Atheism FAQ - first draft

ChrisV · #1 09-04-2007, 02:28 AM

Hi guys,

I've just got home from a three month trip in Europe and I used the time there that I spent on trains etc writing an Atheism FAQ on my laptop. The idea is that a mod could sticky this so we don't go over the same arguments again and again. Yes, I have too much time on my hands. Comments welcome, although I'm not really looking for counterarguments from theists. The idea of the FAQ is to accurately represent the views of atheists, so I mostly want to hear from atheists. Also, if you have an opinion on whether stickying an FAQ is a good or bad idea, please respond. I'm not going to be all upset if people think the whole idea of an FAQ is bad [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Here goes:

Science/Math/Philosophy Atheism FAQ

1. What is Atheism?
- 1A: Aren't militant atheists just as dogmatic as theists?
- 1B: So wait, weak atheists don't actively claim that God doesn't exist? Isn't that agnosticism?
2. Commonly mentioned arguments for the existence of a God
- 2A: The First Cause argument
- 2B: The “something rather than nothing” argument
3. Morality
- 3A: Don't atheists have no way to judge what is right or wrong, given that they don't believe in a God-given absolute morality?
- 3B: Even if atheists can tell right from wrong, don't they have no incentive to live a moral life, given that there is no God overseeing their actions and no afterlife in which to be rewarded or punished?
4. Atheist perspectives on Christianity
- 4A: Why don’t atheists believe that the Bible presents an accurate historical account?
- 4B: Do atheists believe that the morality of the Bible (and of Christian doctrine) is sound?
- 4C: Why did Christianity spread so quickly if it was false?

1. What is Atheism?

Atheism is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.
-- Sam Harris

Most atheists are what is called weak atheists, which simply means that they do not hold the belief that a God exists. "Strong" atheists, who are rarer, make the positive claim that there is no God. Most atheists do not make this claim because their atheism is based on skepticism, and there is no evidence of the "strong atheist" position that God definitely does not exist (although some, notably Dawkins, try to argue that the existence of God is highly improbable). However, weak atheists may make the claim that specific Gods, such as the Christian God, do not exist. Theists sometimes confuse this with a strong atheist position.

Question 1A: Aren't militant atheists just as dogmatic as theists?
Answer 1A: Strong atheists probably are, but most atheists are weak atheists and don't make the claim that God does not exist. They simply adopt a position of skepticism towards the existence of God, and believe that there is not strong enough evidence that a God exists. Most people don't think that an asteroid is going to hit Los Angeles at noon tomorrow. To believe that proposition, they would want to be shown evidence. However, they aren't making the claim that an asteroid will not strike Los Angeles. Weak atheists don't think there is any reason to treat the question of the existence of God differently. They think that "faith" is synonomous with "believing something at random for no good reason".

Question 1B: So wait, weak atheists don't actively claim that God doesn't exist? Isn't that agnosticism?
Answer 1B: No. The difference between agnosticism and weak atheism is that weak atheists have investigated the evidence for the existence of a God and found it unconvincing. Agnostics may, for instance, have not looked at the evidence, or have looked at it and are not sure whether they are convinced or not. Or they may simply not believe that skepticism is appropriate to the question of the existence of God.

2. Commonly mentioned arguments for the existence of a God

Question 2A: Everything that happens has a cause, which in turn has another cause, and so on back in time. There must have been a First Cause, and this First Cause we call God.
Answer 2A: The idea that everything has a cause is a "common sense" concept that doesn't necessarily work in the world of modern physics. Most physicists currently believe that there are certain processes in the world of subatomic particles (e.g. the appearance of virtual particles) which are literally uncaused and just happen spontaneously. Also, even if it is now true that all events must be caused, causation is a temporal process (i.e. first cause, then effect) which would not apply at the Big Bang because the Big Bang marked the creation of time. There is no such time period as "before the Big Bang" for a cause to operate in. As the theist St. Augustine put it way back in the fourth century, the universe was "created with Time and not in Time". Finally, even if we accepted the idea of a First Cause, there is no reason to endow it with other properties of Gods, such as omniscience or omnipotence, or even continued existence.

Question 2B: Why is there something rather than nothing? Isn't that evidence for existence of a Creator?
Answer 2B: No. That doesn't solve the "something rather than nothing" problem - why is there a Creator? The widespread idea that a Creator is somehow a more "obvious" or fundamental thing to exist than an unconscious Universe comes from the anthropocentrism of the human mind. There is no reason to suppose this is actually true. In ancient times, people believed that many naturalistic processes (lightning, the sun and so forth) were caused by Gods, so anthropocentric intuitions do not have a distinguished history.

3. Morality

Question 3A: Don't atheists have no way to judge what is right or wrong, given that they don't believe in a God-given absolute morality?
Answer 3A: This question seems odd to most atheists, since by asking this question, a theist is implying that they themselves would not know that, say, murder was wrong if the Bible didn't tell them so. Most atheists have a moral system that is based around a few axioms, e.g. the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). It is true that there is no logical reason this axiom has to be a moral truth, but equally there is no reason to accept the theist belief that whatever God says is a moral truth is a moral truth. That is simply defined as being the case – which is to say, it is an axiom. All moral systems are based on axioms of some kind.

In any case, even Christians use their own moral judgement, rather than the word of God, to determine what is and is not moral. For instance, the vast majority of Christians today believe that slavery is totally immoral. But that is never even hinted at in the Bible; here and here are a selection of verses in the Bible which deal with slavery. So slavery is not condemned in the Bible; if anything, it leans towards condoning the practice. Or in other words:

[ QUOTE ]
If we apply sola scriptura to slavery, I'm afraid the abolitionists are on relatively weak ground. Nowhere is slavery in the Bible lambasted as an oppressive and evil institution - Vaughn Roste, United Church of Canada staff.

[/ QUOTE ]

So whence comes the belief of modern Christians that slavery is immoral? If Christians derived their morality wholly from the Bible, we would expect, at the very least, a diversity of opinion. Some Christians, trying to preserve the idea that their morality comes from God, might say that God inspired in their heads the notion of slavery's immorality. The Christian must then explain why devout Christians in other times and places made statements like this:

[ QUOTE ]
[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts. Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral. Rev. Alexander Campbell

The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example. Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina.

The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage. A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor

The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined. James Henry Hammond, 19th century U.S. senator.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the moral faculty modern Christians have used to determine that slavery is immoral is the same faculty they are accusing atheists of not possessing. It's also interesting to speculate on what would happen if an authenticated-beyond-doubt new Gospel was discovered, recording Jesus enthusiastically endorsing slavery. Would Christians be willing to go along with this, and if so, is there any evil which they would not be willing to endorse as moral? (See the later discussion on hell for more on this).

In countries where people really do base their morality on the purported word of God (e.g. Islamic countries), the result is a rather arbitrary system which ignores basic precepts of justice (such as that any punishment should be directed at the persons who committed the crime).

Question 3B: Even if atheists can tell right from wrong, don't they have no incentive to live a moral life, given that there is no God overseeing their actions and no afterlife in which to be rewarded or punished?
Answer 3B: Once again, a theist asking this question is implying that they themselves are amoral psychopaths who only live a moral life because they are afraid of God looking over their shoulder. The simple answer is that most people live a moral life because they want to - because it makes them happy to do so. (Of course, some people also live in fear of Earthly punishment. It is pretty safe to conclude that theft would be more widespread if there were no punishment for it). If atheists were more likely to be criminals, we would expect to see them over-represented in prisons, but what data there is suggests that the opposite is true.

4. Atheist perspectives on Christianity

Question 4A: Why don’t atheists believe that the Bible presents an accurate historical account?
Answer 4A: Confining this to the New Testament, the problem atheists have with the Bible is that none of it is substantiated by other sources. The earliest Gospels were most likely written some 50 years after the death of Jesus. We don’t know who they were written by. No non-Christian mentions Jesus until Pliny the Younger in 110 AD, while the alleged resurrection is not mentioned until the mid second century. There are thus no contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life at all and no hostile or neutral accounts whatsoever, contemporary or otherwise. It is rather like we were expected to believe in the miracles of Sai Baba based on nothing other than the rantings of his most fevered supporters, written 2,000 years ago and 50 years after his death. And the Gospels mention some events that you would really expect to have some historical corroboration. For instance, Matthew (and only Matthew) gives this account of the events following the resurrection:

[ QUOTE ]
27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would think events like this would have merited a mention in contemporary writings. The problems don’t end there for the Gospels. They contradict each other and the all-important resurrection story shows signs of having been added later. In short, what we have here are unsupported documents, written by true believers pushing an agenda, alleging the most fantastic events to have taken place and providing no evidence for those events having actually occurred.

Question 4B: Do atheists believe that the morality of the Bible (and of Christian doctrine) is sound?
Answer 4B: No. The Old Testament is filled with vicious laws. A good example is any child who curses his father or mother is to be put to death. I chose this example because Jesus criticizes others for not obeying this commandment.

Matthew 15:3-6 (a similar passage also appears in Mark):

[ QUOTE ]
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Despite the widespread portrayal of Jesus’ message as having been nothing but “Love thy neighbour”, he repeatedly says that the Old Testament laws are still to be obeyed:

[ QUOTE ]
For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:18-19)

It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid. (Luke 16:17)

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. (Matthew 5:17)

Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law (John 7:19)

[/ QUOTE ]

Elsewhere the Bible reiterates that all scripture is God-given:

[ QUOTE ]
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness... (2 Timothy 3:16)

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. (2 Peter 20-21)

[/ QUOTE ]
The New Testament is therefore not a disendorsement of the Old Testament. All the atrocities of the Old Testament continue to be a moral stain upon Christianity.

The idea of hell is something that atheists also regularly cite as an immoral aspect of Christian beliefs. According to a Beliefnet survey of all faiths, 56% of respondents believed that someone they knew was going to go to hell. The number would be higher amongst Christians only. Since Christians believe God to be perfectly moral, this means that a majority of Christians surveyed believed that it was morally acceptable for God to torture someone they personally knew for the rest of eternity. Atheists regard this belief as amoral and contemptible.

Question 4C: Why did Christianity spread so quickly if it was false?
Answer 4C: There are several reasons. Christianity was one of the first inclusive religions, in that one did not have to be part of a specific ethnic group or undergo any complicated initiation rites to become an adherent. The central message – that one can have eternal life in Heaven simply by accepting Jesus as Lord – was exactly what people wanted to hear. Christianity spread because it was able to appeal to everyone. The world’s other major monotheistic religion – Islam – spread via war and violence. It is today the world’s fastest growing religion – which Christians will agree says nothing about whether or not it is true.

bunny · #2 09-04-2007, 05:43 AM

Excellent idea and I like most of this. I'd query putting the second section in though - that doesnt seem like it's about atheism, rather a response to some theistic arguments that some atheists might apply. After all, there are plenty more and your choice seems arbitrary - perhaps the two arguments which bug you the most? Or which you find the most/least persuasive? (If I were to pick two arguments for theism to discuss I'd put a reply to pascal's wager and the argument from design - these seem more persuasive to most theists in my experience. Having said that, I'd just leave this section out entirely).

ChrisV · #3 09-04-2007, 06:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent idea and I like most of this. I'd query putting the second section in though - that doesnt seem like it's about atheism, rather a response to some theistic arguments that some atheists might apply. After all, there are plenty more and your choice seems arbitrary - perhaps the two arguments which bug you the most? Or which you find the most/least persuasive? (If I were to pick two arguments for theism to discuss I'd put a reply to pascal's wager and the argument from design - these seem more persuasive to most theists in my experience. Having said that, I'd just leave this section out entirely).

[/ QUOTE ]

I put those two in because in my experience those are the most commonly brought up. I left out the ontological argument, which while unsound is a better attempt than the lame first cause argument, simply because hardly anyone ever brings up the ontological argument and anyone who does has a grounding in philosophy. I left out the argument from design because refuting it would basically involve linking to talkorigins, but I agree that if I keep this section, it needs something on Pascal's Wager.

Edit: Also, I felt that an FAQ on atheism should include a brief rundown on why common arguments for God aren't accepted, as it also includes a brief rundown on why the Bible is not considered reliable.

bunny · #4 09-04-2007, 07:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I put those two in because in my experience those are the most commonly brought up. I left out the ontological argument, which while unsound is a better attempt than the lame first cause argument, simply because hardly anyone ever brings up the ontological argument and anyone who does has a grounding in philosophy. I left out the argument from design because refuting it would basically involve linking to talkorigins, but I agree that if I keep this section, it needs something on Pascal's Wager.

Edit: Also, I felt that an FAQ on atheism should include a brief rundown on why common arguments for God aren't accepted, as it also includes a brief rundown on why the Bible is not considered reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]
You may well be right - you just run into the problem of where to stop, but I guess that's par for the course with an FAQ. Pascal's wager is definitely necessary if you're going to leave this section in - I'd guess it to be by far the most common opening gambit of theistic visitors. I'd still encourage a response to the argument from design (the paley's watch version perhaps) since although we dont see it here much, in my experience it's the most persuasive to theists trying to justify their faith.

bunny · #5 09-04-2007, 05:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Question 1B: So wait, weak atheists don't actively claim that God doesn't exist? Isn't that agnosticism?
Answer 1B: No. The difference between agnosticism and weak atheism is that weak atheists have investigated the evidence for the existence of a God and found it unconvincing. Agnostics may, for instance, have not looked at the evidence, or have looked at it and are not sure whether they are convinced or not. Or they may simply not believe that skepticism is appropriate to the question of the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did mean to mention that I dont think this is a correct formulation of agnosticism. I think the point of agnosticism is not that they havent formed a view on God's existence - it's that nobody is entitled to a view - it is fundamentally unknowable.

ChrisV · #6 09-04-2007, 06:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question 1B: So wait, weak atheists don't actively claim that God doesn't exist? Isn't that agnosticism?
Answer 1B: No. The difference between agnosticism and weak atheism is that weak atheists have investigated the evidence for the existence of a God and found it unconvincing. Agnostics may, for instance, have not looked at the evidence, or have looked at it and are not sure whether they are convinced or not. Or they may simply not believe that skepticism is appropriate to the question of the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did mean to mention that I dont think this is a correct formulation of agnosticism. I think the point of agnosticism is not that they havent formed a view on God's existence - it's that nobody is entitled to a view - it is fundamentally unknowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fundamentally unknowable? If the stars spontaneously reformed themselves overnight to spell out "I IS GOD LOLZ" then I might be inclined to rethink my atheism. How would you describe someone who simply doesn't have an opinion on whether God exists?

bunny · #7 09-04-2007, 06:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Question 1B: So wait, weak atheists don't actively claim that God doesn't exist? Isn't that agnosticism?
Answer 1B: No. The difference between agnosticism and weak atheism is that weak atheists have investigated the evidence for the existence of a God and found it unconvincing. Agnostics may, for instance, have not looked at the evidence, or have looked at it and are not sure whether they are convinced or not. Or they may simply not believe that skepticism is appropriate to the question of the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did mean to mention that I dont think this is a correct formulation of agnosticism. I think the point of agnosticism is not that they havent formed a view on God's existence - it's that nobody is entitled to a view - it is fundamentally unknowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fundamentally unknowable? If the stars spontaneously reformed themselves overnight to spell out "I IS GOD LOLZ" then I might be inclined to rethink my atheism. How would you describe someone who simply doesn't have an opinion on whether God exists?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd say a weak atheist (luckyme has me well indoctrinated).

It's outside my realm of expertise, but I'm pretty sure agnosticism is "supposed" to include the impossibility of knowing (even a-gnostic seems reminiscent of anti-knowledge...?) I thought the argument was something like God is outside space and time and hence has no visible impact on the world. Anything that happens could be because god did it or could just be because that's how the laws of physics really are. (Though I'm sure theyd say it better - perhaps something like empirically inaccessible)

Anyhow - just my two cents, but I dont think agnostic means just someone without an opinion.

EDIT: Dictionary.com has:

ag·nos·tic /æg&#712;n&#594;st&#618;k/
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

ChrisV · #8 09-04-2007, 10:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's outside my realm of expertise, but I'm pretty sure agnosticism is "supposed" to include the impossibility of knowing (even a-gnostic seems reminiscent of anti-knowledge...?)

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most definitions have "unknown or unknowable". And it's not a question of area of expertise - we're looking for a definition of the word as commonly used. It's one of those situations like "anti-Semite" meaning anti-Jew, not anti- all Semitic peoples.

AlexM · #9 09-05-2007, 05:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's outside my realm of expertise, but I'm pretty sure agnosticism is "supposed" to include the impossibility of knowing (even a-gnostic seems reminiscent of anti-knowledge...?)

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most definitions have "unknown or unknowable". And it's not a question of area of expertise - we're looking for a definition of the word as commonly used. It's one of those situations like "anti-Semite" meaning anti-Jew, not anti- all Semitic peoples.

[/ QUOTE ]

You either believe in a god (religion), actively believe that there is no god (atheist) or you consider it "unknown" (agnostic). Thanks for disproving your point.

And... most definitions of atheism have "active disbelief."

luckyme · #10 09-05-2007, 02:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
we're looking for a definition of the word as commonly used.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try this to clarify what the term carries-

My neighbor is an atheist.

List all the views he has on the topic and why he is one.

luckyme