Category: Atheism

Essay: Learning Reality

I’ve lived most of my life thinking god is either likely or unlikely. I suppose that’s normal for many people. Did I believe in a god? Who was I trying to please by playing along?

At times, I have said something about being agnostic. However, I never said I did not think a god existed until a few years ago. But that’s what I thought. The only conversations on the topic that I recall were with people who claimed to believe not only in god, but who also thought their religion was correct.

While I tried to believe that a god existed, I considered virtually all religion as nonsense regardless of whether any god existed. In the case of Christianity, some denominations seemed more looney than others. That was my point of view even when I acknowledged only the good side of religion. Now I more clearly see the dark side of religion. My opinion feels balanced.

Over the years, I probably worked harder at not being a nonbeliever (which I seemed to be) than I did at being a believer (which I wasn’t), if my double negative comments make sense. That is for me what religion is all about, at least on the surface. Oddly enough, I never had much of a cognitive dissonance issue with this conundrum. I assumed that I wasn’t getting it.

This back and forth (or on and off) went on for a long time. During the last twelve years of my experience in the deep end of the Christianity pool, I was all-in; meaning I was on a mission to fix my 40+ years of personal doubt. What happened was the opposite. I changed from a quiet (keep it to myself) skeptic going through the motions. I became an outspoken atheist who loves to say there are no gods. Prove me wrong if you can. I’m justly called cantankerous for less.

When I was silent (practicing religion or not), I was never asked to prove anything. I was never asked to provide a meaning for my life. No one asked me how humans and animals came into existence, even though I’d reconciled evolution with Genesis. Others seemed more willing to inform me of how the Universe popped up from nothingness (whatever that is), than to ask how I thought that had happened.

One does not need to come out as either atheist or agnostic. But we should when it’s safe. Depending on the situation, claiming to be deist might work. Or, one can also simply stay away from religious practice and admit to not having a church ‘home’ or no religion: to being a none. But that opens the door to proselytization.

Many folks make exactly that choice, and no one hates or fears them as with an atheist. I know some self-proclaimed Christians who are a party of one as far as proclaiming denominational alignment. They claim to be anti-church or anti-organized religion. Maybe it’s complicated.

My wife and I have always had friends, family, neighbors, or workmates who were involved with religion. That social aspect of our lives may account for several efforts of accommodating various Christian denominations. All of which fell apart for some legitimate reason.

My search has ended. I find it interesting that I spent such effort, time, money, and talent trying to be (and apply) something that was never a serious intellectual or mindful part of me. I thought I was missing out. While I never felt a spiritual loss, I was socially missing something. Something I now scoff at.

Unfortunately, some folks don’t understand why I have no regrets about trying. Others seem to proclaim regret for a religious past. Perhaps it was psychologically damaging to them, or maybe they regret wasted time and effort. I learned things about myself and human nature during those years. It is a reality of my life. How can I regret learning about reality?

Bill

Two More Atheist Stuffs

Morality

Let me try to get this right. If I say that I doubt the existence of any gods thus far divulged by humanity, people like Steve Harvey, Oprah W., the late George H. W. Bush, and millions of others will stamp me an immoral and untrustworthy person no matter how I live my life. Bush would even deny my citizenship (with all due respect for his pardons for the Iran-Contra criminals).

If I say I believe in a god, especially if it’s theirs, then I am not branded quite as despicable. And if I’m a truly saved Southern Baptist, my behavior becomes irrelevant because I believe and done got saved (once saved, always saved). If I say I believe, even if it is a god damn lie, it’s good enough.

I doubt that any believers feign atheism. But I am certain that many atheists or agnostics, by either omission or action, pretend to believe in a god when they do not or have serious doubts. I have, on occasion, either gone along with something religious or kept my mouth shut about it, and sometimes I still do. It’s not an easy thing to do either way. While I am not closeted, I don’t wear atheist on my shirtsleeve (except for this blog) because it makes my life and that of my spouse safer.

What is so wrong about doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do? Do we all need biblical reference or religious dogma to back up our choices of right and wrong? The truly sad part of this is that I suspect more than a few agnostics and atheists buy into the myth that religious people are more moral because they belong to a religion or believe one of those gods exist. There is no evidence for the claim that believers are more moral than atheists. We’re all just a bit brain washed!

For all of us, morality exists on a continuum and may change with circumstances. But what is more immoral, judging others as bad or evil simply for what they believe? Or, judging people based on their behavior regardless of religion or spiritual path?

Numbers

When research groups like Pew, Gallup, Harris, and others attempt to determine something, they take a poll by asking questions. Why would someone say they are atheist or do not believe in god if it might cause them a problem? Try this.

Q> What religion are you? A> Ummm….none.
Q> Do you believe in God? A> Ummm, uh, kind of, yes, I think something.
Q> Do you masturbate? A> Absolutely not. Never.
Q> Do you think God is watching you? A> What?

One guy called The Atheist Experience and claimed 95% of people believe in a god. His estimate went unchallenged and only his logic error was addressed. I agree with what Christopher Hitchens opined on the topic of percentage of believers and non-believers. I think that much more than 20% of US Citizens are atheist (although a yes or no answers can be hard to get). Only a small percentage of us admit/claim/embrace it. No one knows and will never know how many or what percentage do not really believe in any gods.

When I read the Pew numbers for the central Texas county I live in, it claimed 60% were nones; meaning they do not practice or align with any specific religion. Every atheist in this county falls into that group, including me, whether we admit atheism or not. However, there are certainly exceptions.

If you want more, this link has an excellent article on the subject.

 

Bill

What are you afraid of?

This essay is based upon the post, The How of Atheism?, from the blog ‘TheCommonAtheist.’

Fear is a normal human emotion. Usually, it’s a beneficial one. But it can be a choke point in human progress.

For example, when I first started riding a motorcycle I progressed to high-speed highway driving. With no seat belt, no metal cage surrounding me with air bags, and no safety devices, other than what I was wearing; traveling upwards of 70 miles per hour surrounded by cars with drivers poorly skilled or foolish, with parts of my body passing unprotected only inches from hard, hot pavement, and all of me exposed to natural and unnatural elements; I was scared riding my motorcycle. It is inherently dangerous. Known danger begets fear, but sometimes the same risk elicits pleasure.

Anytime while riding a motorcycle you need to be alert but relaxed and loose enough to respond at any speed. Instructors will tell you to be relaxed because body tension will hamper both physical response and mental judgment. I agree. Being alert and aware was no problem. However, the amount of body tension caused by fear is overwhelming and no amount of relax, relax, calm down was going to alleviate it. Experience over time helps, but the other side of the confidence curve has probably resulted in more serious accidents than bodily tension.

Fear of extinction (Psychology Today’s term for fear of death or dying) is a big deal. It’s normal, they say. If you add to that religion’s threats of permanent torture (Hell), you have raised someone’s anxiety level regarding death significantly. But not for everyone. There have always been atheists in fox holes and some have died there. In the USA, we remember them on Memorial Day.

To many believers merely doubting the existence of god is your ticket to Hell. It doesn’t matter how wonderfully charitable and loving you’ve lived your life. Religion has its dark and irrational side.

In his post, Jim postulates that atheism mitigates that fear better than a religion, especially Christianity or Islam.

I do not fear extinction. I agree in that I fear the pain and suffering of the dying process more than I fear its completion. Leonard Cohen said the same thing in an interview. Cohen also said, I was dead before I was born, and I recall no problems (I’m paraphrasing).

I recall my mother declining my offer to call a priest for last rights when she was dying. Mom was not atheist, but she said that after years of ignoring her religion she was not about to start then, a remarkable thing for a Catholic to say about the last sacrament in the face of death. She also said, “when you’re dead, you’re dead.” I did not request elaboration.

Leaning on parts from Jim’s post a bit more, Atheism is

trusting your own judgment and weighing evidence,
realizing that humans are easily deceived and manipulated by guilt,
accepting the natural goodness and innocence of humanity,
accepting human rationality, reason, and the inevitability of death.
acceptance of the here and now and responsibility derived from reality;
a fundamental rejection of fear-based belief in gods and religious prescriptions of morality associated with fear of retribution.
And it embraces the uniqueness of the individual and it is a personal claim to integrity.

To paraphrase (Jim and Paul), Oh death, where is my fear of thy sting?

Here are a few more quotes that are linked to the source. But they certainly stand alone and are based more on academic research than this old skeptic’s pondering.

So non-believers are not only distrusted; they also stir up morbid thoughts, and perhaps raise discomforting doubts about what happens after we die.

First, that fear motivates religious belief, and second, that religious belief mitigates fear. And…While the fear of actual death—painfully, slowly—is apparent, the existential crisis encountered at the prospect of nothingness appears to cause the most anxiety.

Bill

In Whom Do We Really Trust? (Ignominy of Truth)

Deity du jour

Hear the cheer:

Give me a G, give me an O, give me a D; God, God he’s our man.
If God can’t do it, no one can!

Here is a link to the wiki for the USA motto (also for Nicaragua and Florida): IN GOD WE TRUST (In Deo Fidemus, in Latin). While I see the motto as an attempt to force religion or god upon a minority, along with under god in the US Pledge of Allegiance, I won’t waste time advocating for abolishment.

I never notice it on money. When I say the pledge, I say the same one I did every day in grade school, until it changed in ’55 or so, and just leave out the under god part. (MSWord wants to hyphenate that. How un-American.) I really like the final words of the pledge: with liberty and justice for all. Nothing against any gods. They’re all myths except the ones you think are real.

People have literally been snake-bit, allowed their children to die, died an early death themselves, or experienced some other form of malady because they trusted god (alone) to take care of them. I think the trust a deity idiom is much more about how wonderful we are. Look how holy we are! As the PA preacher wrote in 1861, it was needed to relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. We seem to think it makes us look better. No god gives a shit.

Look at the third step in the AA 12-step recovery program: Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. If you turn your will and life over, you must trust something external. It seems that they could have stopped right there, but there are nine more steps, just in case. But it’s a spiritual program, not a religious one, right? God will remove the malady he bestowed upon me if I just trust (promises and all that).

I would go through a case of bull shit flags every day if I cried foul each time a god-squader took the just in case god is busy approach. And what of prayer? If we trust god, do we have to keep reminding him that we want the perfect world which he has not delivered? Oh, I forgot. You gotta die first for that to happen. Trust that myth, too.

Call it God Insurance

Can’t you hear it? I trust god, but I buy insurance. In god I trust, this gun is just in case. I trust under god, but I am going to do what the doctor said. I trust god, but the devil is so sneaky. I trust Him, but anti-virus software is just wise. Seriously? Did I just hear the skeptic fairy sing?

No. Most of us do not trust any god. We’re all more skeptical than we like to think. I was always taught that God helps those that help themselves. That made sense. Since I am fairly convinced of no gods, the whole trust thing, like religion, seems pointless (unless you want to say universe for god, but that seems random). At least there is a universe.

Bill

So, bring money but leave the gun in the car.

 

Keep those people away from me

Have you noticed that the god squad is everywhere? It seems like the secular hospital is a thing of the past. I don’t like it. Whatever happened to good old General Hospital?

My personal wish: keep those people away from me. The god squad I don’t want.

I had filled out all the forms before checking in for surgery. I was waiting for the ignorant service crew at my GM dealership to tell me they did not know how to fix my car.

I answered my cell phone ring and the lady from the hospital said I had checked none on the religious preference list and she wanted to be sure that was correct.

“What is it about the word none that you don’t understand?”

“Excuse me?” Says she.

“I want you to keep those people away from me.” Says me.

“Excuse me, Sir?” She seemed confused.

“I want a sign on my door that reads: Atheist within: may be contagious with reality, reason, common sense, and armed with anti-woo-woo.”

“Mr. Reynolds, that is not going to happen.”

I said, “Then I suggest you try to understand that there are at least 100 good reasons for you people to call me. This is not one of them. I am atheist, but that option is not on your list. For now, none will be fine. Thanks for calling.”

“I’m sorry to have bothered you.”

“I bet you are. Goodbye.”

Have a wonderful day,

Bill

 

I Don’t Know

If my grandson were to ask me if I believe in God, what answer should I give? My choices would be: yes, no, maybe, or I plead the Fifth (I refuse to answer on the grounds that if I tell you, it might be life-changing for both of us). He has not asked, and I have not asked him what he thinks. If he would simply ask me if there is a god, I could say I don’t know.

If my father had ever asked me if I believed in God, I would have said yes. Today, that would be a lie, but it would still be my answer. One does not have deep metaphysical discussions with an Archie Bunker type, especially an angry one. I try to choose my battles carefully. I would probably tell my mother the truth, well…maybe, but I don’t know if I would. More on her another time.

I cannot recall the last time anyone asked me if I believed in God. Most people seem to assume I do, and I did used to act as though I did. I only recall one time when someone asked me if I was atheist. It took me two days to answer. While I knew what I was, I felt the need to ponder my response. I had to decide if I wanted to admit it to anyone (especially to me). Prior to that, I had only implied it to one workmate, but I disguised my comments as dismissals of religion. The elephant in the room (belief in a god) wasn’t questioned. I think he assumed I did not believe because of what he said about his father, a long time Mormon convert who never saw the light, vis-à-vis my statements.

When atheists lie about it, it’s euphemistically referred to as being in the closet. It is not telling the truth, so it’s lying. Millions of people all around the world do it every day for good reasons. Most of those reasons are more defensive than deceptive, but often are not without regret and guilt.

This is not about truth and lies. It’s about role playing for your own good and the good of others. I think it’s better to be out of the closet because the cognitive dissonance (guilt) associated with trying to live a dishonest life is troubling and wearing. It feels better, but there is almost always some price to pay for that kind of honesty.

In a scene from the movie The Big Sick (a good, dramatic but light romantic comedy from 2017) where the main male character, Kumail, (finally) confronts his Pakistani parent’s religion, culture, and traditions; his father, a Muslim, asks him “Do you not believe in Allah?” To which Kumail answers, I don’t know what I believe. I have not prayed in years. I don’t know what I believe. I find that answer courageous, and I see his father’s response as controlled and reasonable. (I could not find a clip of the scene.)

Movie character or not (it’s based upon a true-life story), my thought was, not prayed in years and confused beliefs, He’s atheist. Just because he will not say it, that doesn’t mean it’s not the case, right?

Saying I don’t know has to do with knowledge. Agnosticism does also. It’s simply saying I don’t know or I’m uncertain. In a way, it’s pleading the 5th without saying what one believes. Either you believe something, or you don’t. Who knows? Nobody!

It’s also why I don’t know should be an acceptable answer. I like to say there are no gods, but I would not say I know there are no gods. Yet, the latter is what many people think I said. It is simply what I think or believe to be the case, based on the lack of evidence. Few would ask why I doubt any god’s existence. But they would challenge me to prove the negative.

There are times when I am asked questions, and I pause before I answer, often for so long that the questioner begins to lose patience with me. I always want to be sure I can give my best answer. Well, not exactly always.

Sometimes, if I have been sipping some of nature’s finer spirits, I will answer any question immediately, with confidence and authority. One could correctly say I am full of shit, but it’s alcohol. Sober, I am more likely to say I don’t know.

One other answer I like to use either sober (or perhaps while wondering what kind of THC that was) is: I don’t care. That is truly my favorite, although I find ways to dress it up at times.

Bill

I beleive a lot of things, the existance of any god is not one of them

I read this post (link below) and have been struggling to figure out how to repost. This is the best I can do. It is relevant because she makes a good point.

A friend once asked me this, “I know what you do not belive, but what do you believe?” What a great question to ask anyone! But she should have added, “and why do you believe that?” I responded with my answer (and a blog post), but I think Sophia provides a good answer.

It is not very important that I do not believe in god. What I do believe is what defines me and should be what identifies me.

Even the word atheist is not the best one for it, but it’s all we have (for now).

I am posting this because I think it is worth your time to read it.

Click on the link below to find it.

Bill

 

I am an Atheist, not a “non-believer”

 

Essay: Proof God Exists

A young man, a believer at the time, once asked me regarding my skepticism of the existence of (in his case) the one true god, what kind of proof I would accept. My answer was simple: God. You, me, the neighbor’s cat, the magnificence of the universe, the remarkable unlikeliness of human existence (much less me being one), all of nature and the cosmos are not proof or even evidence that any god exists.

About one year ago I had a lump on my arm that appeared to be a one- or two-centimeter cyst. I asked my primary care doctor if I could have it removed since it detracted from my otherwise magnificent handsomeness, called my vanity. He said and wrote into my medical record that I had a small sebaceous cyst on my left forearm. He went on to say that he would refer me, if it was bothering me. I said it was. I agreed that it was a cyst.

I reported to a surgeon who said it was a cyst. She measured it and found it to be of the necessary size to qualify for surgical excision. I delayed the appointment slightly due to other overlapping medical issues, and since this was still only about my ego. I thought the other issues to be more important.

I eventually had the surgery, and with a local anesthetic, she skillfully removed the lump, showed it to me, and said, “See? It is only a cyst.” She sewed up the two-inch incision and placed the ugly cyst in a sample bottle for analysis by the pathology laboratory. She could have tossed it in the trash.

When I met with her again ten days later to remove the stitches, the surgeon explained that the lab sample was slow in being returned by the path lab. She said that was because it was determined to be soft tissue sarcoma, an uncommon form of cancer that grows on soft body tissue, as opposed to bone (another form of sarcoma). The tumor was determined to be aggressive growing with only minimal margins showing in the sample. She had already scheduled my appointment with an oncologist. Everyone thought it was a cyst, but I had cancer, and still would if my ego had not stepped in. I believed it was a cyst, as did every person I knew and every doctor in my medical chain. We were all wrong. Everyone was wrong.

It took the path lab about a week to complete their review. The only proof anyone had that I had cancer was a scientific lab report. After more time and referrals, I ended up with a sarcoma surgeon. Wait and see was one treatment option, but not the one I chose. We decided on 25 radiation treatments to the affected area on my arm followed several weeks later by radical surgery to remove all soft tissue, including skin, from wrist to elbow. It turned out to be much less than that, but the removed area was about three inches long by two inches wide. I don’t know how deep. All removed tissue was sent to pathology for review.

Driving home after surgery I told my wife that all of this was based upon one lab report that may have been mistaken. It happens, maybe, right? If so, all this radiation and surgery and hospital stuff was for naught. Maybe I did not have cancer at all. I believed I did. I am a skeptic but in this case, wishful thinking is something I was willing to entertain. No one had questioned the first lab report.

After a few days I spoke with the sarcoma surgeon, and he reported that the second sample lab report was back and it indicated that residual cancer cells were present in the second sample, meaning that the original minimal margins had not removed all cancer. But he did. Now I had two reports claiming that sarcoma cancer had been in my body. That is all the proof anyone has, but now everyone agrees that the lump on my arm was cancer, although one doctor explained that it may have originally started as a benign cyst and later became malignant. I don’t know. Maybe.

There was a lump. It was removed (twice) and bombarded with radiation. But the only proof I had was what others had told me after pathology had weighed in. I believe I had cancer and now I take regular tests to monitor for more. I believe this because I have reports written by experts I have never met. I don’t know how the lab tested the first or second sample or made their determinations.

I have read a lot about sarcoma. I have read much more about the existence of a god or gods and how humans should believe and behave because one or more of these gods exist. I have no scientific report. No one claims to have seen the God of Abraham, not even Abe. Scripture was written by men, or perhaps women, we don’t really know who wrote it. The only proof anyone offered regarding god is faith and miracles that allegedly (no evidence or proof of them) happened long ago.

What proof do I need? No one has ever seen a god. I have tried, but I get nothing. For now, I would want to see a god for myself, because I have no believable scientific evidence that any god exists.

Empty metaphysical arguments are not enough. Noisy religion is not enough. The unsupported opinion of the majority is no longer enough. The possibility of any gods existing is further exacerbated by what I experience, see, and hear in the real world.

I believe I had cancer based upon the evidence I have. I also believe I may be cancer free today. I’m optimistic for now. That is my faith, but now everyone wants evidence that is ironically referred to as no evidence of disease or NED.

If you have proof god exists, show me if you want. Otherwise, there are no gods because there is no evidence of god (NEG). I could be wrong. But if I went with what everyone thought to be true, I would still be walking around with deadly cancer growing in my arm. Maybe.

Bill

“Relationships prove that God exists.” ― Nityananda Das, Divine Union
(Well now, that is about as good as it gets. Silly me! How’d I miss that?)

Review: Why Are You Atheists So Angry?

This is a review of Greta Christina’s 2012 self-published book titled, Why Are You Atheists So Angry: 99 Things that piss off the godless.

Bottom line up front (BLUF): I enjoyed finally reading this book. I learned from it, and I recommend it to any atheist, anyone who must deal with an atheist or atheism in any way, or who believes in a god or gods.

Jim recommended the book via blog comment. Greta Christina is a well-known atheist activist (writer and artist) who promotes activities to apostatize people away from religion. I reviewed the e-book version.

She begins the book with quotations from MLK and M. Gandhi supportive of anger as a motivating human force leading to constructive change.

In the intro, Greta explains her book, why she wrote it, and why she is angry. In Chapter 1, she lists the ninety-nine things she is angry about. I agree and especially liked what she said about reality, her criticism of religion, and of many religious people. She finishes the chapter saying that she could have listed 200, 500, or 100,000 things. 99 is enough.

The only thing I do not like about this book is the title. It’s misleading, applies only to the first chapter, and relates to why the author is angry. The book is much more and better than that. People are not angry because they are godless. They are angry because of things done in name of god or religion.

Chapter Two addresses challenges to her anger by answering questions from people of belief, something she does often in the book. Chapter Three explains why religion is at fault. Her main premise is that there is no reality check in religion, and bemoans how it makes people more vulnerable to deception and fraud.

In Chapter Four she aims her criticism at moderate and progressive religion, while Chapter Five pulls in New Age religions. In Six she involves the spiritual but not religious crowd. Chapter Seven captures ecumenicalism and interfaith (coexisties, my term) in her criticism. I acknowledge my agreement with virtually all of what I read.

In Chapter Eight Greta explains some reasons why she does not believe in God – an extra good chapter that does not align with the book’s title.

My favorite chapter was Nine, “Why ‘Religion is Useful’ is a Terrible Argument – The Santa Delusion.” I found her discussion enlightening and her arguments useful.

Chapter Ten explains why Gretta does what she does as an atheist activist. It’s a good explanation. Then, in Eleven she examines the validity of activism and champions each person doing his or her part, even if it is living as a good and descent human being. She accounts for the efficacy of that in Chapter Twelve.

Christina dedicated Chapter Thirteen to talking about anger and compassion. It’s short. So is Fourteen, which compels further action on the part of atheists.

Chapter Fifteen is an extensive list of resources – a good one, but this book has been out for seven years and has a lot of blog posts in it. I checked out some of the blogs and found them active and well, except one.

Greta’s blog reports that she is taking a break from writing, but it is linked (click) here.  She has instructions on how to order any format of the book (click) here.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/ is also good with many resources and blogs listed. Try it.

Two good resources for looking stuff up are The Skeptic’s Dictionary; and The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, a fun bible source.

“…One of the things that makes me angriest about religion is the way it makes people trivialize reality in favor of their wishful thinking. … I care passionately about reality, and get ticked off when people treat it like a petty nuisance. … Every unsupported belief you hold makes you more vulnerable to others…and less likely to value skepticism and critical thinking at all.” All quotations from the book by Greta Christina.

Catholicism Challenges Atheism

“What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

This poetic quote from the Book of Ecclesiastes applies to the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and its interest in and argument with atheism.

This is my first (and longest) essay about how the RCC officially views atheism and my retort. I used the official Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) as my primary resource for the official stand. It was produced by the Vatican and approved (blessed?) by a pope.

I don’t expect the RCC to know much about or to understand atheism (they are not atheist). During Vatican II, they tried. I do expect them to be honest, even if that means saying we don’t know. Maybe they feel that if they were honest, they might provide support to non-belief. Perhaps they would. I was Roman Catholic (RC), so I know that church officials should understand the frustration when others get you wrong. Even many Catholics do not understand their faith, much less Protestants and non-Christians.

I prefer to charge the writers of the Catechism with ignorance rather than malfeasance. Yet they seem to equivocate and create things that are not contextually correct. I realize that the text on atheism was written for the faithful to ensure that they reject any forms of thought leading to atheism. The CCC says, “Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time.” I expect that. But they got a lot wrong.

In the apostolic constitution Fidei depositum, John Paul II declared the CCC a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.

The following, paraphrased or quoted in italics, are taken from the CCC.

Forms (or phenomena) of Atheism

(see CCC paragraphs 2123-2124)

Atheists either do not perceive man’s vital bond to God or they explicitly reject it.

If there was or is a god for man or woman to bond to, we’d be quite bondable. To us, this is like discussing the contents of a vacuum. It makes no sense. But worse, it implies and encourages the idea that atheists reject a god that exists, which is not the case. One cannot reject that which does not exist. God is a myth. How does one reject myth?

It follows, however, that if no god exists, all religions, which are man-made, are coincidently rejected. When you believe that the priest does Mass in place of a god (Jesus), and that the wheat wafer is the actual god (Jesus), and you do so for two-thousand years, it is a huge mental leap to understand the non-existence of your basic premise: a god. Consider this: is it possible for a practicing Roman Catholic not to perceive man’s vital bond to God? Of course, it is. But would that make him or her atheist? No!

Atheism takes many forms (different phenomena):

Belief in a god or gods and the multitude of accompanying religions do indeed take many forms. Philosophies and world views take many forms. Not so for atheism. This may be the most difficult concept for people to grasp, especially members of organized religions such as the Vatican-based, bureaucratic, RCC. Maybe it’s too simple for them.

Few believers (if any today) conclude on their own that there is a god. However, virtually all atheists conclude (to varying degrees) that no god exists. A person in Africa, another in South America, a third in Europe, and an Eskimo floating on the Bering Sea may have different opinions and philosophies, but their atheism would be the same: gods do not exist or are at least very unlikely. Other thoughts and opinions probably will be different, but on the one single issue, they see that the same way.

One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to life on earth (space and time).

Or, in my preferred words, right here, right now. Practical materialism is a philosophical concept that applies to the rise of health and wealth Christian religious denominational beliefs and practices. It is not a form or type of atheism, although any person may be atheist and accept or follow it. This mixes two independent things and misleads people who read the Catechism. I live in America. I want to have my health and enough money. I would like to think that is practical. RC religious are paid employees with health insurance. They are no less materialistic than I.

As far as materialism is concerned, is not unbridled capitalism focused on materialism? And the Vatican? Good grief. The RCC is no stranger to materialism. As we say in Texas, that sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black (Trappists notwithstanding).

And yes, a good life on earth is what many atheists work hard to make happen. It is very much a part of the anti-religious sentiment held by many (probably most) atheists, because religion with an eye toward life after death tends to degrade the value and importance of life on Earth. I would not accuse the RCC of that. But not believing in any afterlife, much less a permanent one, has nothing to do with practical materialism. Here again, the Catechism, its writers, and approvers are misleading the Catholic faithful.

Atheistic humanism which sees man as having supreme control of his (or her) own history.

This is another deceptive twisting of truth. For example, all Catholics are Christians. Not all Christians are Catholics. And, some Christians do not consider any Catholics to be Christian. Many (about 75%) Humanists are atheist, but not all. And not all atheists are humanists. I’m not. Humanism is a philosophy relating to the role of mankind, whereas atheism is the conclusion that no gods exist. I doubt if anyone controls the past or even thinks they (or we) can. If the Catechism were to say that Humanists see man as having control or responsibility for the future, that might be closer to the truth.

Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. “It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man’s hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth.”

Any person’s philosophy could be all of this, but that does not define atheism. I am sort of stuck on the liberation of man through economic and social liberation thing. I am a contemporary atheist, so I should see it that way. Even the RCC would agree that some religions do thwart a better life; many Muslim sects, for example.

Important note: all religion is not the RCC. Some very clearly do exactly and openly what we accuse them of.

Indeed, when it is all about life after death, earthly progress can be thwarted. However, I do not see the RC Church having that problem nearly as much as the more evangelical crowd. There are topics such as birth control (practiced by many RCs), stem cell research, end of life or right to die, and abortion issues that the RCC would be pleased to force on others, including atheists. Thus, discouraging or preventing progress and people’s right to make choices (pursuit of happiness?).

Bill Reynolds 3/11/2019

“I shall not try to change anything that I think or anything that you think (insofar as I can judge of it) in order to reach a reconciliation that would be agreeable to all. On the contrary, what I feel like telling you today is that the world needs real dialogue, that falsehood is just as much the opposite of dialogue as silence, and that the only possible dialogue is the kind between people who remain what they are and speak their minds.” ~ from The Unbeliever and Christians, in Camus, Resistance, Rebellion and Death: Essays, [1948] 1964, p. 48.