Category: Atheism

When I First Believed and Didn’t

“What could be more foolish than to base one’s entire view of life on ideas that, however plausible at the time, now appear to be quite erroneous? And what would be more important than to find our true place in the universe by removing one by one these unfortunate vestiges of earlier beliefs?”—-Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery, 1988

“Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.”—Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere’s Fan, 1892, Act III (Mr. Dumby to Cecil Graham)

I was baptized before I was two weeks old. I don’t recall much of that day. I don’t think I believed in God or any of the other religious things I later would. The religious reason for the Catholic Sacrament at that age was that if I had died, I would not go to heaven unless baptized. I would go to Limbo with all the other unbaptized, until the Church decided that Limbo did not really exist.

I went to a Catholic school taught by nuns. We didn’t go to Mass in Kindergarten, but starting with First Grade, 9:00 a.m. Mass (in Latin) was mandatory. We sat up front with our class, boys on one side, girls on the other until graduation at the end of 8th grade. I went to public high school for 9th through 12th grade.

In grade school, I was taught about God, Jesus, the Blessed Trinity, and all the religious stuff I could fit into my brain. I believed it. I had some arguments about it with my father because I stood by what the nuns and priests told us. He was old school and much stricter. He always had the option of asking the ordained and religious, but he never did.

To the extent that a boy between the ages of six and fourteen can believe what he has been told about god and all the other religious stuff, I believed. I can’t say that I had a specific Jesus is my lord and savior moment because we didn’t do that.

In my personal world, I believed two other things: everyone I knew was Catholic and everyone believed in god. Neither was correct. I can’t say exactly when I came to believe of my own volition, or even if I did.

In the summer of 1960, I turned 14. That September I began an excursion into the realities of the somewhat secular educational world. I did not escape having god and religion forced upon me. We still prayed in school and had bible readings (mandatory state law) until June of 1963. My senior year began the following September.

After that, neither prayer nor bible reading could be constitutionally mandated or school sponsored. I would not have labeled myself as a nonbeliever at that point. A serious doubter might work. During that final year of high school, I was probably a practical atheist in that while I considered myself to be Catholic, I did not practice the religion.

Thirty years later, during the 1990s my religious opinions and behaviors might be viewed as a metal ball bouncing around the playing field of a pinball machine. The flippers and bumpers would knock me into other ideas or possibilities. I’d bounce off one bumper and into another, then another.

In the mid-90s, my spiritual reading and experimenting increased. I was a nonbeliever trying to believe. I was a seeker or searcher in the spiritual sense. I became seriously interested in eastern religious thought, spirituality, and meditation, some of it New Age nonsense. During that time I read Thomas Merton’s autobiography, The Seven Story Mountain, and decided to give Catholicism one more try.

Merton described seeing a deeply religious woman in a church. He envied her faith. I had the same experience. I was going to do everything I could to get this god and religion thing right. I convinced myself that there was a god. I felt that I had overcome my doubts forever. For almost 12 years, I did.

It was a cannonball dive into the deep end of the Christian religion and the Catholic Church. I did everything I could: taught bible study and religious education to adults and children, belonged to as many ministries as I could make time for. Eventually, I was elected President of the Parish Council for two years in our large Parish of more than five thousand families. I even began the process of being ordained as a Deacon, something not taken lightly in the Church or by me, and second only to becoming a Priest. I withdrew late in the process.

I recall teaching an adult class on The Problem of Evil. It had gone well. At the end of the class one lady raised her hand and asked me how I reconciled everything that I had just said with what I believed as a practicing Catholic. I don’t recall my answer.

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in.
—Leonard Cohen, lyrics from his song, Anthem

That was when my transition from Christian to Atheist began. Within two years I walked away from the Catholic Church for good. I disavowed my Catholic faith in writing. Soon thereafter I realized that I did not believe in the existence of any gods, demons, spirits, heaven or hell, or any of it.

I retired three years after leaving the Church and we moved again to yet another state. After about a year there, I was openly atheist. There are several key events and conclusions along my road to disbelief. Each conclusion was preceded by a long time of study, thought, and deciding. That continues.

Just as there was not a date and time when I believed, there was not a specific moment when I decided that I’m a convinced atheist. The metamorphosis was gradual. I simply and incrementally walked away from it all.

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.

Are You Ready?

The following text is from a brochure I wrote. At the end, on the back page, I wrote this.

Why did I write this? Atheism is poorly understood by believers, and atheists are unfairly condemned simply for what they may think. I’ve always dealt kindly with those people trying to convince me of things religious and godly; however, the last time I was publicly accosted and handed a religious tract, I decided that I would write my own. Turn-about is fair play. If you read mine, I’ll read yours.

I did not wish to anger anyone, but many people are upset to learn that someone does not believe in any god, much less theirs. However, if my words plant a seed of apostasy, I would be pleased.

Are you ready to consider being atheist, agnostic, a skeptic, or a free thinker?

 Why should you consider atheist or agnostic? Because there is no evidence that god exists. There is no proof of heaven, hell, purgatory, or limbo. Add angels, devils, and other bizarre spirits of religious myth. Religions are human creations often used by people to harm or control others. Historically, god or religion justified atrocities against fellow humans. That continues today – it’s madness.

Is atheism right for you? If you doubt the existence of a supreme being or a god, you’re on track to be agnostic or atheist. If you do not believe in any god, you are atheist. If you think maybe not, you’re agnostic.

Keep in mind, virtually nobody believes all historical gods existed. Most religious people acknowledge one god through one of three main Abrahamic religions (Jewish, Christian, or Muslim) consisting of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of denominations, sects, branches, or churches, some intent on killing all others in the name of that one god. If you don’t find that bizarre, stop reading, toss this in recycling, and have a good life.

What is atheism? Atheism is a conclusion – it’s not a religion. Nor is it a philosophy or world view such as humanism, nihilism, or another ontological variant. Atheism, however, does contribute to how you see the world, and vice-versa, just as any belief, doubt, or religion would.

There are no followers of atheism as in the religious sense of disciples. An atheist is simply someone who has concluded (on their own) that there are no gods. An agnostic would say probably or maybe not.

How should you decide to consider atheism? The decision you make is simple. If you think there is no god, or there is no proof, or that god is unlikely, then you are already a free thinker. For some people, the question of the existence of a god is a longer term thought process.

Ok, you are an atheist or agnostic. Now what? Once you’ve made your decision, it’s easy. You can stop right there. You don’t have to do anything or tell anyone. Many atheists remain in the closet for a long time after deciding there’s no god.

There is no required reading. However, both supporting and opposing literature are plentiful. You needn’t confess anything or attend meetings or services. Atheism is not organized, but there are atheist-oriented and free-thinker groups and alliances. You don’t have to give anyone money or ask for forgiveness.

How will you feel? While it is different for everyone, having no religious belief and concluding gods don’t exist can be empowering. Instead of following a restrictive religion, you become an integral part of an entire planet of free-thinkers. Yet, you physically and mentally remain the person you have always been. Some atheists, like humanists and certain Buddhists, meditate and have a strong spiritual base, even though they believe in no god. Perhaps the best reasons to consider atheism (or coming out as atheist) are relief and freedom.

What must you believe? Nothing. You don’t have to accommodate uncomfortable aspects of any religion, dogma, or scripture with which you disagree. Given more information, facts, or credible evidence, you may decide differently. Belief in a deity is the only obvious disqualifier.

What rules must you follow to be atheist? Atheism has no rules, no headquarters, no spokesperson, and no scripture. There are no official councilors, spiritual advisors, ministers, or leaders. Whatever you make of atheism, feel free to experience and appreciate the awe and wonder of the world and the universe as you see them.

What must you know? Science answers fundamental and advanced questions and is searching for more answers. Our scientific knowledge gaps are exciting, filled with wonder, and allow for personal imaginations to soar without contrived supernatural answers.

While you need not provide proof that no god exists, atheists, often called skeptics, ask for proof that any god exists, if we are asked to believe it: a reasonable request. We accept what has been proved, but we’re open to what has not.

What about morality? Don’t atheists lack a moral compass? A concern for some non-atheists is the question of morality. Atheists are as moral as people who believe in a god and are often on higher moral ground than many believers. People who embrace atheism do not walk away from their core moral beliefs. Keep the moral compass you have.

Freedom from religious doctrine allows you to follow the ancient human compulsion to treat others as you would like them to treat you, without ascribing your personal morality to any specific religious instruction or acting out of fear of retribution from a god. Nothing about your moral fiber changes as an atheist. This life is of prime importance to atheists.

The decision is always yours to make.

***

“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
~ Christopher Hitchens