussions about philosophy, science, religion, and morality, there are sections devoted to secular lifestyles, popular culture, and humor. The lifestyles section contains a special "Atheists' Testimony Thread" in which members can describe what led to their personal "de-conversions" from religion. Note: This site was formerly called the "Freethought Rationalism Forum", but was re-launched under the current name in 2014.

Richard Dawkins Foundation - The well-known atheist scientist and author Richard Dawkins created the Foundation for Reason and Science in order to promote critical thinking, and to combat ignorance, superstition, and religious intolerance. This popular site covers a broad range of topics not only in religion, but also in science, politics, and current events.

Update (01-24-2016) -- In January 2016 the Richard Dawkins Foundation and the Center for Inquiry announced that the two organizations are merging, with the Richard Dawkins Foundation becoming a new division within the Center for Inquiry.

Ex-Christian - An online community for former Christians, this site includes a "testimonies" section in which people explain why they can no longer accept the tenets of their previous religion. Members can also discuss their personal views and other matters in an active forum. The site also includes videos, articles, and a gallery of images.

Atheist Zone - This prominent news and social networking site serves as an internet gathering place for atheists, skeptics, liberals, and anyone else interested in talking about the problems caused by organized religions, and how atheism is a logical alternative. The site includes a forum, a retail shop, and a wiki which may be edited by any member. Note: This website was previously called "Think Atheist".

Secular Cafe - This online gathering place serves as a venue for secularists who want to discuss important issues in a friendly relaxed environment. There are individual forums for politics, religion, morality and various other subjects. Everyone is welcome regardless of their personal views, provided that they don't engage in abusive or disruptive conduct.

Atheist Republic - This online community has attracted a diverse group of contributors from many different backgrounds. Its website provides opportunities for blogging, participating in forum discussions, uploading images, and other activities. There are also news stories, a section of statistics about atheism, and a store. One of the strengths of this community is its international makeup, which makes it a place where atheists from different societies can meet and exchange ideas.

Atheist Universe - This is another diverse international community with an easy-to-use website that includes an active forum, member blogs, and links to other resources.

AtheistForums.com and AtheistForums.org - These are two of the oldest and best-established basic atheist forum sites on the web. Although they have the same name, "Atheist Forums", they were created independently, and there is no connection between them. But they are similar, and some people have joined both of them and visit both regularly. There are often some very knowledgeable participants in basic forums of this type, and some of the best discussions take place in them.

Happy Atheist Forum - This is another well-established atheist forum site. There are many individual discussion sections where members can express their views in areas such as social issues, current events, and politics.

Ain't No God - In addition to participating in discussion threads, members of this forum can also post images and create their own blogs.

Debating Christianity and Religion Forum - This forum is specifically designed to encourage discussions about various human belief systems. Many atheists have joined for the purpose of engaging in direct debates with Christians.

Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums - This forum site was originally created for discussions of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe weekly podcasts produced by the New England Skeptical Society. Typical subjects of these podcasts include myths, superstitions, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and purported paranormal phenomena. Participants in the forum can also start discussions about other subjects as well. Due to the popularity of the podcasts, this has become one of the largest and most active online groups for skeptics and free-thinkers.

Other Online Communities:

Raving Atheists Forum

Yahoo Answers Religion -- Very active and fierce

The Vegan Atheist Forum

Return to Top of Page

Blogs and Blog Hubs

Debunking Christianity - As its name suggests, this top blog focuses on exposing the illogical and fallacious aspects of the Christian religion. There are also links to many similar blogs and websites, as well as to the sales pages of dozens of books that might be of interest to atheists.

Free Thought Blogs - This is a hub for some of the best-known freethought blogs, including the Atheist Experience and Pharyngula. Most of these blogs were originally scattered around the web at various other locations, but were later moved here.

Patheos Atheist Channel - Another group of prominent freethought bloggers can be found here. These include the Friendly Atheist, Unreasonable Faith, and Daylight Atheism.

The Orbit - This hub, which was launched in March 2016, is home to a number of prominent atheist and freethought bloggers. One main purpose of the site is to encourage more activism within the secular community, especially in confronting social injustices and other problems of modern society.

Skepchick - This was originally the website of Rebecca Watson, who launched it in 2005, but it was later expanded to include contributions by other writers. One of the goals is to promote skepticism and critical thinking among women around the world. In recent years additional sites have been added to form the Skepchick Network, which includes Queereka (LGBTQ issues), School of Doubt (education), Mad Art Lab, and Teen Skepchick. Although most of the writers are women, men can also contribute.

Center for Inquiry Group Blog - This blog includes posts from leading members of the Center for Inquiry staff as well as other prominent freethinkers and guest posters. There is also a daily digest of atheist news reports called "The Morning Heresy".

Daylight Atheism - This well-known blog was created by writer Adam Lee in 2006, with the goal of helping to bring nonbelief out into the daylight. Eventually, after many years as an independent site, Daylight Atheism was incorporated into the Patheos website as a separate section. In mid-2018, veteran newspaper editor James A. Haught joined the blog as a regular contributor.

Atheist Ethicist - This prolific blogger often writes about the ethical choices we must make in our lives, and how they are affected by both basic human nature and the influence of culture and society.

Common Sense Atheism - Frequent insightful posts about important religious and social issues have brought this blogger to prominence.

Atheist Media Blog - Go to this blog to keep up with news reports and media stories relating to controversial scientific, religious, and social issues.

The Atheist Blogroll - More than 1000 atheists have started using blogs to express their views and substantiate their beliefs. For a list of many of them, go to this blogroll.

Skeptic Ink Network - This is an internet hub for a group of skeptic bloggers who try to address important questions in philosophy, religion, secularism, and related areas. This is a fairly new web hub, but it has already attracted a diverse group of writers from many different countries and backgrounds.

Return to Top of Page

Humor and Satire

Landover Baptist Church - A spoof of organized religions, this site takes a humorous look at typical Christian attitudes toward race, sex, abstinence, biblical inerrancy, and salvation. For example, a section on "Godly Health" contains a fake ad for a "Salvation Pill" which will help strengthen a believer's faith. The site also includes a forum, a store, and a news archive.

The Evil Atheist Conspiracy - This hilarious parody of Christian beliefs about atheism describes how a diabolical organization of the godless is secretly controlling the earth and trying to wipe out everything that is honest, decent, and good. Of course no such organization actually exists, but the article describes some of the horrible evil things it would be doing if it did exist.

Un-intelligent Design - Some people believe that the universe was designed by some higher power, but that this higher power did a really lousy job of it. One often-cited example of bad design is the existence of mosquitoes, ticks, and other blood-suckers, which a better design wouldn't have included. Some people also argue that human beings could have been better designed, perhaps by being given more intelligence and less propensity to resort to violence. Many atheists regard such design defects as just more evidence that there are no gods.

Note: De-baptism Ceremonies - Most American atheists were raised as Christians and didn't see the truth until after they became old enough to start thinking for themselves. A de-baptism ceremony gives them an opportunity to "undo" their earlier baptisms as infants or young children, when water was sprinkled on their heads as part of a church ritual. In recent years several mass de-baptisms of large groups have been carried out at freethought conventions, and also at special De-Baptism Bashes. Some atheists have even tried to get their names removed from old church baptismal rolls because they were infants at the time and didn't give their consent.

Jesus and Mo - Launched in 2005, this hilarious weekly comic strip features the "holy roomies" Jesus and Mo (Mohammed). This is one of the best-known and most widely-praised irreligious cartoon sites on the web.

God Thinking about Retirement - Because the universe is so big, and keeps getting even bigger, God is tired of having to watch over everything, and feels bummed out. He also feels that he's not really needed anymore, since the universe pretty much runs itself. So he's thinking about retiring.

Note: God's Mistakes - If, as some believe, the Christian god originally intended to create a perfect earthly paradise for all humankind, then his efforts apparently went awry. But his lack of success might be partly due to his own blunders. Here are four of his possible mistakes.

1. He Created the Devil -- Many people have wondered why God created Satan. But whatever his reasons, he may have later regretted doing so, because the bible says that Satan will eventually be brought to justice and punished with eternal torment in hell. However that hasn't happened yet, and in the meantime the loathsome fiend has roamed free for thousands of years, and has used that time to pursue his evil activities all over the earth.

2. He Didn't Give Adam and Eve Enough Willpower -- Unfortunately, when God made Adam and Eve, he didn't give them enough willpower to resist the temptations of the talking serpent. Many Christians regard the resulting "Fall of Mankind" as the basic cause of all the misery and suffering subsequently experienced by the human race. Of course God could have avoided the whole thing by not creating the talking serpent in the first place.

3. He Didn't Reveal Himself to Everyone -- God wants all people to worship him and to obey his commandments. But instead of telling this to everyone directly, he initually only revealed it to the ancient tribe of Hebrews, and instructed them to carry the message to everyone else. But due to wars, enslavements, and other difficulties, the Hebrews and their descendants weren't able to take the message to most parts of the world. As a result, when Jesus came to earth, part of his mission was to launch a new effort to spread the word. Even so, millions of people have lived and died without ever getting the message.

4. He Hasn't Let Jesus Finish the Job -- Evidently Jesus wasn't able to get everything done during his first appearance on the earth, because he told his followers that he would return later to finish the job. He didn't explain why he couldn't do everything in one visit. At any rate, many Christians expect his Second Coming to miraculously bring an end to all violence, oppression, injustice, and misery. But humankind has suffered through 2000 more years of those same problems, with everyone wondering why he still hasn't returned.

Comics of Watson Heston -- One section of this page contains links to some 19th-century cartoons drawn by Watson Heston. You might find it interesting to look at the style of humor that was popular in that era.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - Members of this church devote themselves to what is probably the only edible god known to humankind. This god was secretly worshiped by pirates for hundreds of years, but became known to the general public in 2005, and the church now has thousands of members called Pastafarians. Many of the beliefs are based on a collection of inerrant sacred scriptures called The Loose Canon: A Really Important Collection of Words.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn - This goddess is another deity who has recently been gaining many devotees. Oddly, although she is invisible, she is also pink. Some Christians have claimed that she doesn't really exist, but none of them have proved it.

Note: The Final Battle - As all true Christians already know, the Forces of Evil and the Forces of Good are currently fighting a great battle for the Soul of America. Prophecies in the Bible predicted this battle, and signs that it has finally begun are clearly visible to all godly people.

Aside: For anyone who isn't godly enough to see these signs, here is a list of some of them:-- Lawlessness and crime are rampant.-- Storms and earthquakes are becoming more violent.-- Communists and atheists have infiltrated the highest levels of government.-- Wickedness and depravity are spreading through society like cancers.-- Political turmoil has created the perfect opportunity for the Antichrist to appear.

Although the great battle is still in an early stage, the Forces of Evil are already using nefarious tricks and vile tactics to try to gain an advantage. Christians need to realize that this will be a long desperate struggle, and that the final fate of all humankind is hanging in the balance. Luckily the prophecies say that the Forces of Good will ultimately triumph, and that all wicked people will be condemned to eternal torture in hell. Of course true Christians don't have to worry anyway, because they know that sooner or later the Rapture will occur and take them to the safety of Heaven. But in the meantime the great war rages on, and true believers must learn to see through the media's deceptions and gain a full understanding of what's really happening in this great struggle for the Soul of America.

Born Again Pagan - If you're want some good laughs, go to this great all-around humor website. You'll find amusing cartoons, funny jokes, and witty quotes.

Note: The Omphalos Hypothesis - Some Christians interpret the bible to mean that God created the earth about 6000 years ago, although geological evidence indicates that our planet is at least four billion years old. When asked about this discrepancy, some Christians will explain it by saying that God intentionally tried to make the earth look much older by "planting" fake evidence such as bogus dinosaur fossils. God did this, these Christians will say, in order to find out who can be tricked into adopting false beliefs like evolution. Any people who can be tricked in this way obviously don't have enough faith, and God will deal with them accordingly.

The idea that God planted fake evidence about the earth's age, as a way to trick people into false beliefs, is known as the Omphalos Hypothesis. But some Christians have wondered why God would need to resort to tricks in order to determine who doesn't have sufficient faith. This line of thought has led to the theory that it must have actually been Satan who created all of this fake geological evidence, so that he could use it to lead people astray.

Funny Atheism - This small site contains a nice collection of humorous anti-religious jokes and cartoons.

Mr. Deity - Most of the episodes in this well-known series of short witty films are parodies of Christian beliefs about their God. The role of Mr. Deity (God) is played by Brian Keith Dalton, who is also the original creator and main script writer. The first episode appeared on Youtube in 2006, and the whole series is still available for viewing there.

Question: Why was Jesus crucified?

Answer: God wanted to forgive everyone's sins, but he couldn't do it unless somebody paid for them first.

The Satanic Temple - This group stages public events which use parody to fight religious hate and bigotry. It is best-known for designing and creating a large solid-bronze statue of Baphomet (Satan).

Fundies Say the Darndest Things - This is a collection of thousands of bizarre statements that have been made by fundamentalist Christians in recent years. Although most of the quotes are hilarious, unfortunately many are also bigoted, false, delusive, and in some cases, even terrifying. This site also has a separate collection of vile, hateful, but sometimes hysterically-convoluted quotes from political and religious extremists.

Note: Some Questions to Ask Christians

-- Why do men have nipples on their chests?

-- When Jesus came to earth, why did he arrive in the form of a human baby?

-- Did God know beforehand that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit?

-- Why doesn't God guide tornadoes away from churches?

-- Did Mary feel any labor pains when she gave birth to Jesus?

-- Did God make a mistake when he picked the Jews to be his chosen people?

More Humor Sites -- There are many other humor sites for freethinkers on the web. If you want some more laughs, you can start by going to the following resources:

Atheist Humor on Pinterest

Fundalmentalist Funhouse

Christwire

Archive of Some Classic Religion Jokes

See the rest here:

Atheist Websites Directory

President Obama on Atheism | Real Time with Bill Maher …

Subscribe to the Real Time YouTube: http://itsh.bo/10r5A1B

Bill asks President Barack Obama about a growing and underrepresented part of the electorate: nonbelievers.

Connect with Real Time Online:Find Real Time on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MaherFind Real Time on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RealTimersFind Real Time with Bill Maher Official Site: http://itsh.bo/HttKcM.Find Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO GO http://itsh.bo/iioY87.Find Real Time with Bill Maher on Connect: http://connect.hbo.com/real-time-bill...Find Real Time on Instagram: http://instagram.com/realtimersThe Real Time blog: http://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-...Find Real Time merchandise: http://itsh.bo/1p0Doxu

It's HBO.

Connect with HBO OnlineFind HBO on Facebook: http://Facebook.com/HBOFollow @HBO on Twitter: http://Twitter.com/HBOFind HBO on Youtube: http://Youtube.com/HBOFind HBO Official Site: http://HBO.comFind HBO Connect: http://Connect.hbo.comFind HBO GO: http://HBOGO.comFind HBO on Instagram: http://Instagram.com/hboFind HBO on Foursquare: http://Foursquare.com/hboFind the HBO Shop: http://itsh.bo/billmahershop

Check out other HBO ChannelsHBO: http://www.youtube.com/hboGame of Thrones: http://www.youtube.com/GameofThrones HBO Sports: http://www.youtube.com/HBOsports HBO Documentary Films: http://www.youtube.com/HBODocs Cinemax: http://www.youtube.com/Cinemax HBO Latino: http://www.youtube.com/HBOLatino

Originally posted here:

President Obama on Atheism | Real Time with Bill Maher ...

Atheism in Hinduism – Wikipedia

Atheism (Sanskrit: , nir-vara-vda, lit. "statement of no Lord", "doctrine of godlessness") or disbelief in God or gods has been a historically propounded viewpoint in many of the orthodox and heterodox streams of Hindu philosophies.[1] In Indian philosophy, three schools of thought are commonly referred to as nastika for rejecting the doctrine of Vedas: Jainism, Buddhism and Crvka.[2][3]

Hinduism is a religion, but also a philosophy.[4][5] Among the various schools of Hindu philosophy, Samkhya, Yoga and Mimamsa while not rejecting either the Vedas or the Brahman,[6] typically reject a personal God, creator God, or a God with attributes. While Samkhya and Yoga rejected the idea of an eternal, self-caused, creator God, Mimamsa argued that the Vedas could not have been authored by a deity.

Though some schools of thought view the path of the atheist as difficult to follow in matters of spirituality, it is still a valid one.[7] Hindu atheists accept Hinduism more as a "way of life" than a religion.

The Sanskrit term stika ("pious, orthodox") refers to the systems of thought which admit the validity of the Vedas.[8] Sanskrit asti means "there is", and stika (per Pini 4.2.60) derives from the verb, meaning "one who says 'asti'". Technically, in Hindu philosophy the term stika refers only to acceptance of authority of Vedas, not belief in the existence of God.[9] However, though not accepted universally, stika is sometimes translated as "theist" and Nstika as "atheist", assuming the rejection of Vedas to be synonymous to the rejection of God.[10]

Another interpretation by Swami Vivekananda states "As certain religions of the world say that a man who does not believe in a Personal God outside of himself is an atheist, so the Vedanta says, a man who does not believe in himself is an atheist. Not believing in the glory of our own soul is what the Vedanta calls atheism."[11]

The Rig Veda, the oldest of the Vedas, deals with significant skepticism around the fundamental question of a creator God and the creation of the universe. It does not, at many instances, categorically accept the existence of a creator God. Nasadiya Sukta (Creation Hymn) in the tenth chapter of the Rig Veda states:[12][13]

Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.

The Brihadaranyaka, Isha, Mundaka (in which Brahman is everything and "no-thing") and especially the Chandogya Upanishads have also been interpreted as atheistic because of their stress on the subjective self.[14]

Mimamsa was a realistic, pluralistic school of philosophy which was concerned with the exegesis of the Vedas.[15] The core text of the school was the Purva Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini (c. 200 BCE200 CE). Mimamsa philosophers believed that the revelation of the Vedas was sacred, authorless (apaurusheyatva) and infallible, and that it was essential to preserve the sanctity of the Vedic ritual to maintain dharma (cosmic order).[16][17]:5253 As a consequence of the belief in sanctity of the ritual, Mimamsas rejected the notion of God in any form.[15] Later commentators of the Mimamsa sutras such as Prabhkara (c. 7th century CE) advanced arguments against the existence of God.[18][19] The early Mimamsa not only did not accept God but said that human action itself was enough to create the necessary circumstances for the enjoyment of its fruits.[20]

Samkhya is an atheistic[21] and strongly dualistic[22][23] orthodox (Astika) school of Indian philosophy. The earliest surviving authoritative text on classical Samkhya philosophy is the Samkhyakarika (c. 350450 CE) of Ivaraka.[17]:63 The Samkhyakarika is silent on the issue of Isvara's existence or nonexistence, although first millennium commentators such as Gaudapada understand the text as compatible with some concept of God. However, the Samkhya Sutra (14th c. CE) and its commentaries explicitly attempt to disprove God's existence through reasoned argument.[24]

Crvka, a materialistic and atheistic school of Indian philosophy, had developed a systematic philosophy by the 6th century CE. Crvkas rejected metaphysical concepts like reincarnation, the afterlife, an extracorporeal soul, the efficacy of religious rites, other worlds (heaven and hell), fate, and accumulation of merit or demerit through the performance of certain actions. Crvkas also refused to ascribe supernatural causes to natural phenomena. Crvka philosophy appears to have died out some time after 1200 CE.[25]

jvikas was a movement (extinct from at least the 13th century CE) whose founder, Makkhali Gosala, was a contemporary of Mahavira and Gautama Buddha (the central figures of Jainism and Buddhism, respectively). Gosala and his followers also denied the existence of a creator god.[26]

Mimamsas argued that there was no need to postulate a maker for the world, just as there was no need for an author to compose the Vedas or a God to validate the rituals.[27] They further thought that the Gods named in the Vedas had no physical existence apart from the mantras that speak their names. In this regard, the power of the mantras was what was seen as the power of Gods.[28] Mimamsas reasoned that an incorporeal God could not author the Vedas, for he would not have the organs of speech to utter words. An embodied God could not author the Vedas either because such a God would be subject to the natural limitations of sensory knowledge and therefore, would not be able to produce supernatural revelations like the Vedas.[29]

Samkhya gave the following arguments against the idea of an eternal, self-caused, creator God:[30]

Therefore, Samkhya maintained not only that the various cosmological, ontological and teleological arguments could not prove God, but that God as normally understood--an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent creator who is free from suffering--cannot exist.

The Indian Nobel Prize-winner Amartya Sen, in an interview with Pranab Bardhan for the California Magazine published in the JulyAugust 2006 edition by the University of California, Berkeley states:[31]

In some ways people had got used to the idea that India was spiritual and religion-oriented. That gave a leg up to the religious interpretation of India, despite the fact that Sanskrit had a larger atheistic literature than what exists in any other classical language. Madhava Acharya, the remarkable 14th century philosopher, wrote this rather great book called Sarvadarshansamgraha, which discussed all the religious schools of thought within the Hindu structure. The first chapter is "Atheism" a very strong presentation of the argument in favor of atheism and materialism.

According to Markandey Katju, former Chairman of the Press Council of India and former judge of the Supreme Court of India, "...there are six classical systems of Indian philosophy, Nyaya, Vaisheshik, Sankya, Yoga, Purva Mimansa and Uttar Mimansa, and three non-classical systems, Buddhism, Jainism and Charvak. Out of these nine systems eight of them are atheistic as there is no place for God in them. Only the ninth one, that is Uttar Mimansa, which is also called Vedanta, has a place for God in it."[32][33]

See the rest here:

Atheism in Hinduism - Wikipedia

AtheismUK.com – Challenging Religious Faith

The 2018 Atheism UK AGM will be on Saturday 4th August in London.

Continue reading Atheism UK 2018 AGM

The Danger of Religion: Faith-based thinking is inherently dangerous, such as in thinking everything happens for a reason, says Alcuin(Rad Doherty) in our forum. Rad is an Atheism UK fully paid up member and forum moderator. He is also our most prolific forum contributor (with over 800 posts). Radsaim is to undermine superstition in the UK and he is a:

Non-believer in favour of an inclusive, humanist (small h) society. One which values critical thinking and is based on secular principles such as one law for all, democracy and freedom of speech and expression.

Alcuin concludes his July 22nd 2018forum postall superstitions are inherently harmful:

Continue reading The Danger of Religion: faith-based thinking is inherently dangerous says Atheism UK member

Young seekers of truth go through a phase of wondering whether life has any discernible meaning. Why are we here? Why does the universe exist? Is there a purpose to it all? This is the ultimate question, overarching all others.

Continue reading The Search for Meaning

By James A. Haught

Im quite aware that my turn is approaching. The realization hovers in my mind like a frequent companion.

My first wife died ten years ago. Dozens, hundreds, of my longtime friends and colleagues likewise came to the end of their journeys. They number so many that I keep a Gone list in my computer to help me remember them all. Before long, it will be my turn to join the list.

Continue reading No Qualms

INFORM is based at the London School of Economics. They meeton Monday 12 February 2018 from6:30pm to 8:00pm.

Thirty years after founding INFORM, the information network on religious movements, Eileen Barker argues that the sociology of religion still has an important role.This event will celebrate Eileens work over the past 30 years.

h/t Ferran.

The Covering your Internet tracks post waswrittenby the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) (updated December 2017) and is aimed at people that find themselves in need of greater security, privacy and anonymity (SPA) for their electronic communications.

Continue reading Covering your Internet tracks

Atheism UKwould like to raise awareness of the Secular Therapy Project, which was created, to connect non-believers who need mental health care with professionals who are either non-believers themselves or are committed to providing secular, evidence-based care. It was created to do it as confidentially as possible. Continue reading Secular Therapy Project

The September 2017 Church of England survey revealsthe extent of childhood indoctrination in Britain. So Atheism UK has compiled this post about child indoctrination help by Dr. Darrel Ray of Kids Without Gods and Dr. Marlene Winell of Journey Free: Recovery from Harmful Religion.

Continue reading Child indoctrination help for ex-Christians by Drs. Darrel Ray & Marlene Winell

A Church of England survey this week reveals the staggering extent of childhood indoctrination/ socialisation* in Britain. The survey shows that nearly two-thirds of all British Christians become Christian when they were still toddlers at 0-4 years old. (1,2)Seventeen out of twenty Christians become Christian whenchildren or teenagers, only one in twenty when adults.

* h/t Matt Sheard comment about socialisation 19/9/17.

Whilst half of Brits are Christian, four in ten dont belong to any religious group. Almost six in ten of 19-24 year olds are non-religious.

Continue reading Childhood indoctrination / socialisation of pre-school toddlers creates up to two-thirds of British Christians says survey

See the original post:

AtheismUK.com - Challenging Religious Faith

600+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates

matt: I just listened to the loftus-dsouza debate and as a consequence left the william lane craig should debate john loftus group at facebook. I dont know what others here think, but I have never heard such terrible debating (loftus). dinesh dsouza is the most overrated and small-minded debater in the english speaking universe, as far as im concerned. his arguments are like cardboard cutout versions of anything william craig has to say, for one thing because he makes no effort to hide his cultural and ideological bigotry. (he actually claims with a straight face that christians invented empathy as a moral good. what an asshole.) loftus comes across as a well-meaning college student trying to argue with his professor. i dont understand why theres a movement to see him embarrass himself and atheism generally by publically confronting the Terminator of christian apologetics himself. soooo disappointing!

As entirely disappointing as it is to say this, I am in complete agreement with Matt. I am unwilling, after listening to this, to cast my name in the vote for Loftus to debate Mr. Craig. Naively, I was hoping, especially after becoming aware of the fervent almost zealous nature of Loftus pursuit of Craig, that this would not only be the introduction of a worthy gun-slinging atheist debate protagonist but that if this epic showdown took place, it would have the added poetry of it being the student who is finally able to best the theistic Samurai. Like I said; Naive.

Typically, I dont criticize without visiting some of the reasons for my criticism.

1) There are several themes Loftus runs with in this debate, they continually come up ineffectively and provide nothing of real substance. He opens up with one; essentially telling everyone that Dinesh is just brainwashed. Which, although true, isnt something that couldnt be slung right back at him as we all know theists to do as they believe we dont believe because we dont want culpability moral or otherwise, so therefore, weve brainwashed ourselves into disbelief. Fortunately, Dinesh doesnt pick up this thread and engage Loftus in playing a sort of merry-go-round styled No, youre the brainwashed one.. No, you are.. No, YOU are...

2) Another theme is his constant return to Well all the sects of these religions critique each other and theyre all right, effectively eliminating religion in front of our very eyes. This is repeated quite frequently in this debate and Im sure Ill have more to say about it later.

3) I was inconceivably shocked with his statement History is all in the mind. He quickly tried to cover his tracks by following that up with something like well, thats what some philosophers of history say, anyway. His reasoning, as it could be inferred from what he said just prior to this utterance, was basically that history writers can only write from their perspective so given what may be of that perspective, they may have rationale for remaining skeptical of something that actually happened. Yikes.

4)Generally, about his opening remarks, he is just all over the place. There is no introduction of his arguments he just shifts left and talks about Quantum fluctuation rendering the singularity at the inception of our universe not likely therefore removing the beginning of the universe theory out of the Christians favor then all of a sudden he shifts right and now were talking about Jesus not delivering his scriptural message well and thereby is responsible for all the religious wars in his name then if there is God, hes to blame for the tsunamis. Loftus, the opening statement is the only time you have to not scramble about trying to address all of your antagonists remarks. You should have complete lucidity at this point in the game. Perhaps collecting your thoughts at the outset and introducing your arguments with more clarity of mind, e.g.

Ok, our first batter up on the atheist lineup is going to be the evidential argument from evil, it goes like this:1) If there is an omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving God..

Our next argument is a quick rejoinder to the First Cause argument, which is something like this:1) Everything that begins to exist..

Instead of touching briefly on all of them, narrow your selection down to a few and expound on them in greater detail leaving Dinesh to either spend a huge chunk of his time rebutting you or, should he chose not to, being able in your first rebuttal to say Hey, remember that huge argument of the problem of evil looks like Dinesh agrees with me as he apparently has no reply.

5) Loftus, at a few points in the debate calls Dinesh something which must have been new to his huge ears: Charming. Dinesh Dsouza is not charming. He is an arrogant, unsophisticated, misleading to the point of purposefully deceiving bucket of fuck. He is good at appearing to have a legit reply to atheistic arguments which are so transparently fraught with specious reasoning and argumentative fallacies that they render him ineligible to be charming.

6) Ive actually taken the trouble to transcribe the next part because I didnt think people would believe me when I said I bet I could find the worst conceivable argument for the atheistic creation-scenario. This was in response to, and was in fact introduced as such by Loftus himself as, Now, Dinesh has asked me to give an account of the creation of the universe.

even though Im not a scientist, what I do know, is that scientists all agree that there was no cosmic singularity. Now I cant do the math. Uhh, I can not do Victor Stengers math. He has done the math. Uhh, ::clears throat:: But, he says, given the laws of nature, its a 60% chance that something should have happened, something should be there, something should exist. 60%. Given the laws of nature.

Yep. Word for word. You can hear this enlightening account of our origins at the 41:28 point. Prepare to be underwhelmed.

7) Loftus closing, opens with this gem: I guess things got heated a little bit.. but, uh, its you know, it doesnt have to be but it does. Illuminating. Loftus then spends more then his first minute of his five minute closing telling everyone that the real way to learn is from the books. I must say, I would feel a bit slapped in the face as someone who Ive paid to listen to tell me I should pay, instead, to read him. Im not saying hes wrong. You can certainly learn more from a 300 page dissection of theism then what collectively amounts to 35 or 40 minutes worth of lectures, but to use that time so inefficiently is irritating. How about using that time to effectively rebut one of Dineshs arguments? Or constructing one of your own against Christianity? A task youve been flown in and paid to do. He then spends the rest of his closing telling everyone they should just be agnostic because theyre agnostic/atheistic towards every other religion so basically, just be consistent. Have you read any other religions? No? Then you should just discard yours too. we deny scientology, we deny mormons, we deny muslims Im sorry, maybe Im being unfairly critical but who the hell has ever been converted after being told that line? Who, after being made to realize that they havent given fair intellectual treatment to greek mythology, has right then and there renounced Christ for good?

Loftus and Dsouza were very generous and permitted almost another hour of questioning following there closings.

Before I submit this rather harsh review of Loftus debating skills, I have to say, as I believe Ive stated before, Why I Became An Atheist was one of the best, most helpful books I read in the atheistic/agnostic/naturalist cannon of probably 20-30 books Ive read in the past 2 or 3 years. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Notes for future thoughts and arguments poured out of me while reading that book and I recommend and cite it in my own writing quite often. So maybe my resentment is as a result of placing so much FAITH in Mr Loftus as an author that I unfairly expected too much of him as a neophyte debater.

I do, with the utmost sincerity hope, that if you are reading this Mr Loftus (as I know you frequent this site) you take some note of how this looks to your fellow nonbelievers. Were relying on you, as one of the few out there headlining debates on our behalf. You know the crowd of people at your back are of an intellectual breed and as such, we demand the highest caliber arguments be offered in our defense. You clearly display a great deal of passion for these topics and Im hoping I can count on that to have you take better care to prepare your thoughts in the future. As well as to focus your arguments and speak with more clarity and precision. Look at your former mentor. He doesnt race through his speeches. He has a calm, very collected vibe and hardly repeats the same thing in a single debate whereas, a lot of what you said, you said in almost the same wording in multiple places (i.e. the religion cancels each other out argument).

Best,J.

Here is the original post:

600+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates

Humanism vs. Atheism | Progressive Humanism

A couple of days ago, a 21 year-old student asked me: Is it a contradiction of terms to be a Humanist but not an Atheist? I replied approximately as follows:

It depends on how you define your terms. I believe that the essence of humanism is a sense that humanity as a whole is more important than any of its subgroups. Basic to humanism is an attitude that starts with a sense of togetherness, a sympathy and a sharing, accompanied by a sense that you as an individual share responsibility for our collective future with all the rest of humanity.

If you believe there is a God specifically dedicated to the protection or care of the group you happen to belong to, whether that group is defined by religion or race or whatever, and that your god supports your group as opposed to other groups, I dont think you can properly be considered a true humanist.

If you believe that there is a God up there someplace that you can invoke to alter specific things that are going to happen, you are not a true humanist. You are in effect passing the buck to an entity whose existence is unverifiable. The humanist says, in effect, the buck stops here.

If you dont submit to either of those two beliefs, however, you can be a humanist in practice even if you choose to believe in some higher power. Some atheists might dispute this, but I believe they are being unnecessarily exclusive, and underrate the need for all of us to work together to combat the pernicious forces of the conservative religious types. Issues like the separation of church and state are very important, and non-believers need to work together with sensible believers to make sure we suffer no return to theocratic tyranny.

******To put it in technical terms, there is a great gap between theists and deists, where deists believe there is a power up there but basically we are on our own. That gap is far more important, in practical terms, than the gap in belief between deists and atheists. As long as you recognize that human destiny is made here on earth, by us humans, and that we are solely responsible for what happens, whether you believe in God (the deist approach) or dont (atheism) is a matter of choice, and an individual seriously concerned with the future of humanity can go either way. A deist with strong humanist leanings is likely to be a person that makes a positive contribution to humanity as a whole. I am a humanist who prefers not to believe in any superior power, but I welcome humanism wherever I find it. We need each other.

CSC 7/16/00

See the original post:

Humanism vs. Atheism | Progressive Humanism

The Trouble With Atheism | Documentary Heaven

The Trouble with Atheism is an hour-long documentary on atheism, presented by Rod Liddle. It aired on Channel 4 in December 2006. The documentary focuses on criticizing atheism, as well as science, for its perceived similarities to religion, as well as arrogance and intolerance. The programme includes interviews with a number of prominent scientists, including atheists Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne. It also includes an interview with Ellen Johnson, the president of American Atheists.

Liddle begins the documentary by surveying common criticisms of religion, and particularly antireligious arguments based on the prevalence of religious violence. He argues that the very stupid human craving for certainty and justification, not religion, is to blame for this violence, and that atheism is becoming just as dogmatic as religion.

In order to support his thesis, Liddle presents numerous examples of actions and words by atheists which he argues are direct parallels of religious attitudes. He characterizes Atkins and Dawkins as fundamentalist atheists and evangelists.

In response to atheistic appeals to science as a superior method for understanding the world than religion, Liddle argues that science itself is akin to religion: the problem for atheists is that science may not be as far away from religion as you might imagine.

He describes Fermilab, a U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory focused on particle physics, as a temple to science, and characterizes Charles Darwins The Origin of Species as a sacred text for atheists.

Read the rest here:

The Trouble With Atheism | Documentary Heaven

First Church of Atheism | Minister’s Site

With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.

Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality.

The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions.

You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question.

The easiest way to support us is on Patreon by clicking the link below or by purchasing one of the minister supplies in our shop. Many thanks to all of you who keep us strong!

Become a Patron!

See the article here:

First Church of Atheism | Minister's Site

Top 10 Atheism Quotes

There are hundreds of great atheism quotes out there. Like most skillful turns of phrase, they all sound good. But there are many I disagree with, for example All thinking men are atheists (Ernest Hemmingway).

Or consider this Julian Baggini quote: Goblins, hobbits truly everlasting gobstoppers God is just one of the things that atheists dont believe in, it just happens to be the thing that, for historical reasons, gave them their name. Actually, no. Perhaps we could say that God is just one of many things that naturalists dont believe in, or something like that, but atheism is defined only by a lack of belief in gods.

There are hundreds of other atheism quotes to choose from, but these are the ones that strike me most deeply right now.

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Stephen Roberts

When I was a kid I had an imaginary friend and I used to think that he went everywhere with me, and that I could talk to him and that he could hear me, and that he could grant me wishes and stuff. And then I grew up, and I stopped going to church.

Jimmy Carr

Believe nothing,No matter where you read it,Or who has said it,Not even if I have said it,Unless it agrees with your own reasonAnd your own common sense.

Buddha

To understand via the heart is not to understand.

Michel de Montaigne

I dont know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didnt.

Jules Renard

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.

Anonymous

Do not pass by my epitaph, traveler.But having stopped, listen and learn, then go your way.There is no boat in Hades, no ferryman Charon,No caretaker Aiakos, no dog Cerberus.All we who are dead belowHave become bones and ashes, but nothing else.I have spoken to you honestly, go on, traveler,Lest even while dead I seem talkative to you.

Ancient Roman tombstone

An atheist doesnt have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there cant be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.

John McCarthy

Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.

Blaise Pascal

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

Anonymous

Continue reading here:

Top 10 Atheism Quotes

Do Christians REALLY Believe? – Common Sense Atheism

Redated from March 2009.

I was a Christian recently enough to remember what it felt like to really believe the Creator of the universe talked to me, to really believe I would go to heaven and unbelievers would go to hell, to really believe that prayer made a difference.

It sure felt like I really believed that stuff. And other Christians tell me they really believe that stuff, too.

But somethings not quite right with that.

Supposedly, my parents really believe that I am going to hell now that Im an atheist. They believe their son, whom they love dearly, is going to be tortured forever. Literally.

And yet, they dont seem very upset by this. Sure, theyre upset that their son has rejected most of the values and truths they tried to instill in me. Theyre upset that I reject their way of life as both deluded and immoral. Thats a major blow for any caring parent to take.

But they dont seem upset that their beloved son will be tortured forever in hell. And that seems odd.

If they really believed that, wouldnt I see some serious mourning? Some pleading? Some great distress?

But its not just my parents. Its Christians in general. I had these questions even when I was a Christian.

This is not a post for attacking Christian beliefs or promoting atheistic views. This is a post about understanding. Id like to understand Christians better. So, Christians: I have a question for you.

If you really believed some of the people you love dearly were going to spend an eternity in hell, wouldnt that motivate you to try harder to save them?

Lets say we all lived in Poland at the start of World War II and you got word that soon, the Nazis were going to invade the town where several of your friends and family lived. The Nazis were going take everybody off to concentration camps in chains, and possibly kill them. And lets say this information came from a very reliable source, so that you really believed this was going to happen.

Would you just go on about your life? Would you just mention this to your friends and family in passing, and send them the occasional tract with information on the threat of the Nazis? Would you merely pray for them to see the threat and save themselves?

Or, would you do everything you could to save your friends and family? Maybe you would drive out there and try to convince them of the threat until you were blue in the face. Maybe you would refuse to leave until they came away with you. Maybe you would I dunno what, but it would be pretty drastic. I know if I were in that situation, then I would do some pretty drastic things to save my friends and family.

But this is not what Christians do for their friends and family who they really believe are on the verge of falling into eternal torture, even though they say they really believe this, and even though they feel they really believe this.

So something weird is going on. Millions of Christians really believe this stuff, but they dont act like it.

As best we can tell, humans always act so as to fulfill the strongest of their current desires, given their beliefs. But I very much doubt that Christians do not have a strong desire to save their spouses, their children, and their best friends from eternal agony. So there seems to be something weird about the belief end of the equation.

Do Christians really believe what they say and feel they believe? Whats going on here?

If you really believe this, you shouldnt have to tell yourself, Youre right, I really should try harder to evangelize. No, if you really believed, you would already have that motivation! You wouldnt need to try to manufacture it!

And if you really believed, you wouldnt need to constantly repeat the doctrines of Christianity to yourself, and do everything you can to build up your faith. I dont need to remind myself that the Holocaust happened or that gravity is real. I dont need to constantly build up my faith in the existence of magnetism.

Something is fishy here, and I dont get it. Any thoughts?

Previous post: Fake Trials

Next post: News Bits

More here:

Do Christians REALLY Believe? - Common Sense Atheism

Why We Should Be Compassionate Toward Atheists – National Catholic Register (blog)

Blogs | Aug. 18, 2017

Atheism is gaining converts every day, and we have a rather daunting job of evangelizing those who would rather God did not exist.

Dr. Thomas Nagel, professor of philosophy at New York University, wrote in his 1997 book, The Last Word:

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-formed people I know are religious believers. It isnt just that I dont believe in God and, naturally, hope that Im right in my belief. Its that I hope there is no God! I dont want there to be a God; I dont want the universe to be like that.

Whether or not Dr. Nagel intended to speak for anyone other than himself, I suspect his sentiments are shared by many atheists who not only dont believe there is a God, but dont want there to be a God.

From the standpoint of Christianity, this prompts this question: Why would anyone not want a loving God to exist? This is a question that all apologistsindeed, all Christians who seek to evangelize atheistsmust ask and attempt to answer. Because if we dont know the answer to that question, we can have all the other answers to all the other questions, and it wont matter. For instance, we can talk about the inexplicable characteristics of the Shroud of Turin, the tilma of Guadalupe, the sun dancing at Fatima, the incorruptibles, and the Eucharistic miracle in Lanciano, but we may not have addressed the real issue for those who wish atheism to be true.

There may be lots of reasons for atheisms recent prevalence, but it is clear that the rise in atheism has taken place alongside the fall of the family. Is there a connection between the two? In his book Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism, psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz answers in the affirmative.

Specifically, Vitz argues that a father often exerts a powerful influence on his childs concept of God. (Since his original book was published in 1999, other studies have provided support for this point.) Dr. Vitz takes a biographical tour of modern atheists and discovers a relatively consistent thread: Looking back at our thirteen major historical rejecters of a personal God, we find a weak, dead, or abusive father in every case. Of course, it is not true, nor is Vitz making the case, that every atheist had a bad fatheror that the mere absence of a father must propel one to atheism. It would also be a fallacy to claim that each atheists fundamental reason for embracing atheism is his paternal relationship. But to Vitzs point (and consistent with the findings of other studies), it is legitimate to argue that some persons may be predisposed to atheism because of their family circumstances.

In his book, Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI makes an interesting point along the same lines, alluding to the connection between fatherhood and faith. Pointing out that the Our Father is a great prayer of consolation, insofar as it recognizes and professes God as our Father with Whom we have a personal relationship, Pope Benedict XVI notes that consolation is not experienced by everyone:

It is true, of course, that contemporary men and women have difficulty experiencing the great consolation of the word father immediately, since the experience of the father is in many cases either completely absent or is obscured by inadequate examples of fatherhood.

As Pope Benedict suggests, the idea of God as a father can be a painful reminder that their own father did not, could not, or would not love them. Thus, the idea of spending fifteen minutes, much less eternity, with a father is remarkably unpleasant.

Where does that leave those who are sincerely and charitably trying to convey Gods love to those who are so desperate to disbelieve? Perhaps it starts by recognizing that they are hurt, and what we should do is act with compassion instead of trying to win a debate with them. If you convince someone that their best hope is to spend eternity with a Being they equate with someone who has been abusive to them, you have done them no favors. You may do well to first explain to them who God is, and what Gods love means to you. Along with true knowledge, love and mercy are the essential qualities of a Catholic apologist.

Try to explain Gods love to them, and ask the Holy Spirit for the right words. Sad though it may be, its entirely possible that no one has ever triednever talked about Gods love to them. Its entirely possible that no one has ever told them that God wants them to be happy.

Patience is also critical. Some might seem obstinate in their refusal to believe, or in their inability to admit the possibility that they might be wrong. Respond with patience, and remember that though the argument at hand might be Saint Thomas Aquinas five proofs for Gods existence or the Shroud of Turin, for instance, that may not be what they are actually arguing about. They might be really arguing about their parents, the past, and their pain. Thus, for them, the Shroud of Turin serves as a spiritual Rorschach test in which they dont see Gods pain, but their own. Explain to them that no one wants to ease their pain more than God. It sometimes helps to explain to them how God has eased your own. Dont forget that comforting the afflicted is a spiritual work of mercy not just for other Christians, and it very often must precede instructing the ignorant.

Atheism is gaining converts every day, and we have a rather daunting job of evangelizing those who would rather God did not exist. Many people have had difficult and painful family experiences, and they deserved better. We need to help people understand that God is better. Scripture does not assure us that our own parents will love us; quite the contrary, God warns us that some parents will not love their own children. Thats terribly sad, but its connected with an overwhelming promise that we need to remind people again and again and again: God will never stop loving you. This message is made many times in Scripture, but perhaps most explicitly in passage that must be in our hearts and on our lips going forward in our discussions. It is Isaiah 49:15, and it reads: Can a woman forget her nursing child and have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you.

View original post here:

Why We Should Be Compassionate Toward Atheists - National Catholic Register (blog)

Everyone’s suspicious of atheists even other atheists – SBS

In the U.S. and plenty of other places around the world, atheism is on the rise. In just under half of the worlds countries, according to Pew Research Center, the second-largest religious group is people who claim no religion at all. In the United States, while recent research has shown an uptick in the number of people who identify as atheist, definitive numbers are hard to come by; one survey last year put it around 10 percent, whilea more recent study argued that it was as high as 26 percent.

Whatever the true number is, though, there remains a disconnect between atheisms popularity and its reputation: According to a new study published last week in Nature, people all over the world connect immorality with atheism. In fact, the moral prejudice against atheists is so strong that it holds even in countries like the Netherlands, where most people arent religious. Even atheists themselves, according to the study, are inclined to see nonbelievers as more wicked than the faithful.

According to a new study published last week in Nature, people all over the world connect immorality with atheism.

Entrenched moral suspicion of atheists suggests that religions powerful influence on moral judgements persists, even among non-believers in secular societies, the authors wrote.

The study, led by University of Kentucky psychology professor Will Gervais, surveyed more than 3,000 people in 13 countries, including nations with Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, and non-religious majorities: Australia, China, Czech Republic, Finland, Hong Kong, India, Mauritius, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and the United States.

Participants read a description of a man who tortured animals as a child and became even more sadistically violent as he grew up, eventually murdering five homeless people and hiding their dismembered bodies in his basement. The survey then asked some participants if they thought the man was more likely a teacher or religious teacher. Other participants were asked if they though the man was more likely a teacher or an atheist teacher. This setup meant that no one was directly asked if they thought the man was or was not an atheist, but researchers could draw conclusions by comparing how many participants said the man would be an atheist teacher versus how many said he would be a religious teacher.

Entrenched moral suspicion of atheists suggests that religions powerful influence on moral judgements persists, even among non-believers in secular societies, the authors wrote.

As they had hypothesised, the researchers found a universal suspicion of atheist morality across all 13 countries. People overall are roughly twice as likely to view extreme immorality as representative of atheists, relative to believers, they wrote. Consistent with predictions, extreme intuitive moral distrust of atheists is both globally evident and variable in its magnitude across countries.

The association was somewhat stronger in more religious countries, but even in very secular countries in the study Australia, China, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom people were more likely to associate serial killing with atheism, although the gap was narrower. The survey also asked participants to describe their religious beliefs, which allowed the research team to determine that even atheists connected immoral acts to atheism more often than to religious belief.

The authors concluded that people around the world see religion as a necessary restraint on depraved and dangerous behavior. In other words, despite the fact that we live in an increasingly secular world, people still fear those who arent God-fearing.

That finding didnt surprise Joseph Baker, author of American Secularism and a professor in the East Tennessee State University sociology department. An anti-atheist bias is really common and really well established, he said. In the United States, atheists used to be the most disliked among a number of unpopular groups, but are now tied at the top with Muslims, he said; what this new study adds is good data showing that the feeling is international.

Louise Antony, a philosophy professor at UMass Amherst who has written about atheism and morality, also found the study results unsurprising. I could predict it just from what I know about the stereotypes that people hold of atheists, she said.

It wouldnt be surprising that atheists who grow up in cultures disparaging atheists have the same associations.

But Antony also cautioned against drawing too much significance from experiments that may reveal only implicit bias, but not accurately portray peoples more holistic feelings about atheists. For example, Antony said, she has a terrible fear of spiders, the result of some deep-seated association that she wishes she didnt have, since she knows that spiders are almost entirely harmless and kill pests like mosquitoes. Likewise, people even avowed atheists may be handicapped by an implicit connection between atheism and immorality, despite a genuine belief that they themselves are as moral as believers.

The study might also be picking up on a fairly superficial response, Antony said: It wouldnt be surprising that atheists who grow up in cultures disparaging atheists have the same associations.

But even superficial biases can have very real effects, she added. Thats especially true in moments of hot cognition, when people dont have time to stop and reason out their beliefs before taking action, Baker noted.

This latest study is more evidence that atheists are still mistrusted in contemporary society, he said. It means that people who are secular still have a long way to go in terms of getting equal footing in civil discourse. Theres still a lot of prejudice they have to overcome.

This article originally appeared on Science of Us: Article 2017. All Rights reserved. Distributed by Tribune Content.

See more here:

Everyone's suspicious of atheists even other atheists - SBS

Beware the War Against ASEAN’s Atheists | The Diplomat – The Diplomat

There is one minority that knows no borders, isnt divided by race or gender, and yet still faces persecution across the world: atheists. And in recent weeks, they have been under attack in Malaysia. The government has announced that it will hunt down atheists who, it says, could face prosecution exactly what for remains in question. This all began earlier this month, when the Kuala Lumpur branch of the Atheist Republic, a Canada-based organization, posted a photo of their annual meeting on social media.

The Hunt for Atheists Continues

In response, the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department, Malaysias religious watchdog, said it is now constantly monitoring atheists groups, presumably those also online, and its director said that they would provide treatment to those caught. Shahidan Kassim, a minister in the Prime Ministers Department, said later that: I suggest we go all-out to hunt down these groups and we ask the media to help us identify them because this is a religious country.

Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar upped the ante when he commented that the the police would scrutinize the existing laws to enable appropriate action to be taken should the atheist group cause anxiety among Muslims, as FreeMalaysiaToday, an online newspaper, put it.

One can make many things of this comment. Primarily, though, if a few dozen, mostly young people who gather once a year in private can make Malaysias Muslims anxious (note Khalid cared little about the nerves of Malaysian Christians or Buddhists) then isnt his comment an affront to their commitment to the faith itself?

But the Malaysian authorities took the issue back to a perennial one: apostasy.

According to Malaysias federal laws, apostasy is not a crime. But in practice, the countrys state-run courts, which hold the sway over religious matters, rarely allow Muslims to formally leave the faith. Instead they are punished with counseling, fines, or jail time. Similarly, atheism is not strictly illegal in Malaysia, but blasphemy is. This makes atheism a grey area, since the most fundamental point of it is the belief that there is no god.

A similar problem exists in Indonesia. In 2012, Alexander Aan was almost beaten to death by a mob and then sentenced to two and a half years in prison while his attackers were set free after he posted a message on Facebook that read: God doesnt exist. The commentary surrounding the case frequently asked whether atheism was illegal in Indonesia or not. Most pundits took the opinion that it wasnt illegal: Alexander Aan, they said, wasnt convicted for his atheism but for blasphemy. To some, that was no more than intellectual contortionism at work.

But none of this should have come as a surprise. A 2016 report by the International Humanist and Ethical Union found Malaysia to be one of the least tolerant countries in the world of atheists. The report singled out Prime Minister Najib Razak for criticism. In May of that year, he described atheism and secularism, along with liberalism and humanism, as deviant and a threat to Islam and the state. He stated clearly: We will not tolerate any demands or right to apostasy by Muslims.

Over the years I have met a number of Malaysian atheists. Many have to hide their lack of faith from their families, lest they be ostracized. Social media, here, has been a massive help. And many are forced to hide behind less-controversial monikers, like freethinker, in order to avoid the thought police. By way of a comparison, I have met Vietnamese pro-democracy activists more willing to criticize the Communist Party in public places than Malaysian atheists willing to talk about religion at coffee shops. I am worried. I have already accepted that something might happen to me that I might be killed, one Malaysian atheist recently told Channel News Asia.

No Freedom From Religion

We are often told that Malaysia and Indonesia are secular nations. That is not quite true. At best, they are secular-lite. Secularism has three main components, and that is often forgotten conveniently by some. The first is a genuine separation of the church or mosque, or pagoda and the state. The second is freedom of religion, which brings with it pluralism and religious tolerance. Put simply, all faiths have equal status within the eyes of the state.

Malaysia and Indonesia do to some extent practice these but certainly not the third, which is freedom from religion. It means that I, a non-believer, am not interfered with by the forces of religion, and am protected against this by the state. It also means that a believer is allowed, by law, to remove himself from a religion. As has been indicated above, that is not quite the case by any means.

More Than Politics

Some pundits will simply claim that politics is at hand. Malaysian elections are approaching, and Malaysias ruling party is playing the religious card, fearful that Malay-Muslims will vote for one of the opposition parties. In Indonesia, the arrest and imprisonment of Basuki Ahok Purnama for blasphemy, coming as it did during the Jakartas mayoral election, was also politicians using religion, some say. President Joko Widodo weighed in here with the opinion that the anti-Ahok protests, some of the largest Indonesia has ever witnessed, were steered by political actors who were exploiting the situation.

There is some merit in this view, but it is far from the whole picture. For starters, if they are exploiting conservative religious sentiments, then surely those sentiments themselves must have been there in the first place and must be thought by a sizeable number of people for opportunistic politicians to take notice. That itself is something that ought not to be ignored, since it is the root cause of the issue we are addressing here.

Second, if it is only politicians exploiting the situation, why havent the moderate Muslim organizations come out and defend the atheists, for instance, or, to take a more specific example, why didnt they campaign for Ahok? As some experts have already noted, Nahdlatul Ulama, the largest Indonesian Muslim organization, with more than 50 million followers, made a lot of noise against the radical protestors at the time, but was conspicuously quiet on defending Ahoks right to say what he did.

A More Radical Mainstream?

Some have argued that the extremists in Malaysia and Indonesia are becoming more open. But there is also some evidence that points to the mainstream, or even the public at large, being more conservative. For instance, in 2013, the Pew Research Center conducted a worldwide survey on the attitudes of Muslims towards different elements of faith. When Indonesian respondents were asked if they favored making Sharia the national law of the country, 72 percent said they would it is currently only the law in the semi-autonomous state of Aceh. Of Malaysian respondents, 86 percent said they would, higher than the percentages recorded in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Egypt, countries which are not typically described as moderate.

Some might argue that Muslims were merely responding in such a way because they perceived that doing so was in line with what their religion called for and what it meant to be a good, practicing Muslim. But what was striking was that, of those respondents who favored introducing Sharia, 41 percent from Malaysia and 50 percent from Indonesia thought it should apply to all citizens, not just Muslims. And 60 percent from Malaysia and 48 percent from Indonesia thought stoning to death was an appropriate penalty for adultery.

One can quibble with any single poll or statistic or development. But the point here is that there are enough of each of these out there for a level of concern to be raised. Or, at the very least, for more attention to be paid to a relatively neglected issue.

Read more here:

Beware the War Against ASEAN's Atheists | The Diplomat - The Diplomat

Atheists go after Sen. Marco Rubio with guns blazing this is why they’re dead wrong – TheBlaze.com

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) continues to facebacklashfor sharing daily Bible verses on Twitter, and this time, the largest atheist organization in America is trying to hit the Christian senator where it hurts.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, aWisconsin-based atheist group, on Tuesday attacked Rubios outpouring of love for God, Jesus, and the Bible in an open letter, and called for the senator to stop sharing his faith in a public manner. The organization has publicly condemned Rubio for sharing Bible verses on his Twitter page.

Aportion of the letter from the foundation to Rubio read:

We protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and educate the public on matters relating tonontheism.

We understand that you have been tweeting bible verses from @MarcoRubio to nearly three million followers. It appears that you began tweeting the bible in mid-May and have been doing so regularly ever since. This is not an errant bible verse or two, but more than 60 bible verses in three months. Thats enough verses to tweet the entire Book of Jude. Twice. One of the most recent verses, tweeted during the eclipse, appears to suggest that the eclipse is the work of god, quoting Exodus 10:21.1.

Of course, we have no issue with people reading and discussing the bible. The road to atheism is littered with bibles that have been read cover to cover. But it is not for the government in our secular republic to promote one religious book over others or to promote religion over nonreligion.

Doing so violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

If the law and your oath to uphold the Constitution are not sufficient to convince you to stop, perhaps you might consider reading Matthew 6:5-6, in which Jesus condemns public prayer as hypocrisy in his Sermon on the Mount. None of Jesuss supposed words mentions Twitter perhaps he wasnt that prescient but the condemnation of public piety is reasonably clear.

To remedy Rubios infractions, the group suggested one of two options: Rubio should either stop quoting Scripture on his personal Twitter account or purge all mentions of the fact that he holds a publicly elected office as a U.S. senator on the same Twitter page.

Currently in the United States, people are fighting for their rights to express their beliefs, whether they be cultural, racial, historical, familial, sexual, or gender-related.

There is a one-size-fits-all solution to this issue, and its in practicing theconstitutionally protected inalienable right as mentioned in theFirst Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If Rubio cant share his faith something thats clearly important to him simply because he holds a public office, thenwhats next for our society?

The bottomline is that if you dont want to publicly proclaim the word of God, thats fine but dont try to stop others from doing it themselves. Either censor all speech, or censor no speech.

Read more:

Atheists go after Sen. Marco Rubio with guns blazing this is why they're dead wrong - TheBlaze.com

atheism | Definition, Philosophy … – Britannica.com

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

The dialectic of the argument between forms of belief and unbelief raises questions concerning the most perspicuous delineation, or characterization, of atheism, agnosticism, and theism. It is necessary not only to probe the warrant for atheism but also carefully to consider what is the most adequate definition of atheism. This article will start with what have been some widely accepted, but still in various ways mistaken or misleading, definitions of atheism and move to more adequate formulations that better capture the full range of atheist thought and more clearly separate unbelief from belief and atheism from agnosticism. In the course of this delineation the section also will consider key arguments for and against atheism.

A central, common core of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the affirmation of the reality of one, and only one, God. Adherents of these faiths believe that there is a God who created the universe out of nothing and who has absolute sovereignty over all his creation; this includes, of course, human beingswho are not only utterly dependent on this creative power but also sinful and who, or so the faithful must believe, can only make adequate sense of their lives by accepting, without question, Gods ordinances for them. The varieties of atheism are numerous, but all atheists reject such a set of beliefs.

Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in spiritual beings, and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion. So atheism is not only a rejection of the central conceptions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; it is, as well, a rejection of the religious beliefs of such African religions as that of the Dinka and the Nuer, of the anthropomorphic gods of classical Greece and Rome, and of the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief.

It is necessary, however, if a tolerably adequate understanding of atheism is to be achieved, to give a reading to rejection of religious belief and to come to realize how the characterization of atheism as the denial of God or the gods is inadequate.

To say that atheism is the denial of God or the gods and that it is the opposite of theism, a system of belief that affirms the reality of God and seeks to demonstrate his existence, is inadequate in a number of ways. First, not all theologians who regard themselves as defenders of the Christian faith or of Judaism or Islam regard themselves as defenders of theism. The influential 20th-century Protestant theologian Paul Tillich, for example, regards the God of theism as an idol and refuses to construe God as a being, even a supreme being, among beings or as an infinite being above finite beings. God, for him, is being-itself, the ground of being and meaning. The particulars of Tillichs view are in certain ways idiosyncratic, as well as being obscure and problematic, but they have been influential; and his rejection of theism, while retaining a belief in God, is not eccentric in contemporary theology, though it may very well affront the plain believer.

Test Your Knowledge

Getting Into (Fictional) Character

Second, and more important, it is not the case that all theists seek to demonstrate or even in any way rationally to establish the existence of God. Many theists regard such a demonstration as impossible, and fideistic believers (e.g., Johann Hamann and Sren Kierkegaard) regard such a demonstration, even if it were possible, as undesirable, for in their view it would undermine faith. If it could be proved, or known for certain, that God exists, people would not be in a position to accept him as their sovereign Lord humbly on faith with all the risks that entails. There are theologians who have argued that for genuine faith to be possible God must necessarily be a hidden God, the mysterious ultimate reality, whose existence and authority must be accepted simply on faith. This fideistic view has not, of course, gone without challenge from inside the major faiths, but it is of sufficient importance to make the above characterization of atheism inadequate.

Finally, and most important, not all denials of God are denials of his existence. Believers sometimes deny God while not being at all in a state of doubt that God exists. They either willfully reject what they take to be his authority by not acting in accordance with what they take to be his will, or else they simply live their lives as if God did not exist. In this important way they deny him. Such deniers are not atheists (unless we wish, misleadingly, to call them practical atheists). They are not even agnostics. They do not question that God exists; they deny him in other ways. An atheist denies the existence of God. As it is frequently said, atheists believe that it is false that God exists, or that Gods existence is a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability.

Yet it remains the case that such a characterization of atheism is inadequate in other ways. For one it is too narrow. There are atheists who believe that the very concept of God, at least in developed and less anthropomorphic forms of Judeo-Christianity and Islam, is so incoherent that certain central religious claims, such as God is my creator to whom everything is owed, are not genuine truth-claims; i.e., the claims could not be either true or false. Believers hold that such religious propositions are true, some atheists believe that they are false, and there are agnostics who cannot make up their minds whether to believe that they are true or false. (Agnostics think that the propositions are one or the other but believe that it is not possible to determine which.) But all three are mistaken, some atheists argue, for such putative truth-claims are not sufficiently intelligible to be genuine truth-claims that are either true or false. In reality there is nothing in them to be believed or disbelieved, though there is for the believer the powerful and humanly comforting illusion that there is. Such an atheism, it should be added, rooted for some conceptions of God in considerations about intelligibility and what it makes sense to say, has been strongly resisted by some pragmatists and logical empiricists.

Britannica Lists & Quizzes

Health & Medicine Quiz

Science List

Arts & Culture Quiz

Society List

While the above considerations about atheism and intelligibility show the second characterization of atheism to be too narrow, it is also the case that this characterization is in a way too broad. For there are fideistic believers, who quite unequivocally believe that when looked at objectively the proposition that God exists has a very low probability weight. They believe in God not because it is probable that he existsthey think it more probable that he does notbut because belief is thought by them to be necessary to make sense of human life. The second characterization of atheism does not distinguish a fideistic believer (a Blaise Pascal or a Soren Kierkegaard) or an agnostic (a T.H. Huxley or a Sir Leslie Stephen) from an atheist such as Baron dHolbach. All believe that there is a God and God protects humankind, however emotionally important they may be, are speculative hypotheses of an extremely low order of probability. But this, since it does not distinguish believers from nonbelievers and does not distinguish agnostics from atheists, cannot be an adequate characterization of atheism.

It may be retorted that to avoid apriorism and dogmatic atheism the existence of God should be regarded as a hypothesis. There are no ontological (purely a priori) proofs or disproofs of Gods existence. It is not reasonable to rule in advance that it makes no sense to say that God exists. What the atheist can reasonably claim is that there is no evidence that there is a God, and against that background he may very well be justified in asserting that there is no God. It has been argued, however, that it is simply dogmatic for an atheist to assert that no possible evidence could ever give one grounds for believing in God. Instead, atheists should justify their unbelief by showing (if they can) how the assertion is well-taken that there is no evidence that would warrant a belief in God. If atheism is justified, the atheist will have shown that in fact there is no adequate evidence for the belief that God exists, but it should not be part of his task to try to show that there could not be any evidence for the existence of God. If the atheist could somehow survive the death of his present body (assuming that such talk makes sense) and come, much to his surprise, to stand in the presence of God, his answer should be, Oh! Lord, you didnt give me enough evidence! He would have been mistaken, and realize that he had been mistaken, in his judgment that God did not exist. Still, he would not have been unjustified, in the light of the evidence available to him during his earthly life, in believing as he did. Not having any such postmortem experiences of the presence of God (assuming that he could have them), what he should say, as things stand and in the face of the evidence he actually has and is likely to be able to get, is that it is false that God exists. (Every time one legitimately asserts that a proposition is false one need not be certain that it is false. Knowing with certainty is not a pleonasm.) The claim is that this tentative posture is the reasonable position for the atheist to take.

An atheist who argues in this manner may also make a distinctive burden-of-proof argument. Given that God (if there is one) is by definition a very recherch realitya reality that must be (for there to be such a reality) transcendent to the worldthe burden of proof is not on the atheist to give grounds for believing that there is no reality of that order. Rather, the burden of proof is on the believer to give some evidence for Gods existencei.e., that there is such a reality. Given what God must be, if there is a God, the theist needs to present the evidence, for such a very strange reality. He needs to show that there is more in the world than is disclosed by common experience. The empirical method, and the empirical method alone, such an atheist asserts, affords a reliable method for establishing what is in fact the case. To the claim of the theist that there are in addition to varieties of empirical facts spiritual facts or transcendent facts, such as it being the case that there is a supernatural, self-existent, eternal power, the atheist can assert that such facts have not been shown.

It will, however, be argued by such atheists, against what they take to be dogmatic aprioristic atheists, that the atheist should be a fallibilist and remain open-minded about what the future may bring. There may, after all, be such transcendent facts, such metaphysical realities. It is not that such a fallibilistic atheist is really an agnostic who believes that he is not justified in either asserting that God exists or denying that he exists and that what he must reasonably do is suspend belief. On the contrary, such an atheist believes that he has very good grounds indeed, as things stand, for denying the existence of God. But he will, on the second conceptualization of what it is to be an atheist, not deny that things could be otherwise and that, if they were, he would be justified in believing in God or at least would no longer be justified in asserting that it is false that there is a God. Using reliable empirical techniques, proven methods for establishing matters of fact, the fallibilistic atheist has found nothing in the universe to make a belief that God exists justifiable or even, everything considered, the most rational option of the various options. He therefore draws the atheistical conclusion (also keeping in mind his burden-of-proof argument) that God does not exist. But he does not dogmatically in a priori fashion deny the existence of God. He remains a thorough and consistent fallibilist.

Such a form of atheism (the atheism of those pragmatists who are also naturalistic humanists), though less inadequate than the first formation of atheism, is still inadequate. God in developed forms of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is not, like Zeus or Odin, construed in a relatively plain anthropomorphic way. Nothing that could count as God in such religions could possibly be observed, literally encountered, or detected in the universe. God, in such a conception, is utterly transcendent to the world; he is conceived of as pure spirit, an infinite individual who created the universe out of nothing and who is distinct from the universe. Such a realitya reality that is taken to be an ultimate mysterycould not be identified as objects or processes in the universe can be identified. There can be no pointing at or to God, no ostensive teaching of God, to show what is meant. The word God can only be taught intralinguistically. God is taught to someone who does not understand what the word means by the use of descriptions such as the maker of the universe, the eternal, utterly independent being upon whom all other beings depend, the first cause, the sole ultimate reality, or a self-caused being. For someone who does not understand such descriptions, there can be no understanding of the concept of God. But the key terms of such descriptions are themselves no more capable of ostensive definition (of having their referents pointed out) than is God, where that term is not, like Zeus, construed anthropomorphically. (That does not mean that anyone has actually pointed to Zeus or observed Zeus but that one knows what it would be like to do so.)

In coming to understand what is meant by God in such discourses, it must be understood that God, whatever else he is, is a being that could not possibly be seen or be in any way else observed. He could not be anything material or empirical, and he is said by believers to be an intractable mystery. A nonmysterious God would not be the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

This, in effect, makes it a mistake to claim that the existence of God can rightly be treated as a hypothesis and makes it a mistake to claim that, by the use of the experimental method or some other determinate empirical method, the existence of God can be confirmed or disconfirmed as can the existence of an empirical reality. The retort made by some atheists, who also like pragmatists remain thoroughgoing fallibilists, is that such a proposed way of coming to know, or failing to come to know, God makes no sense for anyone who understands what kind of reality God is supposed to be. Anything whose existence could be so verified would not be the God of Judeo-Christianity. God could not be a reality whose presence is even faintly adumbrated in experience, for anything that could even count as the God of Judeo-Christianity must be transcendent to the world. Anything that could actually be encountered or experienced could not be God.

At the very heart of a religion such as Christianity there stands a metaphysical belief in a reality that is alleged to transcend the empirical world. It is the metaphysical belief that there is an eternal, ever-present creative source and sustainer of the universe. The problem is how it is possible to know or reasonably believe that such a reality exists or even to understand what such talk is about.

It is not that God is like a theoretical entity in physics such as a proton or a neutrino. They are, where they are construed as realities rather than as heuristically useful conceptual fictions, thought to be part of the actual furniture of the universe. They are not said to be transcendent to the universe, but rather are invisible entities in the universe logically on a par with specks of dust and grains of sand, only much, much smaller. They are on the same continuum; they are not a different kind of reality. It is only the case that they, as a matter of fact, cannot be seen. Indeed no one has an understanding of what it would be like to see a proton or a neutrinoin that way they are like Godand no provision is made in physical theory for seeing them. Still, there is no logical ban on seeing them as there is on seeing God. They are among the things in the universe, and thus, though they are invisible, they can be postulated as causes of things that are seen. Since this is so it becomes at least logically possible indirectly to verify by empirical methods the existence of such realities. It is also the case that there is no logical ban on establishing what is necessary to establish a causal connection, namely a constant conjunction of two discrete empirical realities. But no such constant conjunction can be established or even intelligibly asserted between God and the universe, and thus the existence of God is not even indirectly verifiable. God is not a discrete empirical thing or being, and the universe is not a gigantic thing or process over and above the things and processes in the universe of which it makes sense to say that the universe has or had a cause. But then there is no way, directly or indirectly, that even the probability that there is a God could be empirically established.

The gnostic may reply that there is a nonempirical way of establishing or making it probable that God exists. The claim is that there are truths about the nature of the cosmos neither capable of verification nor standing in need of verification. There is, gnostics claim against empiricists, knowledge of the world that transcends experience and comprehends the sorry scheme of things entire.

Since the thorough probings of such epistemological foundations by David Hume and Immanuel Kant, skepticism about how, and indeed even that, such knowledge is possible is very strong indeed. With respect to knowledge of God in particular, both Hume and Kant provide powerful critiques of the traditional attempts to prove the existence of God (notwithstanding the fact that Kant remained a Christian). While some of the details of their arguments have been rejected and refinements rooted in their argumentative procedure have been developed, there is a considerable consensus among philosophers and theologians that arguments of the general type as those developed by Hume and Kant show that no proof of Gods existence is possible. Alternatively, to speak of intuitive knowledge (an intuitive grasp of being or of an intuition of the reality of the divine being) is to make an appeal to something that is not sufficiently clear to be of any value in establishing anything.

Prior to the rise of anthropology and the scientific study of religion, an appeal to revelation and authority as a substitute for knowledge or warranted belief might have been thought to have considerable force. But with a knowledge of other religions and their associated appeals to revealed truth, such arguments are without probative force. Claimed, or alleged, revelations are many, diverse, and not infrequently conflicting; without going in a small and vicious circle, it cannot be claimed, simply by appealing to a given putative revelation, that the revelation is the true revelation or the genuine revelation and that others are mistaken or, where nonconflicting, mere approximations to the truth. Similar things need to be said for religious authority. Moreover, it is at best problematic whether faith could sanction speaking of testing the genuineness of revelation or of the acceptability of religious authority. Indeed, if something is a genuine revelation, there is no using reason to assess it. But the predicament is that plainly, as a matter of anthropological fact, there is a diverse and sometimes conflicting field of alleged revelations with no way of deciding or even having a reasonable hunch which, if any, of the candidate revelations is the genuine article. But even if the necessity for tests for the genuineness of revelation is allowed, there still is a claim that clearly will not do, for such a procedure would make an appeal to revelation and authority supererogatory. It is, where such tests are allowed, not revelation or authority that can warrant the most fundamental religious truths on which the rest depend. It is something elsethat which establishes the genuineness of the revelation or authoritythat guarantees these religious truths (if such there be), including the proposition that God exists. But the question returns, like the repressed, what that fundamental guarantee is or could be. Perhaps such a belief is nothing more than a cultural myth. There is, as has been shown, neither empirical nor a priori knowledge of God, and talk of intuitive knowledge is without logical force.

If these considerations are near to the mark, it is unclear what it means to say, as some agnostics and even atheists have, that they are skeptical God-seekers who simply have not found, after a careful examination, enough evidence to make belief in God a warranted or even a reasonable belief. It is unclear what it would be like to have, or for that matter fail to have, evidence for the existence of God. It is not that the God-seeker has to be able to give the evidence, for if that were so no search would be necessary, but that he, or at least somebody, must be able to conceive what would count as evidence if he had it so that he (and others) have some idea of what to look for. But it appears to be just that which cannot be done.

Perhaps there is room for the retort that it is enough for the God-seeker not to accept any logical ban on the possibility of there being evidence. He need not understand what it would be like to have evidence in this domain. But, in turn, when one considers what kind of transcendent reality God is said to be, there seems to be an implicit logical ban on there being empirical evidence (a pleonasm) for his existence. It would seem plausible to assert that there is such a ban, though any such assertion should, of course, be made in a tentative way.

Someone trying to give empirical anchorage to talk of God might give the following hypothetical case. (It is, however, important in considering the case to keep in mind that things even remotely like what is described do not happen.) If thousands of people were standing out under the starry skies and all sawthe thing went on before their very eyesa set of stars rearrange themselves to spell out God, they would indeed rightly be utterly astonished and think that they had gone mad. Even if they could somehow assure themselves that this was not in some way a form of mass hallucinationhow they could do this is not evidentsuch an experience would not constitute evidence for the existence of God, for they still would be without a clue as to what could be meant by speaking of an infinite individual transcendent to the world. Such an observation (the stars so rearranging themselves), no matter how well confirmed, would not ostensively fix the reference range of God. Talk of such an infinite individual is utterly incomprehensible and has every appearance of being incoherent. No one knows what he is talking about in speaking of such a transcendent reality. All they would know is that something very strange indeed had happened. The doubt arises whether believers, or indeed anyone else in terms acceptable to believers, can give an intelligible account of the concept of God or of what belief in God comes to once God is de-anthropomorphized.

The rest is here:

atheism | Definition, Philosophy ... - Britannica.com

How TV Host Ray Comfort is Confronting Atheism | CBN News – CBN News

Ray Comfort is trying to get atheists to change their minds.

The filmmaker and best-selling Christian author has joined up with Living Waters to create, "The Atheist Delusion," a documentary that dives into the mindset of atheists.

"The Atheist Delusion" pulls back the curtain and reveals what is going on in the mind of those who deny the obvious," says the film's website. "It introduces you to a number of atheists who you will follow as they go where the evidence leads, find a roadblock, and enter into a place of honesty that is rarely seen on film."

Comfort and actor Kirk Cameron hosts the show "The Way of the Master." Comfort has authored more than 80 books.

The show involves Comfort and Cameron evangelizing to people in the streets, and sharing the gospel with them.

Cameron speaks highly of the new documentary.

"Classic Comfort mixed with high-resolution logic, breath-taking creation, topped off with quality humor and compassionate Gospel interviews," he said. "Ray has taken his message to a new level...I've never been so proud of my friend Ray's work. Show it to everyone you know, especially your teens."

Moody Radio Host Janet Parshall calls it, "Absolutely magnificent!"

And Todd Friel, host of Wretched Radio/TV spoke praised it as well.

"No need to tune-in to the Hallmark Channel for tear-jerkers," Friel said. "Watching the faces of atheists as Ray lovingly and truthfully witnesses to them will make you cry. Just beautiful."

Click here to find out more about the film.

Read the original:

How TV Host Ray Comfort is Confronting Atheism | CBN News - CBN News

Intolerance rising in Malaysia, says report – Free Malaysia Today

This is believed to be largely due to the influence of Malaysians who study in Saudi Arabia and, upon their return, introduce Salafist ideas into the nations administration.

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia has shifted towards a more rigid, political Islam, resulting in greater intolerance in the country, according to a report in The Diplomat.

The report quoted researchers and Muslims as saying that intolerance was becoming a part of Malaysian life.

Malaysia has become steadily more intolerant says Dr Zachary Abuza.

Dr Zachary Abuza, a professor at the National War College in the US, was quoted by The Diplomat as saying: Malaysia has become steadily more intolerant, and this has been a top down government policy.

Abuza, who focuses on Southeast Asian politics and security issues, described Malaysian Islamic religious leaders as state-sponsored and who used vetted sermons.

The people most at risk are clearly the ethnic minorities, atheists, and Christian Malays, which is actually unconstitutional.

I was just in Malaysia, and the intolerance displayed by Malays is growing. I dont know one Chinese Malaysian or Indian that is not alarmed at where this is headed.

The report quoted Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa, director of the Islamic Renaissance Front, as saying that a shift had occurred towards more rigid and political Islamic practice.

This is because of an influx of Salafist scholars returning from Saudi Arabia, with many joining the government, sometimes as members of the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim), or as preachers at mosques.

Farouk, who was summoned by Jakim over his activism two years ago and questioned about his stand on freedom of religion, was quoted as saying:

Its a trend in many states in Malaysia that every Friday, Shias are vilified [along] with liberals, gays and Christians.

Now, the next target will be the atheists, he added.

Islamic authorities have recently targeted Muslims with a bent towards atheism following the posting of a picture on social media of a group of people said to be atheists and members of the Kuala Lumpur chapter of the Atheist Republic.

Among those who called for action against this group were Minister in the Prime Ministers Department Shahidan Kassim and Deputy Minister in the Prime Ministers Department Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki, who is in charge of Islamic affairs.

Asyraf Wajdi called for an investigation to determine if any Muslims were involved in the meeting while Shahidan suggested that the government hunt them down vehemently.

A Singaporean with atheistic leanings, given the name Nurulhuda in the report, who has been living in Malaysia for 19 years, said it was obvious that Malaysian society had drifted towards more extreme forms of political Islam.

She acknowledged that atheists including Muslims with atheistic views were meeting in secret in Malaysia but that they were normally careful to stay off the radar of Islamic officials.

She said ex-Muslims or their families could be harassed and their careers damaged if they were discovered. She said Muslims with atheistic leanings lived in fear, and were concerned that what had happened in Bangladesh, where atheists had been killed by fundamentalist Muslims, might occur here.

Despite taking precautions, she was quoted as saying, death threats online and over the phone were common. Women, she added, were threatened with rape for holding atheistic views.

Malaysian criminal law does not forbid atheism nor does it criminalise it, says Dr Shad Faruqi.

The report quoted an administrator for the Atheist Republic Malaysia page, given the name Ahmad, as saying he was worried that secular aspects of law in Malaysia were fading away.

Even his moderate Muslim father one day mentioned casually to him that apostates should be killed. I dont think he would kill me, said Ahmad.

We are moving further from secularism. But at the same time there is a blooming population of atheists, he was quoted as saying.

The Diplomat quoted Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, professor of law at the University of Malaya, as saying that Shahidans remark is popular political talk.

He added that Malaysian criminal law did not forbid atheism nor did it criminalise it.

The views expressed in the contents are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of FMT.

See the original post:

Intolerance rising in Malaysia, says report - Free Malaysia Today

Atheism – The New York Times

Latest Articles

Conversions from Islam tend not to follow the theological model of transformation inherited from Christianity.

By FAISAL DEVJI

Most people around the world, whether religious or not, presume that serial killers are more likely to be atheists than believers in any god, a new study suggests.

By BENEDICT CAREY

A long dialogue with an agnostic economist.

Why America needs its ex-Protestants to go back to church.

By ROSS DOUTHAT

Jews and Catholics were ranked the highest, but even atheists, near the bottom, were viewed more positively than three years ago, despite a divisive election.

The son of a famous pastor, Bart Campolo is now a rising star of atheism using the skills he learned in the world he left behind.

By MARK OPPENHEIMER

When unbelievers encounter the supernatural.

By ROSS DOUTHAT

A Pew Research Center survey of 151 countries found wide gaps in education among major religions, including among Christians and minority faiths in the United States.

By LIAM STACK

Some think theology has no place in a secular classroom. Ive learned otherwise.

By JONATHAN SHEEHAN

The suit had claimed religious discrimination because the Motor Vehicle Commission had approved a plate that said, BAPTIST.

By LIAM STACK

The position also includes humanism and secular ethics and came after a $2.2 million donation from Louis J. Appignani, a retired businessman.

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

A friend of Christopher Hitchens writes that there is simply no truth to the rumor that he abandoned atheism at the end of his life.

A new book says the impious author of God Is Not Great might have been exploring faith before he died in 2011. Mr. Hitchenss secular friends disagree.

By MARK OPPENHEIMER

Men armed with machetes surrounded the activist, Mohammad Nazim Uddin, and slashed his head, then shot him, a police official said.

Readers discuss whether one can express certainty about the existence of God.

How can atheists and believers stop acting like enemy combatants in a spiritual or intellectual war?

By WILLIAM IRWIN

At Redeemer Presbyterian Church on the Upper West Side, weekly sessions seek converts among a fervent and growing number of atheists in this country.

By SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN

Readers who are atheists explain their views.

Are religion and science locked in a zero-sum struggle for supremacy, or is there room for common ground?

By JAMES RYERSON

Secular voters must demand candidates who reflect their values.

By SUSAN JACOBY

Conversions from Islam tend not to follow the theological model of transformation inherited from Christianity.

By FAISAL DEVJI

Most people around the world, whether religious or not, presume that serial killers are more likely to be atheists than believers in any god, a new study suggests.

By BENEDICT CAREY

A long dialogue with an agnostic economist.

Why America needs its ex-Protestants to go back to church.

By ROSS DOUTHAT

Jews and Catholics were ranked the highest, but even atheists, near the bottom, were viewed more positively than three years ago, despite a divisive election.

The son of a famous pastor, Bart Campolo is now a rising star of atheism using the skills he learned in the world he left behind.

By MARK OPPENHEIMER

When unbelievers encounter the supernatural.

By ROSS DOUTHAT

A Pew Research Center survey of 151 countries found wide gaps in education among major religions, including among Christians and minority faiths in the United States.

By LIAM STACK

Some think theology has no place in a secular classroom. Ive learned otherwise.

By JONATHAN SHEEHAN

The suit had claimed religious discrimination because the Motor Vehicle Commission had approved a plate that said, BAPTIST.

By LIAM STACK

The position also includes humanism and secular ethics and came after a $2.2 million donation from Louis J. Appignani, a retired businessman.

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

A friend of Christopher Hitchens writes that there is simply no truth to the rumor that he abandoned atheism at the end of his life.

A new book says the impious author of God Is Not Great might have been exploring faith before he died in 2011. Mr. Hitchenss secular friends disagree.

By MARK OPPENHEIMER

Men armed with machetes surrounded the activist, Mohammad Nazim Uddin, and slashed his head, then shot him, a police official said.

Readers discuss whether one can express certainty about the existence of God.

How can atheists and believers stop acting like enemy combatants in a spiritual or intellectual war?

By WILLIAM IRWIN

At Redeemer Presbyterian Church on the Upper West Side, weekly sessions seek converts among a fervent and growing number of atheists in this country.

By SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN

Readers who are atheists explain their views.

Are religion and science locked in a zero-sum struggle for supremacy, or is there room for common ground?

By JAMES RYERSON

Secular voters must demand candidates who reflect their values.

By SUSAN JACOBY

Read more here:

Atheism - The New York Times