The Atheist Philosophy
This is a collection of short statements and essays that sums up my perspective of the Universe. 
 
"I contend that we are both atheists.  I just believe in one fewer god than you do.  When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
                                                                                                                                                                                           - Stephen Roberts
"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow human instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that "heaven" is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all people together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he  can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow human can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment.

Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists.

The church teaches a contempt for earthly life and that to reach some imagined "heaven" is the main goal of life... The church teaches that this goal can be achieved only as the reward for obedience and meekness. The church threatens the wrath of God and the torment of hell for those who dare to oppose its teaching. But Materialism liberates us, teaches us not to hope for happiness beyond the grave but to prize life on earth and strive always to improve it. Materialism restores to man his dignity and his intellectual integrity. Man is not a worm condemned to crawl in the dust, but a human being capable of mastering the forces of nature and making them serve him. Materialism compels faith in the human intellect, in the power of knowledge in man's ability to fathom all the secrets of nature and to create a social system based upon reason and justice. Materialism's faith is in man and his ability to transform the world by his own efforts. It is a philosophy in every essence optimistic, life-asserting, and radiant. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation, and impossible without noble ideals that inspire men to struggle, to perform bold, creative work." 
                                                                                                                                                                                          -Madalyn Murray O’Hair
 
The following is from Steve Corbett's website.
Why are we here?

There is no reason. Most people can't accept this answer. Human life evolved entirely by chance, it has no intrinsic meaning, and it has no greater or lesser value than any other form of life that has ever come into being.

What about the human soul?

A myth invented by religion to inflate man's already enlarged opinion of himself. There is no immortal soul. To say otherwise implies a belief in the afterlife, which is merely another religious myth.

How can we give our lives meaning?

Through our actions. Some may choose to try to make the world a better place for others (the charitable approach). Others may try to make the world a better place for themselves (the selfish approach). Most will probably try to strike a balance between those two. Whatever task you set before yourself, pursue it with ardour and remain true to your own ideals, whatever they may be. Life may have no intrinsic meaning, but that does not mean that life is not worth living.

Atheism consequence #1 - you are mortal

This is really the hardest consequence of atheism for newcomers to deal with. Since the first flicker of consciousness graced the mind of humankind, people have feared death. Pretty much every early civilization invented some way to deal with this fear. Some believed that when you die, you would be reincarnated as some other life form. Others believed you would haunt the Earth as an immaterial, disembodied spectre. Others believed in some form of judgement, where you would enter eternal bliss or eternal punishment depending on your actions during life. All these beliefs share one thing in common - immortality. It's a beautiful concept, there is no more need to fear death, since death really no longer exists. Even in those religions that have a concept of "hell", you still live forever. Granted, you are in pain and agony for all eternity, but you are still alive.

With atheism, this comfortable lie is ripped away, and you are faced with the harsh, inexorable truth - you will die one day. This death will not be a transition between your current life and your next life, it will be the end of everything that is you. It's a scary thought, but after reflecting on it for a while, you will realize something - atheists value and respect life more than religious types, such as Christians. Why? The Christian believes that his death is a beginning, not an end. The atheist recognizes death for what it is - oblivion. We only have a brief time on this planet, we must cherish it while we have it.

Of course, this also strips away another comfortable lie of religion - people who have died are well and truly gone, and we will never be reunited with them. This can be difficult, if not impossible, for some to accept, and will no doubt result in many people rejecting atheism, choosing instead to cling to the illusion provided to them by the religion of their choice. There are three reasons why this is difficult to accept:

  1. Loss of loved ones - parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, or friends, who have died, are gone. We will never see them again. Our ancestors, the great minds of our past, are not waiting for us on the other side. There will be no great reunion after death.
  2. No accountability - people who committed great evil during their lives will not receive punishment. Adolf Hitler escaped all accountability by taking his own life before he could be captured. There is no justice in such cases, no retribution.
  3. No reward - the flip side of the previous item. You will not be rewarded for any good deeds you performed in your life. You will not be rewarded for following the teachings of your church and living piously.
These facts are hard to come to terms with, yet you must accept each of them before you can progress further into atheism.

Atheism consequence #2 - you are responsible for your actions

Claiming that "the devil made me do it" doesn't wash here. Every man is responsible for his own decisions, and mistakes can no longer be blamed on invisible demons.

Admitting to errors in judgement can be quite painful - this is only human. Some people are incapable of admitting mistakes altogether. In 1870, the Vatican announced the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which, in a nutshell, claims that everything they say is irrefutable truth. This is, of course, complete bunk. No human is infallible, and Catholics, even the pope, are only human. Attempting to foist responsibility for your actions onto someone (or something) else is the act of a coward.

Which brings up another interesting point here. Some people (such as the pope) claim to be able to speak directly with god, and receive instructions from him. This is a neat way of absolving yourself of responsibility for your actions, similar to saying "the devil made me do it". For example, one of the Christian "ten commandments" is "thou shalt not kill". However, Christians have killed many, many, many people over the centuries. How do they reconcile this? Well, if you kill someone while in god's service, it's okay, it's not really you doing the killing, you are simply an agent of god, carrying out his divine will. This is not only a delusional philosophy, but a dangerous one, when employed by a fundamentalist.

Atheism consequence #3 - human beings are animals

Most religions place some special value on human beings over other forms of life on this planet. For example, Christians arrogantly argue that the Earth was especially designed for humans, and that all animal life is provided either to serve us or feed us. This seems to be an odd assertion, since two thirds of the Earth's surface is covered by water, with two poles covered in ice. Does that sound like a planet designed for human life? If you were building a house for your family, would you make sure that two out of every three rooms were uninhabitable?

Science teaches us that life evolved slowly, over many millions of years, and that humans are just a clever form of monkey that eventually developed the ability to communicate difficult concepts and build incredible machines. Despite this, we are just another form of animal life on this planet. This is nothing to be ashamed of, it's just a simple fact. I mention it here because most religious types seem to have great difficulty coming to terms with this fact. I met a Christian once who refused to acknowledge even the possibility that we are related to monkeys, he even denied he was a primate! I suppose the first impression of this fact is that it somehow demeans us all to admit that mankind, for all his ego, is simply an intelligent animal.

Living in a godless world - what about ethics?

Some people believe that ethics without religion is a paradox. This is a fallacy, very similar to the "holier than thou" argument (see previous chapter). The truth of the matter is that "ethics" are simply arbitrary rules imposed on the masses by the most powerful members of society. What is "right" and "wrong"? Is it possible to compile an absolute, irrefutable list of what is ethical and what is not? I believe not. Each individual's perception of "right" and "wrong" is forged by that individual's experiences and upbringing. The most powerful members of society will enact laws that are closely patterned after their own personal code of ethics, but they are just as arbitrary as anyone else's.

Even the ethics imposed on us by religion are arbitrary, despite the claims that they are handed down from a supreme deity. Religious ethics are not automatically better than atheistic ethics. The 1990 US Survey shows that about 10% of the population of the United States are atheists. A prison survey conducted at about the same time places the percentage of atheists behind bars at closer to 1%. What does this tell us about religious ethics? Shouldn't the prison population be closer to 99% atheist, if atheists have no ethics?

It's my belief that each and every individual forges his or her own code of ethics during his or her lifetime. Sometimes this code of ethics is modelled after the regional system of laws, other times it is modelled after a particular religion, but each person's code of ethics is as unique as a snowflake. When we adopt someone else's code of ethics for our own use, we accept what we like and ignore what we disagree with. For example, civil disobedience is a widely employed method of stating your objection to a local law. Even within Christianity, people decide which ten commandments to follow and which to conveniently ignore. How many evangelists have been caught in bed with a woman not their wife? How many priests have been caught molesting choir boys? Asserting that accepting religion automatically makes you a more ethical person is, at best, laughable, and at worst, delusional.

"Good versus Evil" is a myth

Many stories (including those found in the Christian bible) suffer from the same weakness: an overly simplistic set of characters, each one of which is either totally good or totally evil. In these simple stories, the "bad guys" have no redeeming qualities whatsoever, they are pure evil, which creates a willingness in the reader to accept the necessity of their ultimate defeat at the hands of the "good guys". This childish method of telling a story conveniently ignores one nagging little fact: such "good versus evil" scenarios very rarely, if ever, exist in reality.

Every person's motivations are forged from their own personal experiences. When two people, or two groups, with conflicting ambitions collide, the result is conflict. Sometimes verbal, sometimes physical. Each side, in order to galvanize their forces, will "demonize" the other side in an attempt to gather support for their cause. The result is lies, propaganda, and misinformation. The old phrase "history is written by the winners" springs from this. Whichever side ultimately wins the conflict will have their version of events more widely publicized than the loser's. Revisionist historians will frequently rewrite certain parts of the story to make the other side look worse, and/or to make their side look better. This "revised" version of events is then passed on to the next generation, which accepts it fully.

At the heart of it all is the question of who is in the "right" and who is not. The question, more often than not, can never be satisfactorily answered, other than by seeking refuge in the shades of gray in between those two extremes. Both sides had valid, understandable motives. Both sides committed unethical acts while attempting to gain the upper hand. These statements sound indecisive, but they are usually correct. The question of who was "right" and who was "wrong" is a naive one.

Atheistic code of ethics?

There isn't one. I don't believe an "absolute" code of ethics is achievable, nor do I believe that any code of ethics, no matter how well thought out, will ever be followed to the letter by all its adherents. Certain rules and laws must be enacted for the good of society, but even these are not immutable. I don't believe that atheism precludes ethics any more than I believe that religion precludes ethics.

If there is no afterlife, what keeps atheists in line?

This is a very interesting question, as it reveals a hidden assumption of religion: people need to be threatened and coerced into doing "the right thing". If you remove the threat of eternal hellfire for sinners, what is to stop people from becoming essentially evil? The very question implies that all Christians only avoid sin because they fear punishment in the afterlife. I prefer to believe that people will avoid evil acts because they know them to be wrong, that should be reason enough. Naturally, some people are more inclined towards evil than others, but I believe that religion (or lack thereof) has no effect on such people: they will rationalize their actions with or without religion, either by saying "god/satan made me do it" if they are religious or "what does it matter, I'll get away with it in the end" if they are not.

Why bother living in a godless world?

If there is no god, why are we here? Is there no purpose, no meaning to our lives here? Why bother going through the motions if there is no reward (or even punishment) waiting for us when we are finished? These are tough questions, but fair ones, and perfectly natural.

Religion and science can not coexist

Religion and science have been at odds for centuries. Many have tried to find a compromise (the "Christian Science" movement comes to mind), but this is misguided at best. Religion and science can not coexist. I once met a Christian who insisted that science is merely another religion. After all, science requires faith, just as religion does. This is a fallacy. Science is the opposite of religion. Science teaches us to make observations, develop a hypothesis, then develop an experiment to test this hypothesis. If the experiment succeeds, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory. If the experiment fails, the knowledge gained during that experiment can be used to develop a new hypothesis, and the process begins again. As our ability to observe the world around us advances, so too does our scientific knowledge. The development of the microscope dramatically increased our understanding of biology. The development of the telescope dramatically increased our understanding of cosmology. The common philosophy within science is assumption of zero knowledge. That is, we start with no knowledge of anything. We can gain knowledge through observation, and further it by applying the scientific method. Theories are not immutable, and certainly can and will be discarded when new knowledge is introduced. This has happened many times.

Religion, by contrast, is the opposite of this approach. Religion starts with assumption of total knowledge. That is, we know everything we need to know, the answer to every question is "god did it". Inquisitive thinking is discouraged, and new theories are extraordinarily difficult to assimilate. For example, for centuries the Christian church taught us that the Earth is flat, with four corners. When a man named Galileo had the temerity to suggest that possibly, the Earth is round, the Christian church very nearly killed him for blasphemy. Today, very few Christians still believe the Earth is flat, but it took an enormously long time for the church to admit that they were wrong. Why? Because the church (supposedly) gets its knowledge from an irrefutable source (god), and admitting that they were wrong on something, anything, is admitting that their god may be fallible.

Science accepts nothing without some form of proof. Religion demands acceptance despite a total lack of proof. They call this "faith". Grab a dictionary and look up the word "faith". Now look up the word "superstition". They are practically synonymous. Science dispels superstition, and this is why science and religion can not coexist.

As science and technology progress, the need for religion recedes. Religion was once used to explain the unexplainable, such as why the sun rises and sets every day (the sun must be a god), why the winds sometimes blow (the wind must be a god), why the rain sometimes falls (the rain must be a god), or what happens to us when we die (god will deal with us). However, one by one, these "unexplainable" mysteries are explained to us by science, and religion has had to make small retreats. Over the last few centuries, and the last 150 years in particular, science has made astounding progress, answering questions about the universe that previously were unfathomable. Again, religion has had to retreat.

The logical conclusion of this battle between science and religion is the fall of religion. The Christian church has known this for hundreds of years, it's why they banned scientific research during the dark ages. However, the church and the state have been (mostly) separated, and now it is impossible to put the genie back in the bottle, as it were. The outcome is inevitable - society will one day reject religion altogether.

The fall of religion will be complete when man embraces the following principles:

  • Explicit atheism - also sometimes referred to as "strong atheism", the belief that there is no god/gods. Not to be confused with "weak atheism", which I consider to be equivalent to agnosticism (lack of certainty as to whether or not there is a god/gods).
  • Ethical nihilism - the belief that absolute moral and ethical values do not exist. Good and evil are nebulous concepts at best. Any values which address these concepts are simply the result of social and emotive pressures.
  • Existential nihilism - the belief that life has no intrinsic meaning.
  • Absurdism - the belief that man can give meaning to his own life through his actions.

Religion is a personal concept

One of the rules of polite conversation is never to raise the topic of religion or politics when in mixed company. The reason is that each person has his or her own opinion on the matter, and it is common for people to have extreme amounts of emotion attached to their beliefs. Raising religion in conversation is similar to entering a minefield - one wrong step can have disastrous consequences.

© 1995-2001 Steve Corbett

 

 

[ Home ] [ Atheist Humor ] [ Living in a godless universe ] [ Evolution is not a dirty word! ] [ Astrology is bunk ] [ Be More Skeptical! ] [ Separation of Church and State ] [ Athiest Philosophy ]

Hit Counter
8.26.08