Why I Am An Atheist

Patheos challenged its bloggers to write 200 words or less on why they are the religious view they are.
Hemant Mehta shared his^[1][2] and a couple others^[3][4].  Hemant asked if anyone else had one to share, and I thought it would be worth trying.  So, here's mine.

I am atheist because I've never known how to be anything else.

I have never needed a god to know right from wrong; and I reject the notion that a god, who condones slavery, can be an arbiter of morality.

Faith is not something I am capable of.  I cannot believe something for which there is no evidence. A comforting lie is no comfort and is still a lie.

I am an atheist because I know no other way to be.

I am an atheist because it’s all I am, all I’ve ever been, and all I ever can be.^[5]

It's not perfect, but it's mine^[6].  What's yours?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  http://twitter.com/hemantmehta/status/315877503623368704
2.  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/03/24/why-i-am-an-atheist/
3.  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2013/03/a-bottom-up-universe/
4.  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/03/why-i-am-an-atheist-my-response-to-a-patheos-challenge/
5.  Yes, I ripped off Sagan.  Deal with it.  http://youtu.be/3lqsG9_ughU
6.  And Minchin.  http://youtu.be/dg3PberzvXo

Dishonesty About Honesty, Again

The subject of my last post^[1], read it and responded on the Twitters, where we were already conversing.

@tycapitalism @aparticulara Robert Fuller believes that atheism begins and ends with Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
— Damon Linker (@DamonLinker) March 10, 2013

I, of course, said no such thing.  It's difficult to tell if he really doesn't get it or if he's intentionally lying.  He went on to say:

@tycapitalism @aparticulara BTW, I love that passage from Pale Blue Dot. But I don't share Sagan's cheeriness about the message.
— Damon Linker (@DamonLinker) March 10, 2013

I already knew he didn't, by what he wrote in the article in question^[2].

If atheism is true, it is far from being good news. Learning that we're alone in the universe, that no one hears or answers our prayers, that humanity is entirely the product of random events, that we have no more intrinsic dignity than non-human and even non-animate clumps of matter, that we face certain annihilation in death, that our sufferings are ultimately pointless, that our lives and loves do not at all matter in a larger sense, that those who commit horrific evils and elude human punishment get away with their crimes scot free — all of this (and much more) is utterly tragic.

But, as anyone who read his article probably knows, he's twisting the views entirely backward.

Learning there's no god doesn't take away the answers of prayers that we already know don't get answered.  It takes away the threat of Hell.  It takes away a tyrant who makes mundane so-called "sin" punishable by death.  It takes away the idea that we're all inherently deserving of eternal torture.

Learning there's no afterlife does not mean our lives are meaningless.  It does the exact opposite.  The promise of an afterlife is what would make this life ultimately meaningless.  An eternal afterlife would make this short life, as Matt Dillahunty has put it, nothing more than a place to wipe your feet.

The knowledge that there's no afterlife means knowing this life is all we have.  It means having to get all we can out of this life, as there's nothing after this life is over.  That's far from meaningless.

And the idea that the absence of a god means "those who commit horrific evils and elude human punishment get away with their crimes scot free" is utter nonsense when said by a Christian, who believes believers in Jesus will get eternal bliss no matter what crimes they committed in their lives.  His religion not only states the evil will not be punished, it states evil will be rewarded.

So it's not the absence of his tyrant of a god that is "utterly tragic".  It's that god, and all the evils that come with it that is tragic.  It's the complete disregard for honesty many of that god's followers have that is tragic.

It's their unwillingness to have an honest discussion with anyone who doesn't agree with them that is tragic.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  http://aparticularblogbyaparticularatheist.blogspot.com/2013/03/dishonesty-about-honesty.html
2.  http://theweek.com/article/index/241108/where-are-the-honest-atheists

Dishonesty About Honesty

Damon Linker seems to think the only honest atheist is a nihilist^[1].

If atheism is true, it is far from being good news. Learning that we're alone in the universe, that no one hears or answers our prayers, that humanity is entirely the product of random events, that we have no more intrinsic dignity than non-human and even non-animate clumps of matter, that we face certain annihilation in death, that our sufferings are ultimately pointless, that our lives and loves do not at all matter in a larger sense, that those who commit horrific evils and elude human punishment get away with their crimes scot free — all of this (and much more) is utterly tragic.

Honest atheists understand this.

This assertion is as absurd as it common. It assumes that without a god, there is no beauty in the world. No hope. No happiness. Nothing worth appreciating anywhere.  I wonder if Linker has ever heard of Carl Sagan^[2] or Neil deGrasse Tyson^[3].  He could not honestly suggest they do not believe what they say about the wonders of the universe.

When reading the article, I was not sure if he had ever actually talked to an atheist at all about their beliefs. I suspected not but also realized he could be one of those theists who, after having their misrepresentations of atheists corrected by atheists, simply ignore it in favor of continuing the strawman.

After a brief conversation with Linker via Twitter^[4], I'm left thinking he's the latter.  When pressed, and when he apparently thought it was giving him an edge over me, he recognized that atheists aren't all the same.  In other words, he knows we're not all nihilists like he claimed in the article.  He knows this, yet he still wrote an article suggesting we are.  He lied.

He also displayed an interesting level of arrogance, telling me the obvious^[5], as if between the two of us I'm the one who doesn't understand that truth is independent of perception.  It's still amazing to me that people can get so close to getting it and still actively misrepresent atheism is such a drastic way.

It's almost as if they're actively avoiding an honest discussion because they know it wouldn't turn out in their favor.

Well, if they're not going to participate in anything honestly, I guess we're only left with the option of calling out the liars for what they are.  It's a shame.  Honesty would be so more productive.  Which is probably why Damon Linker was pretending to revere it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  http://theweek.com/article/index/241108/where-are-the-honest-atheists
2.

3.

4.

@aparticulara Um, yeah. I teach courses on it at Penn. There are more kinds of atheism in the world than you realize. (1/2)
— Damon Linker (@DamonLinker) March 9, 2013

5.

@aparticulara Remember: I said atheism is *terrible.* I didn't deny it's *true.* Those two things can be separated. (The good and the true.)
— Damon Linker (@DamonLinker) March 9, 2013

Twelve Apostates - Neil deGrasse Tyson

The single most requested person^[1], as far as speakers at atheist conferences go, doesn't even identify as an atheist.  He got himself into some trouble with how he chose to word that choice in a video for Big Think, but his point was a good one.  The man may not self identify as atheist, but he quite clearly is.  He's just not an activist for atheism.  Or at least not openly.

He values his role as an educator and correctly fears identifying as an atheist would him less effective in that role.  It's an odd situation for someone to be in.  He's in a rare position where he can do more for atheism if he's not labeled as one of us and while his intention has nothing to do with atheism, other than the coincidence of it being the only honest position to take.

Whether he identifies with the Atheist Movement or not, he does more for it than most.  He gets people to see why science is a good thing.  And he calls out the fact that somehow people still don't understand that it is.  He has done a better job than anyone debunking the ridiculousness that they call "Intelligent Design", brilliantly destroying its claims of being scientific.

In responding to Bill O'Reilly's tides comment, he made one the best arguments against the God of the Gaps I've ever seen.

Tyson has earned his spot as the successor to a role once filled by Carl Sagan.  He advances science, by showing the wondrous things we can learn by using it properly.  If Congress would listen to him, scientific advancement would be improved across the board.  He understands that the Space Race was about much more than getting to the moon.

He is able to do this because he appeals to a "mainstream" audience.  In other words, many Christians like him.  This means Christians listen to what he has to say.  This is why I didn't like it when PZ Myers criticized Brian Dunning for being proud that his podcast has a lot of Christian listeners.  Congress won't be asking David Silverman to testify in front of them.  But they've done so with Neil deGrasse Tyson.  A Republican (or even a Democrat) President won't be asking PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins for their input, but George  W Bush appointed Neil deGrasse Tyson to two different advisory committees^[2].

A big part of why I included James Randi & Christopher Hitchens on this list was that the fact that they get their message to more than just those who agree with them.  Preaching to the choir is to convincing people as masturbation is to procreation.  It's fun, but it's unlikely to get you the results you're looking for.

So, he may not vocally support our movement, or actively participate in the atheist community, but he sure as hell^[3] helps our cause.  It's the inevitable byproduct of promoting truth, science, and recognition of reality.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.  I base this on a conversation with a Skepticon organizer and my own experiences volunteering with planning a conference.

2.  Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry & President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy

3.  Pun intended