Common Myths About Atheism – Part 2
Myth 2 – Atheists are inherently evil or immoral
This is a huge myth that is perpetrated for one reason, to make atheists seem like a bunch of horrible individuals. It is an ad hominem attack and nothing more, there is no rationale behind the argument or evidence which supports it. In fact the evidence supports the contrary.
Research by Cambridge University into correlations between organic atheism and various indicators of a countries development. The research essentially showed that a country with higher levels of organic atheism correlates with longer life expectancy, higher GDP per capita, lower poverty rates, stronger gender equality, lower crime rates, better education and better health services. If atheists truly were immoral or evil, the opposite should be true, in fact the results don’t speak well of theism. Countries with higher rates of religiosity are going to be worse off, with lower life expectancy, higher crime rates, higher divorce rates, higher prevalence of STD’s and higher teenage pregnancy rates.
Usually, these forms of arguments will usually claim that it is because of their holy book that society functions. The Christian right of America would claim that the Bible has helped to form the basis of American law. If this is what you believe, consider this. Why do other countries have similar laws to America, concerning rape and murder for example. A much more important question, why does countries like Japan, a distinctly non-Christian nation have similar laws. I assure you, America was not the first country to make these laws either, most of Europe and some far eastern nations had these laws in place well before America did. The Bible isn’t exactly a moral book to start with, I’ve already commented upon this, as have many others so I shant waste time here. Other holy books to have similar problems. Laws have been designed by people with morality and thought processes far above those who wrote any holy book.
It is important to distinguish organic and enforced atheism. Usually in countries under a dictatorship, such as Germany during the wars, Russia, North Korea etc. The state enforces atheism, usually by banning religion. Religion would be another institution which people can congregate under to overthrow the dictatorship. This is why they are banned and atheism is state enforced, it ensures that the government remains in power. Organic atheism is that which develops from people having the choice to be atheist, it is not enforced by the state.
In conclusion, there is no real point to defeat this argument beyond the point that it is an ad hominem attack. This would immediatly take it apart, but the fact of the matter is, nations with higher levels of organic atheism are pretty well off. Is this because of atheism, or is atheism enabled by the features of these countries. Personally, I would argue that both hold true to an extent, a country with higher health services and longer life expectancies can enable atheism as people do not fear death, the main card played by religion. But a country that is more secular will not give in to religious dogma and will do the right thing, such as treating women equaly and helping to lower STD and teen pregnancy rates.
Myth 3 – Evolution leads to Atheism
No, no it does not. You can be an atheist and not accept the theory of evolution, there is no set of rules that you need to follow to be an atheist. To be an atheist is to not believe in the existence of a god, that’s it. If you want to believe in evolution too, then go ahead. You can also believe in evolution and believe in god, in fact most Christians do believe in evolution, only the minority blindly accept literal creationism.
If you think evolution leads to atheism, then you are just wrong. All it means is that you just have to accept that your holy book is not a definitive account of history, some parts may be true, but others are simply ficticious. To accept evolution only requires ones self to evaluate the evidence, the amount of proof pretty much confirms evolution to be a fact in the same way as gravity is pretty much a fact.
Common Myths About Atheism – Part 1
This series will be looking at the common myths and misconceptions about atheism, some will be the tired old stuff trotted out, while others may surprise you. I, like many atheists, are getting tired of these misconceptions being spread, either by deception, lying or by simply not knowing any better. My aim of this series is to target the latter of the 3, those who don’t actually know the truth, yet believe what they have been told by the first two groups. So without further ado, let’s get going:
Myth 1 – It requires faith to be an atheist
First of all, let us define what a belief. A belief is something to be held true by an individual, regardless of whether it is true or not. This belief is backed up by evidence and reasoning. For example, you hold the belief that your car is parked in your driveway outside because that is where you left it and you remember locking it. It may not actually be there, it could have been stolen, but you believe it is there and will act on that belief (tomorrow, you will wake up and go outside expecting your car to be there so you can drive to work).
Faith on the other hand, is belief without evidence. You have faith something is true, but have no solid, substantial evidence to back-up your position (usually none at all). The argument usually follows that since you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god, it takes faith to believe that there is or is not one. At first glance, this may seem logical, but it does not take into account a sceptics view of the world and a positive claim.
To make a positive claim, is to claim something to be true in the manner that “there is a pattern,” or “there is a god.” It is to make the claim of something other than the null hypothesis and as a result of such, requires evidence to support the position. Taking a scientific viewpoint, you always hold a new hypothesis to be false until evidence can be delivered to prove the claim. A sceptical world view encompasses the idea of denying a new belief (the null hypothesis) until evidence is given to prove otherwise. Everyone is sceptical to an extent, your not going to automatically believe everything you are told, you will be sceptical on most things (perhaps not small common things, I could just say I own a cat and that isn’t such a bold claim as to require much more evidence than my word, but to claim I had a flying cat would require evidence before you believe it).
Faith - No evidence required...
This isn’t to say that sceptics are closed-minded, on the contrary, having a sceptical approach to anything is the safest and most logical way to approach new ideas and hypothesis. It prevents your mind from being filled up with beliefs that are not necessarily true and if you are like me, you want your beliefs to be based on fact and evidence as much as possible. Sceptics keep an open-mind, but will only accept a new idea when evidence is delivered, to be closed-minded would be to deny the new idea even when evidence is delivered or to not be willing to abandon a pre-existing belief when evidence is delivered that disproves or contradicts it.
So, to be sceptical about the existence of god is a safe, logical and scientific starting point to addressing the question, “is there a god?” It would be faith if there was tons of supporting evidence in the existence of a god, but all I have heard and seen are easily refuted or illogical. Atheists are open minded to the idea of god or the supernatural, but we will believe it when we see the evidence for it. This lack of evidence is why it is acceptable, logical and scientific to belief that there is no god. There is no faith about it, the evidence (or lack thereof) supports the conclusion that there is no god.
I suppose one could be critical and claim that since evidence is interpreted differently that you could conclude that there is or is not a god, but this doesn’t matter (it would simply mean neither side is a faith based position). Unless the evidence overwhelmingly supported the idea of a god existing, then atheism can never be considered a faith. It is however a belief, well technically a lack of belief, as to believe there is no god would require evidence and this is the difference between weak and strong atheism. Weak states there is no god because of a lack of evidence (a better name would be agnostic atheist) and strong would argue that there is evidence that points to there being no god.
Next week I will be looking into the myth that atheists are inherently evil:
OH GOD, LOOK AT IT, IT'S HIDEOUS!
(Endnote – Yes, I am aware that a myth can be true or false, a myth is just a story. My aim is to debunk the false myths about atheism and replace them with fact)
Review – Rock Band 2 Game
Well, I finally felt like getting around to it and I am going to call it a rather large disappointment, at least from my perspective. Having already bought and player GH:WT, I looked forward to having another game to use these costly peripherals on. Turns out Rock Band 2 may not be the game I was looking for.
Firstly, the tour mode allows both band and single-player elements to blend seamlessly together, with any of the 4 instruments. All working to the same goal, you could always set more than 1 band up, one for single-player and 1 for when your mates are around, this wouldn’t be a problem, if the game didn’t expect you to play the same song half a dozen times through the whole tour mode!
The one thing I liked about previous guitar hero games was the simple jump right in and play, the focus was on the core gameplay. Yet in RB2, you have to deal with choosing which city and venue to play, whether you will accept certain random challenges (like 5* a song for 4x cash, but anything less and you get 0), choosing a manager who has extra effects on money and fans etc. This was all well and good but just got in the way of it all, I don’t care that I need 12 more stars in London and need the right manager and have to have x no of fans on the third Tuesday of a month with less than 6 letters in its name; Let me play the bleeding song! I much prefer GH:WTs set-lists, where playing a few songs in a row is simple and customizable, yet in RB2, I have to play the song on its own first. It’s just annoying barriers that are not needed, they add nothing to the experience and if anything detract from it.
Graphics I thought looked pretty good and customizing characters were easy, but seemed to be mandatory. New songs only cost 2/3 of what they do in World Tour and there is already an extensive library coming from RB1. Additional features such as challenges are actually a nice touch, but never seem to be anything beyond “play these songs and get x points at least on them.” I fear challenges had the potential to be so much more, but now just seem like an excuse to play some shitty wrist-slitting emo garbage another 3 times.
While on the subject of shitty songs, one of the greatest losses I find is how over a dozen or so songs are found on both games. What a waste, out of all the songs they could have had, why the hell copy each other! By doing this fans are torn between the two and when push comes to shove, I’d prefer GH:WT. Mainly as the drum experience is so much better (the two raised cymbals do a world of good here), the songs are better tracked to the notes (thats right, they may have identical songs, but have completely different ways of making you play them) and the guitar and bass experience have been thought through more. Basically GH:WT did copy Rock Bands whole band concept, but surpassed them for almost all instruments except vocals (but seriously, how could you do anything new and original with that!).
Trophies are a nice touch and will give some people a real run for their money, horrible trophies include endless set-list 2 on expert (play every song on expert and you can only move to the next after completing the current one) and bladder of steel, yet another endless set-list 2 based trophies, except you have to play all 6 hours without fail and without pausing.
Will I be keeping RB2 then. I am going to say yes, mainly from the lower priced additional songs and greater catalogue of them , plus an enhanced band experience (the saving falled band members is very useful). The on-line capabilities are greater and the trophies give me shomething to shoot for, I doubt I’ll ever get the platinum, but I may surprise myself. I do suggest that if you had to buy one, buy GH:WT. It is more rewarding and much easier to break out during drunken parties.
5 1/2 Questions for Atheists, A Response
Cruising the tubes today, I came across the following video, made by, what I assume is a theist with some rather sincere questions that I felt compelled to answer. These also seem to be rather common questions, at least from an individual who only recently begun questioning what atheism is all about and the impacts that such a belief has. The questions can be found in this video:
Question 1: Where did we all originate?
A common question and one that doesn’t need that much explaining. The Big Bang is what happened in the instance after the creation of the universe and evolution by natural selection explains how we got the variety of life on Earth, but not how we got the first lifeforms.
Abiogenesis is the scientific discipline which looks at how life first started on Earth and it is anything but a random process. A slow evolution from very basic cells, which barely constitute as life and over time evolve into more and more complex cells. This is why it is an error to claim that molecules and amino acids decided to just come together and make a working cell one day, it is a process driven by chemistry. For more info, check out CDK007 on YouTube for more info on abiogenesis and evolution (he also goes into faults about creationism too, a very interesting and educational series).
As to answer where the universe comes from, science honestly does not have the answer. Then again, that is the whole point of science to find out more about what we don’t know. Science may one day be able to explain the origin of the universe, but it may never deliver a full answer. There are many theories floating around, but seeing as we are dealing the start of our universe, to recreate the big bang would be rather difficult… I do ask that you don’t see this as an opportunity to use a god of the gaps argument, since science has yet to explain it, god must have done it.
Question 2: Are humans of more intrinsic value than animals? Why or why not?
Well, depends on your perspective. I am human and so I certainly place more value on human life than that of plant or animal life. However, intrinsically animals would rank higher than plants for me due to plants lacking a neural network and would make feeling pain rather difficult, if not impossible for them. Animals eat other animals, so I have no qualms eating beef or chicken, seeing as humans are animals, just highly intelligent ones which used this intelligence to reform the face of the Earth. Really, this is very subjective and as I said before is down to your perspective on the issue, atheism attempts to make no stance on the matter.
Question 3: How do you determine morality?
Morality come from 3 different things, parents and family, society in general and yourself as an individual. Good and bad are just words used to describe behaviour that is beneficial to the society and behaviour which is not. Different societies at different times will have different morals, morals are not absolute. What is morally good then and there may not be morally good here and now. For example, slavery.
Morals originally developed as a result of evolutionary behaviour, including altruistic behaviours and the knowledge that one should not kill others of you species. Look at the animal kingdom, most species do not kill each other, without very good reason for doing so, as this would destabilise the group and jeopardise the species ability to survive. Reciprocal altruistic behaviour is the basic idea of ‘you scratch my back and I scratch yours,’ anyone who has studied economics will understand the efficiency gains, but there are also social gains in the form of trust relationships forming, bonding the group. Altruistic behaviour has been seen in many animal species, most notably the great apes.
Question 4: Why do you feel so strongly about making people believe as you?
Simply put, I don’t. If you want to believe in a god or gods, go right ahead, you have the right to do so. The problem arises when you try and force your faith upon others, when this faith causes what can sometimes be judges as insane behaviours in people. Such as going to war over whose god is the right god, not giving a child medical care and instead rely on the unproven ability of prayer, or to even kill someone else (such as an infidel or gay) because of some foolish rule that no rational society would ever have (proof that morality does not come from the Bible, as to judge that killing homosexuals is wrong requires disobedience of the Bible, a higher set of morals is needed to judge which ones in the Bible are right or wrong).
I couldn’t care less is the world was atheist or not, if religion was benign, then there would be no atheist movement, but sadly this is not the case. Even though there is nothing in the afterlife, that just makes this life more important, it’s the only one you get, would be a shame to waste it praying to something for an eternal afterlife which may not exist (and in my opinion does not).
Question 5: Is an atheist’s lack of experience more relevant than a believer’s claim of experience?
I would like my beliefs to be based on fact, on evidence. I’m not going to believe in something just because it would be nice if it existed. Now to use the word experience seems to imply that I am missing something here, that my life is somehow incomplete, this is farther from the truth. I have experienced as much as any theist has, just because I don’t believe in anything beyond what is here in reality, doesn’t mean I am missing out. How can I believe in something for which I can find no evidence for, I want my beliefs to come from what is real, seeing as that is where I am living.
It is not easier to live my life by my rules, as I have to fit into society and lead what I consider a good life. My rules have to be developed, no taken from a book written 2000 years ago. I do not fear judgement from god, I fear judgement from myself. I can’t simply apologise for a wrong action and everything will be fine again, I have to live with what I do. In a way, Christianity seems to enable people to behave badly, since all you have to do is say sorry to something which may or may not exist just before you die. This line of logic would tend towards chaos, since your actions don’t matter as long as you say your sorry in the end, then you can enjoy eternity in happiness, life on this planet is nothing more than an inconvenience. Shame all religions have a rather solid rule on how committing suicide is a wrong, since all Christians would have logically killed themselves long ago, cutting their experiences rather short.
Question 6: Are you content with your life?
Yes, very. This life is the only one I have, I revel in the fact that I am a spark of life in a mostly empty universe and plan to enjoy life as much as possible while helping society develop and continue. Your right, there is nothing after death, so why waste my life preparing for it? Life is now, it is the only one you get. Some people would use this as a reason to just rape, steal and do anything they wanted to. But my morality comes from my desire to see society to continue and my idealogical of not ruining other peoples chances to enjoy their life. By having a stable society in which all members contribute too enables everyone to enjoy life even better.
I think to wish that there is an eternity of happiness waiting when you die is nothing more than denial of death. I would like to live forever, but that is just a pipe dream. All things come to an end, expecting there to be a heaven waiting for you is a great way of bypassing this major fear that I expect all people have. By having a finite lifespan, that makes your life and your actions important now.
I suggest you look at the humanist philosophy, a simple, yet effective way to rule your life. Favoured by most atheists, and even some theists who disagree with the philosophies religion puts down. To be a humanist doesn’t require you to be an atheist, or believe in evolution, just to have a desire to enjoy life and make sure everyone else has the oppertunity to enjoy theirs.
So Where is Rock Band 2?
Holy Shit! A gaming article, that makes a nice change of pace. I’m just asking where is Rock Band 2? It was supposed to have been released here in the UK for the PS3 sometime last week, yet when I walked into the shops, I was met with a range of responses. Game didn’t even think it was released and couldn’t even find it in their book of game releases. HMV had no idea, Gamestop knew that the game was out, but apparently kept only getting like 1 copy of it in each week and it kept selling out. Apparently there is no demand for Rock Band 2.
I thought that Rock Band would be vastly more popular than Guitar Hero, it took the simple idea of expanding beyond just the plastic guitar with buttons on it to creating a whole band experience right in your living room. I thought that Rock Band 2 would be more of the same and so would be just as popular. Turns out that GH:WT is much much more popular, so much so that shops just don’t seem to bother stocking RB2. I want Rock Band 2 as it supposedly works with my already existing prehipherals and would basically act as an expansion pack, with an already solid list of downloadable songs, I’m surprised Rock Band 2 has not even made a peep.
I’ll be trying to get my greedly little mitts on Rock Band 2 soon. But don’t hold your breath guys.
The Necessity of Secularism
As an atheist, you may think, or be mislead to think, that I want the whole world to turn atheist, for the idea of god to be obliterated from the face of the Earth. This is, of course, a lie. I do no care if you believe in god or not, what I do care about is the actions you take as a result of this belief. If religion was benign, then the atheist movement would probably not be as strong, if at all existence. The atheism movement is reactionary to the lack of reasoning in this world generated by strong belief in out-dated ideals and religious dogma.
As history will tell us, religion has never been a force of pure good. There is a long list of evil committed by people as a result of their unquestioning faith that is too long to list here. What I appeal for though is a more secular world. A world where action is based on reason, not foolish blind belief. To deny medical treatment to a child (as to pray instead), to circumcise/mutilate a young girl or to threaten a child with eternal damnation of hell is nothing more than plain child abuse, all generated from religious belief. Without this belief, a child would receive medical treatment which is proven to greatly increase the chances of recovery over prayer. Without this belief, young girls would not be mutilated as part of some ancient, dangerous and almost insane ritual. Without this belief a child can play happily with one another, knowing why something is wrong, not because of the threat of everlasting pain and rejection.
Secularism is a necessity in this day and age. Recent up-rises of religions attempting to reassert themselves in the western world has seen the rise the new atheist. Combine this with the atrocities brought to us from more eastern parts of the world and you have a recipe for disaster. The need for secularism across the world has never been stronger, with the ability to destroy entire countries at the push of a button, having people with power swayed by their religious beliefs threatens to destroy the Earth.
I ask for the total removal of religion from the government of a country. Religions need to accept that while people may or may not follow them, they have no part in interfering with the operations of a country. Who do you think is better educated to make decision for the country, well-educated politicians, or the priests and bishops?
Thanks to a continually globalising world, no developed country can really be defined by it’s religion now, especially those with an incredibly diverse populous. Who is to say that your religious beliefs should take priorities over someone else’s? In a nation with so many different cultures and beliefs, to place one above all others is unjust. A neutral position is one that is needed. One that applies logic and reasoning in an entire non-religious manner. I am not calling for all politicians to be atheists, but to fully understand that their religious beliefs have no place in the running of a country.
The USA, a nation supposedly founded on freedom condemms any man to never become president, or even a senator without the question of their faith coming into it. To declare that you are an atheist as a presidential candidate would basically spell the end of your campaign. The UK doesn’t seem to suffer from this problem too much being quite secular already, but being secular in an official capacity would be the next step towards true seperation of the state and church. Secularism is the next step required to furthur humanity, a bold statement, but one that will probably hold to be true as the world continues to globalise and map borders continue to fade.
