Category Archives: Atheism

Rohit Mahajan

AN English bowler, Ted Wainwright, said of the great Ranjitsinhji: Ranji, he never made a Christian stroke in his life.

Charles Fry, Ranjitsinhjis friend and captain at Sussex, believed Ranjis distinctive strokes were due to a combination of perfect poise and the quickness peculiar to the athletic Hindu.

Its all rubbish, really theres no Christian stroke or Hindu quickness or, for that matter, Muslim reverse-swing. It can be safely assumed that both Wainwright and Fry were not really referring to Ranjis religion and that, in the idiom of their day, they were overflowing with Oriental clichs.

Sport is secular. What god or gods you believe in or dont believe in plays no role in how you perform. Bob Woolmers atheism didnt prevent him from trying his best with a deeply religious Pakistani cricket team. John Wright, born in a Christian family, and an enthusiastic choir boy as a child, did his best to coach an Indian team that had players from different religious backgrounds.

Religion poisons everything thats the sub-title of a book by Christopher Hitchens, the atheist writer and polemicist. In India, it seems that there are clear attempts to poison cricket, too, with religious hatred.

Wasim Jaffer, who played 31 Test matches for India, is Muslim. So is Zaheer Khan or Mohammed Siraj, the emerging fast bowler. Sachin Tendulkar is Hindu. Shubman Gill is Sikh. Virat Kohli is from a family of Hindus, but is non religious.

Big deal! Sport transcends religion. Sportspersons know it well. They know a player must perform, whichever god he does or doesnt bow down to.

Its no surprise, then, that its a cricket administrator who has poured poison into cricket.

Jaffer, who had an excellent career lasting over two decades, winning several Ranji Trophy titles with Mumbai and Vidarbha, resigned his position as Uttarakhands coach recently. He alleged that the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand (CAU) secretary and selectors had been pushing non-deserving players for selection into the state team. His resignation letter suggested that the CAUs affairs were run in an unprofessional manner.

Immediately after that, CAU fired a salvo at Jaffer its secretary alleged that Jaffer was making religion-based selections. He alleged that Jaffer was trying to break the team through religious activities. As if on cue, the teams manager added allegations of his own that Jaffer used to call maulvis for Friday prayers at the teams camp, and changed the teams religion-based slogan to Go Uttarakhand.

Later, Jaffer denied the allegations, and said that it was a very painful episode for him. The communal angle that has been brought up, that is very, very sad, Jaffer said.

Had I been communal, both Samad Fallah and Mohammad Nazim would have played all the games. Its a very petty thing to say, or even think, he said.

Its terrible that a cricketer and coach has to explain this.

Social media erupted in a battle on the issue. There were several voices in support of Jaffer, too. CAUs secretary then began to backtrack, saying he never knew of any allegation of communal bias against Jaffer.

So all this trouble was over nothing? No. Its likely that the CAU secretary, who has inherited control of the association from his father, has been unnerved by his own wild allegation. And it is also possible that Sourav Ganguly, BCCIs president, had a quiet word with him.

Among his brother cricketers, few dared to stand up for Jaffer not his India captains Sachin Tendulkar, Ganguly and Rahul Dravid. Anil Kumble, his coaching partner at IPL team KXIP, was one of the few players who supported him, the others being Manoj Tiwary and Dodda Ganesh. Ajinkya Rahane, who has shared long partnerships with Jaffer for Mumbai, said he had no idea about the issue.

Jaffers prominent Mumbai teammates Sanjay Manjrekar known for often saying the right thing or Tendulkar kept their silence.

Clearly, even the God of cricket is not necessarily a good friend to a man in need. A good straight-drive doesnt make you a great human being.

Read more from the original source:
Sport transcends religion, leave it alone - The Tribune India

Julhas Alam, The Associated Press Published Wednesday, February 10, 2021 6:22AM EST

DHAKA, Bangladesh -- A special tribunal in Bangladesh's capital on Wednesday sentenced to death eight Islamic militants for the 2015 killing of a publisher of books on secularism and atheism.

Anti-Terrorism Special Tribunal Judge Majibur Rahman announced the verdicts in a packed courtroom in the presence of six defendants. Another two, including sacked military official Sayed Ziaul Haque Zia, remain at large.

The judge had earlier issued arrest warrants for them. The prosecution said they belonged to the banned militant outfit Ansar al Islam.

In October 2015, suspected militants hacked to death Faisal Abedin Deepan of the Jagriti Prokashoni publishing house in a market near the Dhaka University. On the same day, another publisher, Ahmed Rashid Tutul, survived a near simultaneous attack also in Dhaka.

Both victims were publishers of Bangladeshi-American writer and blogger Avijit Roy, who also was hacked to death in February 2015 when he was returning from an annual book fair in Dhaka.

The judge said prosecutors were able to prove the charges against all the eight accused. He said they acted against free thinkers with a larger aim to destabilize the country.

Razia Rahman, Deepan's wife, expressed satisfaction with the verdict. The defence said they would appeal.

Tutul, who was severely wounded, flew to Nepal and ended up taking asylum in Norway with his family.

Yes, I just heard the news of the verdict. I wish we will one day come to know who is this former army officer Zia. Why he masterminded the attack and how he was patronized, Tutul told The Associated Press in a message from Norway. I think Bangladesh will seriously deal with the radical forces and get rid of them.

In 2015, several atheists, bloggers and foreigners were killed by suspected militants. A Dhaka bomb attack on Oct. 24, 2015, aimed at minority Shiite Muslims killed a teenager and injured more than 100 people.

Authorities say the broke the network of militants in a massive crackdown following a 2016 attack on a cafe in Dhaka in which 22 people, including 17 foreigners, died together with five assailants.

The Islamic State group had claimed responsibility for that and other attacks, but Bangladesh's government said that domestic groups were behind them and insisted that IS has no presence in the country.

Read the original:
Eight convicted in murder of atheist publisher in Bangladesh sentenced to death - CP24 Toronto's Breaking News

Nature documentaries like the BBCs Planet Earth, Blue Planet, and most recently, A Perfect Planet, are amazing masterpieces of modern videography, displaying creation in detail and majesty. Every creature soaring through the sky, or streaking through the deep, or thundering over the savannah exhibits power, beauty, and unmistakable purpose. David Attenboroughs grandfatherly narration and Hans Zimmers moving musical scores only add to the childlike awe these films induce.

All of which makes it even more odd when Attenborough declares that all of this glory lacks purpose, or that it arose by chance and natural selection, and that none of it bears witness to any meaning or Mind beyond itself.

A recent article on atheism, also from across the pond, reminded me of this contradiction. In The Guardian, Harriet Sherwood described a new project from the University of Kent that seeks to discover whether disbelieving in God makes people less spiritual overall. According to the projects authors, atheism doesnt necessarily entail unbelief in other supernatural phenomena. Nor do unbelievers lack for a sense of purpose, despite lacking anything to ascribe ultimate meaning to [in] the universe.

In the article, Sherwood profiled several unbelievers, from an agnostic to a free thinker to Positivist pastor and Satanic priest (who makes it clear he doesnt believe in a literal Satan). All of them insist that life can be deeply meaningful and even moral without God.

We can determine for ourselves what is meaningful, said one. The meaning of life, suggested one woman, is to make it the best experience you can, to spread love to those around you. Beauty and tradition are at the core of my philosophy, said another. One self-identified atheistic Jew explained, Being part of a religious community offers music, spirituality and relationshipsit reminds me Im on a journey to understand myself better and motivates me to help others.

Hearing outspoken unbelievers proclaim that meaning and morality arent accidents is about as jarring as hearing David Attenborough proclaim that the worlds most amazing creatures areaccidents.There is an inability of atheists to let go of the transcendent.

In his book, Miracles, C.S. Lewis wrote about the passionate moral activism of a famous atheist of his day, H.G. Wells. Moments after men like Wells admit that good and evil are illusions, Lewis said, you will find them exhorting us to work for posterity, to educate, to revolutionise, liquidate, live and die for the good of the human race.

But how do unbelievers, naturalists as Lewis calls them, account for such ideas? Certainly, nature is no help. If thoughts of meaning and morality find their origin in arrangements of atoms in our brains, then they can no more be called true, Lewis observed, than can a vomit or a yawn.

Lewis concludes that when Wells and other unbelievers say we ought to make a better world, they have simply forgotten about their atheism. That is their glory, he concludes. Holding a philosophy which excludes humanity, they yet remain human. At the sight of injustice, they throw all their Naturalism to the winds and speak like men and like men of genius. They know far better than they think they know.

Id love to ask the people behind masterpieces like Planet Earth, or the unbelievers profiled in The Guardian, about this contradiction. Years ago, I had a similar conversation with a woman I was seated beside on an airplane. She had very strong moral opinions about all kinds of things, but scoffed at me, How can you believe in God! I gently asked her why she believed in right and wrong. It was a fun conversation, and it made me realize that it is possible to affirm the human gut-level intuition about beauty and wonder and morality, while questioning where all of those things come from.

And if you havent read Lewis masterful book Miracles, add it to the list. If its been a while, its worth revisiting. Fair warning: unbelievers should beware. As Lewis himself said, A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.

Publication date: February 5, 2021

Photo courtesy: GettyImages/Boonyachoat

BreakPointis a program of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. BreakPoint commentaries offer incisive content people can't find anywhere else; content that cuts through the fog of relativism and the news cycle with truth and compassion. Founded by Chuck Colson (1931 2012) in 1991 as a daily radio broadcast, BreakPoint provides a Christian perspective on today's news and trends. Today, you can get it in written and a variety of audio formats: on the web, the radio, or your favorite podcast app on the go.

John Stonestreet is President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and radio host of BreakPoint, a daily national radio program providing thought-provoking commentaries on current events and life issues from a biblical worldview. John holds degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (IL) and Bryan College (TN),and is the co-author of Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview.

See the original post:
Meaning and Morality Without God: Atheists Know Better Than They Think - Christianheadlines.com

There are always changes of leadership in the non-profit world. Weve seen quite a bit of it in the insular world of organized atheism. But this one hits me personally.

Roy Speckhardt, the executive director of the American Humanist Association, is stepping down from his position after 15 years at the helm (and 20 years with the organization). Ive known him ever since I became involved in this (loose) community nearly two decades ago, and hes been a consistent voice of reason in a community that often claims that word but doesnt always deserve it.

It would be hard to describe all the ways hes shaped how people see Secular Americans in a more inclusive, positive light but I would just point out that he helped steer the formation of the Secular Coalition for America (a lobbying group in D.C.), oversaw a legal team that argued in front of the Supreme Court, and helped convince Rep. Jared Huffman to go public with his humanism.

I suspect there are very few long-term activists in our community who havent worked with him, directly or indirectly, at some point. Were all better off because of that.

So why step down now?

While there are always multiple factors in a decision like this, one reason stands out.

Speckhardt acknowledges that the atheist world remains a predominantly white cis male one thats certainly still the stereotype and one way to change that is making sure women, LGBTQ individuals, and people of color are in positions of power. Speckhardt has routinely elevated those voices within the AHA, but ultimately, hes always been the guy at the top of the pyramid. Hes the one who gets quoted in the media, for example, by virtue of his position.

So as he leaves his post, hes urging the AHA board to give strong consideration to replacements who arent like him, especially people of color since weve rarely seen them running atheist groups of this size. In a statement sent to me, he explained:

Being at the helm of such an organization as the AHA, whose mission is so critical to our times and whose influence far outstrips its size, was the greatest honor of my life, but Ive decided its time for me to step down and make room for new leadership. It is my emphatic hope that my seat is filled with a Black or Brown humanist because our movement has gone too long without such diversity at the helm and this would open the door for the AHA to truly achieve its potential as a humanist and anti-racist institution.

Obviously, the position is open to everyone who wants to apply. (The job is already listed on LinkedIn.) But its no small thing when the leader of one of the largest atheist groups in the country gives his board clear direction on how he believes they should move forward.

The current President of the AHA Board of Directors, Sunil Panikkath, said that Speckhardt will stay in his position until a new leader is selected.

Speckhardt hasnt announced his future plans just yet, though his next book, Justice Centered Humanism, will come out in April.

(Screenshot via YouTube)

Read this article:
A Humanist Leader Is Stepping Down and Hoping a Person of Color Will Replace Him - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

History and Background

One notable provision in the North Carolina State Constitution is under the section for eligibility for public office. Article 4, Section 8 states that any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God is disqualified from holding public office.

This constitutional clause is common in southern states. In fact, there are seven other states that share this law.

This comes off as a partisan issue, as the majority of atheists lean Democratic. This provision unfairly limits Democratic candidates. This is the only constitutional provision for qualifications for a political candidacy that is politically charged towards one side of the aisle or another.

Has There Been An Atheist in Office?

This has been one self-proclaimed atheist in public office in North Carolina history. Asheville city council member Cecil Bothwell served from 2009 to 2017. He did not place his hand on the Bible when being sworn in. He also left out so help me God when referring to upholding the U.S. and North Carolina constitution, but delivered the rest of the oath as written.

Is this Law Constitutional?

This law is in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Both atheism and the lack of religious belief are protected under the law in the same way religion is protected under the constitution. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, there is no legal preference for religion over irreligion.

There is also the issue of separation of church and state. The separation of church and state has been a right of the people since the founding of America. It is in the first clause in the Bill of Rights, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Article 4 Section 8, prohibiting atheists from holding office, was written in 1868. This rule barring atheists from running was never honoring the founding of America and was never legal under the Constitution. Additionally, the US constitutional law is superior to state laws.

This was upheld in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of an atheist who ran for office in Maryland, despite the state constitution banning it. This ruling banned religious tests for public office and was banned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961.

Why is it Still in the State Constitution?

So Article 4 Section 8 is constitutionally illegal, and cannot be enforced due to the Watkins decision.

However, amending the state constitution is a difficult process. It would require a two-thirds majority to amend the constitution, which is unlikely to happen any time soon as the Republicans hold the majority.

Republicans have no political incentive to remove this law. It has the potential to upset their political base well as having no benefits if removed. According to the Pew Research Center, Christians make up over 80% of the Republican party.

Additionally, it allows Republicans to scrutinize any atheists who run for office. Atheists are significantly more likely to be registered as Democrats with only 15% identifying as Republican.

Article 4 Section 8 was written in 1868, then was ruled illegal in 1961. The North Carolina State Constitution was last rewritten in 1971. This means this law was deliberately left in the state constitution despite being illegal and outdated.

Conclusion

Ironically enough, it is typical for those serving public office to swear on God when being sworn into office. Specifically, swearing to uphold this U.S. and state constitution. Although the separation of church and state is in the constitution under the first amendment.

This means this habit of swearing into office under God is in nature, hypocritical. Religion should never be a prerequisite for participation in government.

Read the original post:
Politics: North Carolina Political Landscape; Don't Believe In God? Guess You Can't Run for Office - The Appalachian Online

"Familiar" is usually not a favorable adjective in a movie review, but in the case of "The Little Things," it's not a criticism.

The thriller is familiar because it's the latest in a long line of Denzel Washington-mentors-a-younger-cop movies, and because its serial killer tropes have popped up many times in the post-"Seven" era: police flashlights piercing a dark room filled with forensic evidence, ironic R&B music from the '60s, neon-stained streets, a murder board packed with photos and clues.

None of these things will dazzle moviegoers with their originality, but they succeed at establishing a tense mood.

They also work because Washington, like Tom Hanks or Jessica Lange, is one of those actors whose connection to the audience is such that we'll follow him pretty much anywhere. I wish he'd test that more often (a comedy, maybe?) but he's adept at varying the specifics of the people he plays, all of whom have solid names like his moniker in "Little Things": Joe Deacon.

He's a decent guy (practically the first thing we see him do is scratch a mutt's back) with a dark secret (there's talk of how his obsession with a case got him exiled from Los Angeles) and a willingness to overlook his mentee's arrogance (the first thing Rami Malek's Sgt. Jim Baxter does is try to get Joe's car towed) if it'll help solve their case.

Washington makes Joe authoritative, intelligent and vaguely haunted, all of which tracks and positions him opposite the callow Baxter, who's written to be like a dog with a bone and who becomes even less nuanced in Malek's half-note performance.

They're trying to solve the grisly murders of young women in L.A., which a colleague compares to the recently solved Night Stalker killings (as evidenced by all the boxy cars, "Little Things" is set in the '90s).

There's intriguing character stuff here: Deacon is skilled at his work but not his life, talks to corpses in an effort to understand the killer and has stopped believing in God because of all the terrible stuff he's seen.

Deacon's atheism, though, is one of several strands in "Little Things" that are left to unravel. Writer/director John Lee Hancock's script is studded with oblique references to religious extremism among Baxter's colleagues, who used to be Deacon's colleagues, but it's unclear what the movie is trying to say about that or if it's somehow related to the enigmatic ending, which is deliberately unsatisfying in the way the justice system also sometimes leaves us unfulfilled.

Initially, I didn't love that ending. But the more I sit with "The Little Things," the more I appreciate the way Hancock leaves his conclusion messy, emphasizing the trauma left in the wake of violence and positioning the reveal of its debilitating effects as one final lesson from Washington to Malek.

Chris Hewitt 612-673-4367

out of four stars

Rating: R for violence, nudity and language.

Where: In theaters and on HBO Max.

The rest is here:
In 'The Little Things,' Denzel Washington tracks another killer, and it's another good movie - Minneapolis Star Tribune

If you watched the inauguration earlier this month, then, like me, perhaps you thought the most memorable part of it was the poem read by Amanda Gorman.

Writer Kate Cohen loved that segment, too, and she writes in the Washington Post that Gormans piece had an added benefit: It showed how spoken words could be emotional, powerful, patriotic, and uplifting without being a prayer.

The formal benediction and invocation were full of lofty language about God, but Gormans piece, while including religious references, achieved the intended effect without centering itself around anything supernatural.

Delivered with clarity and conviction, it enlisted scripture both biblical (Micah) and theatrical (Miranda). It acknowledged the darkness that surrounds us and called on us to press on, to face the many tasks that remain to us as Americans:

When day comes, we step out of the shade / Aflame and unafraid / The new dawn blooms as we free it / For there is always light / If only were brave enough to see it / If only were brave enough to be it.

Gormans poem didnt mention God. But in its incantatory power and its grandeur of vision, in speaking to and for each of us congregated in that moment, it was a prayer indeed.

All the more reason future events like the inauguration should just have more poets and fewer priests. (This applies to everything, really.)

Cohen, by the way, has written other pieces about atheism in unexpected places.

(Image via Shutterstock)

See the original post here:
Amanda Gorman's Secular Poetry Was Far More Inspiring Than the Inaugural Prayers - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs

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.

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.

Sren Kierkegaard, drawing by Christian Kierkegaard, c. 1840; in a private collection.

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.

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.

Blaise Pascal, engraving by Henry Hoppner Meyer, 1833.

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.

Read the original post:
atheism | Definition, Philosophy, & Comparison to ...

Attendees listen to speakers at the 2012 Reason Rally in Washington, D.C. (Allison Shelley/Getty Images)

Measuring atheism is complicated. Some people who describe themselves as atheists also say they believe in some kind of higher power or spiritual force. At the same time, some of those who identify with a religion (for example, say they are Catholic or Jewish) say they do not believe in God.

One thing is for sure: Along with the rise of religiously unaffiliated Americans many of whom believe in God there has been a corresponding increase in the number of atheists. Here are some key facts about atheists in the United States and around the world:

1 The share of Americans who identify as atheists has increased modestly but significantly in the past decade. Pew Research Center telephone surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019 show that 4% of American adults say they are atheists when asked about their religious identity, up from 2% in 2009. An additional 5% of Americans call themselves agnostics, up from 3% a decade ago.

2 The literal definition of atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,according to Merriam-Webster. And the vast majority of U.S. atheists fit this description: 81% say they do not believe in God or a higher power or in a spiritual force of any kind. (Overall, 10% of American adults share this view.) At the same time, roughly one-in-five self-described atheists (18%) say they do believe in some kind of higher power. None of the atheists we surveyed, however, say they believe in God as described in the Bible.

3 Atheists make up a larger share of the population in many European countries than they do in the U.S. In Western Europe, where Pew Research Center surveyed 15 countries in 2017, nearly one-in-five Belgians (19%) identify as atheists, as do 16% in Denmark, 15% in France and 14% in the Netherlands and Sweden. But the European country with perhaps the biggest share of atheists is the Czech Republic, where a quarter of adults identify that way. In neighboring Slovakia, 15% identify as atheists, although in the rest of Central and Eastern Europe, atheists have a smaller presence, despite the historical influence of the officially atheist Soviet Union. Like Americans, Europeans in many countries are more likely to say they do not believe in God than they are to identify as atheists, including two-thirds of Czechs and at least half of Swedish (60%), Belgian (54%) and Dutch adults (53%) who say they do not believe in God. In other regions surveyed by the Center, including Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, atheists generally are much rarer.

4 In the U.S., atheists aremostly men and are relatively young, according to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study. About seven-in-ten U.S. atheists are men (68%). The median age for atheists is 34, compared with 46 for all U.S. adults. Atheists also are more likely to be white (78% vs. 66% of the general public) and highly educated: About four-in-ten atheists (43%) have a college degree, compared with 27% of the general public. Self-identified atheists alsotend to be alignedwith the Democratic Party and with political liberalism.

5 The vast majority of U.S. atheists say religion is not too or not at all important in their lives (93%) and that they seldom or never pray (97%). At the same time, many do not see a contradiction between atheism and pondering their place in the world. About a third of American atheists say they think about the meaning and purpose of life at least weekly (35%), and that they often feel a deep sense of spiritual peace and well-being (31%). In fact,the Religious Landscape Study shows that atheists are more likely than U.S. Christians to saythey often feel a sense of wonder about the universe (54% vs. 45%).

6 Where do atheists find meaning in life? Like a majority of Americans, most atheists mentioned family as a source of meaning when Pew Research Center asked an open-ended question about this in a 2017 survey. But atheists were far more likely than Christians to describe hobbies as meaningful or satisfying (26% vs. 10%). Atheists also were more likely than Americans overall to describe finances and money, creative pursuits, travel, and leisure activities as meaningful. Not surprisingly, very few U.S. atheists (4%) said they found lifes meaning in spirituality.

7 In many cases, being an atheist isnt just about personally rejecting religious labels and beliefs most atheists also express negative views when asked about the role of religion in society. For example, seven-in-ten U.S. atheists say religions influence is declining in American public life, and that this is a good thing (71%), according to a 2019 survey. Fewer than one-in-five U.S. adults overall (17%) share this view. A majority of atheists (70%) also say churches and other religious organizations do more harm than good in society, and an even larger share (93%) say religious institutions have too much influence in U.S. politics.

8 Atheists may not believe religious teachings, but they are quite informed about religion. In Pew Research Centers 2019 religious knowledge survey, atheists were among the best-performing groups, answering an average of about 18 out of 32 fact-based questions correctly, while U.S. adults overall got an average of roughly 14 questions right. Atheists were at least as knowledgeable as Christians on Christianity-related questions roughly eight-in-ten in both groups, for example, know that Easter commemorates the resurrection of Jesus and they were also twice as likely as Americans overall to know that the U.S. Constitution says no religious test shall be necessary to hold public office.

9 Most Americans (56%) say it isnotnecessary to believe in God to be moral, while 42% say belief in God is necessary to have good values, according to a 2017 survey. In other wealthy countries, smaller shares tend to say that belief in God is essential for good morals, including just 15% in France. But in many other parts of the world, nearly everyone says that a person must believe in God to be moral, including 99% in Indonesia and Ghana and 98% in Pakistan, according to a 2013 Pew Research Center international survey.

10 Americans feel less warmly toward atheists than they do toward members of most major religious groups.A 2019Pew Research Center surveyasked Americans to rate groups on a feeling thermometer from 0 (as cold and negative as possible) to 100 (the warmest, most positive possible rating). U.S. adults gave atheists an average rating of 49, identical to the rating they gave Muslims (49) and colder than the average given to Jews (63), Catholics (60) and evangelical Christians (56).

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on Nov. 5, 2015.

Here is the original post:
10 facts about atheists | Pew Research Center

Religion may once have been the opium of the people, but in large swaths of the world the masses have kicked the habit. In countries once dominated by churches characterised by patriarchy, ritual and hierarchy, the pews have emptied and people have found other sources of solace, spirituality and morality.

In the US, those who say they are atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular is up from 17% in 2009 to 26% last year. In Britain, according to the most recent data, more than half the population proclaimed no faith in 2018, a figure that rose from 43% to 52% in a decade.

But there are many different ways of being an unbeliever among them labels such as atheist, agnostic, humanist, free thinker, sceptic, secular and spiritual-but-not-religious. According to Understanding Unbelief, an academic research project based at the University of Kent in Canterbury, unbelief in God doesnt necessarily entail unbelief in other supernatural phenomena Another common supposition that of the purposeless unbeliever, lacking anything to ascribe ultimate meaning to the universe also does not bear scrutiny.

Who are the unbelievers, and what principles guide their lives? Over the course of a year (and pre-pandemic), the British photographer Aubrey Wade met more than 30 people from five countries (the UK, US, Brazil, Japan and Norway) to find out. Belief is a word we use all the time, often without being able to explain precisely what it means, he says. In practice, most people hold at least some conflicting beliefs about the world.

Wade, who describes himself as an atheistic agnostic, says he was struck by how many ways there are of making sense of lifes big questions, with and without a concept of God or gods. For some people, unbelief and religiosity dont go together at all, while for others they are comfortable bedfellows. In Japan, for instance, the distinction isnt even relevant for most people.

The pandemic has given us all reasons to reflect on what gives our lives meaning, he adds. Ive learned that atheist individuals and cultures of unbelief are as diverse as religious ones. What unites them is the drive to seek meaning and purpose in life.

Lola Tinubu, 53, is an atheist and a humanist who lives in London. She is the co-founder of the Association of Black Humanists, a group for people, particularly from the African diaspora, who are free thinkers, nonbelievers, atheists and humanists.

I grew up in a Seventh-Day Adventist family. I had a happy childhood and felt safe, but we were also taught that the outside world was evil. I grew up with a segregated view of the world and a fear of others. My father encouraged me to watch science documentaries with him. After one, he said, Science is fact, but our faith is the truth. That was probably the moment the penny dropped.

It took me nearly three decades to leave the church. When I became non-religious, the first thing I did was look for other black people who had had that experience. People see you as a traitor. They say, Atheism is not African: its a European ideology. A lot of people feel they cant tell their friends. They cant tell anybody. Thats why we formed our organisation.

The way to understand the world is through investigation, science and research. Science can also guide one in making moral decisions. For example, understanding the environment is now a moral issue. Science has shown that all human beings belong to the same species, so we should respect each other.

I dont believe in the supernatural. Everything is within nature. Humanism also includes a kind of philosophy and moral guidance. If theres no ultimate meaning of life, that doesnt mean our existence needs to be meaningless; we can determine for ourselves what is meaningful.

For somebody who rates thinking highly, I nevertheless define myself by the way I feel. My life. My work. I am my feelings. So perhaps thats the meaning of life for me: feeling it.

Adam Cardone, 47, is a stage magician and a reverend in the Church of Satan, New York City. He is an atheistic agnostic: someone who doesnt believe in a deity, while holding that a deitys existence is unknowable.

As a child, I wanted to learn magic tricks. I was a natural performer. When I read the Satanic Bible, I thought, Wow, its describing me. Satanism is an atheistic philosophy that incorporates ritual and magic. It looks like a religious movement in its trappings, but its more of a lifestyle philosophy. Satanists are born. You cant become one.

Our founder, Anton LaVey [author of the Satanic Bible], recognised that humans like ritual; they pine for it. They like symbolism, whether that be superheroes or religion. Religion has been using ritual and symbolism since caveman times. LaVey got rid of the theism and left all the good parts.

We have no formal meeting place. No rules. We get called devil worshippers, but theres no worship. I only know one god and thats me. I am responsible for my own destiny. We dont believe in the Abrahamic conceptions of Satan. He is not my god whom I pray to. He is a reflection of me, of who I am. He is a mirror in which I see myself.

LaVey split magic into two categories: lesser and greater magic. Lesser magic is day-to-day psychology, and how you conduct yourself so that people listen.

Greater magic is what people imagine Satanism to be: lighting candles and incense and ringing gongs and chanting. Ritual transforms you. Its like a magic show designed for yourself. Im my own performance and audience member.

LaVey rode on this grey line of fantasy and reality, which is what, to me, Satanism is. Fantasy is where were able to explore uncomfortable things, new ideas, to map out our psyche in an exaggerated fashion. I think its healthy to do this its like play. Adults lose this, and thats not healthy.

Robert Freudenthal, 34, is a member of a liberal synagogue in London. He describes himself as Jewish but not God-centred. When he got married a few years ago, he decided to explore different ways to think about God.

Although I identify as not believing in God in a religious sense, I am relaxed about the language of God in services or rituals. In Jewish practice, its quite common to have that sort of dissonance. For me, its completely OK to be 100% atheist and still go to religious services. I imagine quite a few members of the synagogue feel the same.

Religious scriptures can help us understand ourselves, the relationships we form, and the world around us. I see God in that situation as just another character in the story, like Moses, or the Pharaohs, or whoever else.

For me, its really important to have a sense of connection with the world around us, whether thats seasonal changes, the natural world, or our history in terms of migration and movement of people. The Jewish calendar and the rituals provide anchor points to reflect on life. Observing them locates me within a community, strengthens my relationships, and encourages me to think about how I can contribute to making the world a better place.

The struggles of previous generations can help us understand whats happening now. The Pesach [Passover] seder, for example, is more about liberation from slavery and the ways in which we were and still are oppressed than about God. Its an opportunity to talk about contemporary issues. This year we included a chilli pepper on the seder plate to represent the climate crisis.

In Judaism theres the concept of repairing the world tikkun olam. Its the idea that social action, doing work in order to help people, can be seen as a form of religious activity. That speaks to me. Being part of a religious community offers music, spirituality and relationships. But more than that, it reminds me Im on a journey to understand myself better and motivates me to help others.

Hedda Frland, 18, is a member of the Humanist Youth Group in Sandnes, Norway. Both secular and Christian confirmation ceremonies remain culturally important in Norway. Wearing a nordlandsbunad, a traditional embroidered costume, Frland took part in a humanist ceremony, the choice of around 18% of 15-year-olds.

When I was a child, I believed in God, but my belief faded. I needed proof. Now I believe in humanity and the good in people.

My parents and older sister had Christian confirmations, but they wanted me to make an educated decision about my faith. Im very grateful that I chose another way. A humanist confirmation involves weekly activities over several months, including a weekend role-play in which you experience what its like to live as a refugee for 24 hours. You learn about values and critical thinking, and about human rights. I began to feel that I, too, could make a difference.

The meaning of life, I think, is to make it the best experience you can, to spread love to those around you. Its important to see the beauty in everything, especially in human beings. A lot of people think theyre not beautiful enough, and that breaks my heart. Your values and personality are the best sides of you.

Ron Millar, 63, from Washington DC, runs the Freethought Equality Fund Political Action Committee, which helps candidates seeking election to public office who openly identify as humanist, atheist and agnostic. In 1988, he was the campaign manager for the first openly gay candidate running for the city council.

I grew up in a fundamentalist church in Pennsylvania. They believed the Bible was the word of God. It was conservative, but it wasnt political they were just a small religious community, and great people.

Now I run the Freethought Equality Fund, which is part of the American Humanist Associations political arm. We endorse candidates, give them money, and try to get more candidates to run as atheists and humanists. We need reason, evidence and compassion in public policy; we cant have it dictated by bronze age notions about how society should work.

In climate change, we have an imminent threat that, if we dont do anything in the next 10 years, is going to change society dramatically and for the worse. In reproductive rights, weve been heading backwards for the past 30 years, and dont know where thats going to end. The backward trend that were doing on voting rights is scary, and we still need to get LGBTQ people included in the Civil Rights Act.

Donald Trump brought a white Christian nationalism back into the frame. The angry voices we heard in the 50s and 60s against civil rights were back, and legitimised by the president.

Id hoped wed be a much better society by the time I reached the age I am. That hasnt happened; I blame the religious right, which uses the Old Testament, mostly, to perpetuate the patriarchy.

During the cold war, the narrative was that America was a Christian country and we were fighting the godless communists. Atheists and humanists were lumped into that camp. The stigma lingers, but its going away. In 1958, something like 18% said they would vote for a presidential candidate who was an atheist, and now were up to 60%. I describe myself as an atheist, but use the term humanist, too. Atheism is just, There is no God; humanism says we have a role to help one another. Its more positive.

Yuko Atarashi, 46, is studying to be a Noh theatre actor in Tokyo. Noh is a form of classical Japanese musical drama that has been performed since the 14th century. The plays often feature a supernatural being, transformed into human form, narrating a story. Japan regularly ranks as one of the worlds most atheist countries, although many people still engage in Buddhist and Shinto rituals.

A key concept in Japanese culture is ichi-go ichi-e, which means to treasure the unrepeatable nature of every moment. Noh and traditional Japanese tea ceremonies are structured around this idea. Performing these reminds me that perhaps we have just one chance in this life to meet each other, so we have to appreciate every moment.

Beauty and tradition are at the core of my philosophy. I believe in the unchangeable beauty of tradition. Japan has an ancient culture. If we understand the story of our past, we understand our culture now.

The purpose of life is to be present in the moment. Family is the most important thing for me, somewhere I can be completely myself. I live with my husband and his parents; we dont have children of our own.

At death, we reach an end. We came from nothing and go back to nothing. We should give devotions [small offerings as a way of paying respect] to our ancestors, because its through them that we exist. But the devotion is delivered to the life they lived, not the dead person.

In Japan, we say there are more than 8 million kami [gods or spirits]. Anything that surrounds us can be a kami. I visit the Shinto shrine for little daily life rituals, to reflect on my emotions and to give my appreciation to something or someone. And for weddings. For funerals, Id go to a Buddhist temple. I dont deny the need for religion. Its a concept that provides rules people can rely on, but I dont feel I need to rely on anything.

Apostle Erlon Jacques, 47, leads the last practising congregation of positivists in the world, at the Temple of Humanity in Porto Alegre, Brazil. The secular religion was developed by Auguste Comte, the French philosopher, in the mid-1800s. It was adopted by key political figures in the establishment of the first Brazilian republic. Comte imagined a science-based positivist society in which religion would still be necessary, but would no longer require a god to have moral force. The primary tenets of the religion are altruism, order and progress.

I inherited a broken church, with no light or running water. Im still at the beginning of rebuilding. The most important thing I do is to open the temple every Sunday and explain the religion to people. Its my lifes mission now.

I have around 20 brothers and sisters attending. But its hard to find people with a free mind. Our doctrine doesnt offer miracles. Reality is sad; theres no justice, peace or harmony in the world. Many churches offer a fantasy.

The essence of our religion is human connection through altruism. Supernatural gods are not required, but we understand that people need symbols. We have faith in love, science and humanity. I have a deep respect for Christianity and other religions. Many atheists make a big mistake when they lose respect for people who believe.

Comte taught us to continuously update the dogma to reflect changing times. People think positivism is conservative, a thing from the past, but our religion is open-minded, avant garde even. For example, gay marriage is completely OK for us.

My daily practice is the positivist prayer. There is no need to say anything; you can do it in your mind. But we recommend the use of music, poetry, meditation, reflection, thinking about the cosmic order, to help generate pure intentions and promote feelings of fraternity. The essence of the positivist religion is to replace egoism with altruism. Being a positivist has taught me whats important: family, love, work, friends. Not God, or priests. Before I converted, I was selfish and irresponsible, concerned with my personal pleasure. I didnt value these things. Now they are what gives purpose to my life.

Jake Vargas, 25, a student in Lincoln, Nebraska, doesnt believe in the supernatural world at all.

Having an understanding of the natural world and science to my mind, the other side of theism helps me understand transphobia. So many of the reactions people have are fear and disgust, which are primal emotions. Genetic diversity is necessary for any species to flourish, and diversity in humanity is a very natural, normal and necessary thing. Transgenderism, whatever its roots, is just another part of human diversity.

My parents were raised Roman Catholic. They didnt raise me with any particular religious belief, but they would mention God occasionally: if I told a lie, my mother might say, Well, God knows. So I was raised with the assumption that God exists. But I didnt go to church. I wasnt baptised. I would say my parents were lapsed Catholics.

I actually remember the moment I knew I was an atheist. My favourite band is Muse, and I was on Wikipedia at midnight, as 14-year-olds often are, reading about the lead singer. It mentioned his religious beliefs, that he was an atheist. I remember a cold feeling washed through me, and I thought, do I have some sort of prejudice towards these people? Do I actually believe? And the answer was no.

I certainly have values: I value justice, equality, reason. You might say offshoots of that are compassion, empathy, activism through work and interpersonal relationships. Even something small like tact. But those things arent sacred to me. I dont think they exist on a plane that is somehow beyond speculation. And I question my own values all the time.

This article was amended on 27 January 2021. The Understanding Unbelief research project is based at the University of Kent in Canterbury, not the University of Canterbury in Kent as an earlier version said.

View post:
I only know one god and thats me: non-believers on the meaning of life - The Guardian