For Trey: "Myth: Atheists Believe In Nothing"

In another thread Trey remarks:

If you will begin a thread on naturalism leading to nihilism, I will post my comments on that subject, which tie in to this inconsistancy of thinking that I just mentioned.

.

Here’s his chance–though of course you’re all welcome to join in. Below the fold I’ve reproduced Austin Cline’s post on this topic, in order to give Trey something to argue against.

This myth is based upon a misunderstanding of what atheism is. Many theists think that atheists don’t believe in anything at all; evidently, we have no goals, no ideals, and no beliefs whatsoever. Such theists cannot understand how it could be otherwise because their beliefs in and about their god often constitute the most important parts of their lives and are especially important when it comes to their goals, ideals, morality, etc. Without their god, then, those things can’t exist.

Of course, it is nonsensical to think that a person can have no beliefs whatsoever. The human brain forms beliefs without our willing or intending it — it just happens and is a part of our nature.
It is also nonsensical to think that a person cannot “believe in” anything, if by belief we mean “placing trust or confidence in another.” That, too, is simply a part of our human nature and occurs without our intending it.

Atheists do believe things and they do believe in things. Where atheists differ from theists is that the atheists do not believe in any gods. Granted, for theists their god might be so important and vital that not believing in it may seem just like not believing in anything at all — but really, they aren’t exactly the same. Even if a theist cannot comprehend the idea of having values, meaning, or purpose in the absence of their god(s), atheists are able to manage it quite readily.

The only thing atheists have in common is their lack of belief in gods. There are no positive beliefs or attitudes which can be assumed on the part of all atheists. Although some atheists certainly are nihilists, that isn’t at all true of atheists — in fact, I’d say that it isn’t true of the vast majority of theists. Nihilists are a relatively small philosophical and political position.

If you want to know what an atheist believes or believes in, you have to ask — and ask about specifics. It doesn’t work to simply ask “what do you believe in”? That question is much too broad. A person could potentially go on for days explaining all of the things they believe, and why would they bother to do that for you? If you want information, you need to be specific. If you want to know what an atheist believes about morality, ask that. If you want to know what an atheist believes about the origins of the universe, ask that. Atheists aren’t mind readers, and you shouldn’t expect them to be.

UPDATE: See also Rank Atheism‘s “Atheism Myths: If there is no God, you are guaranteed of being nothing”

Degayifying the Moskva

Orthodox Christian Russians were working tirelessly last Sunday to cleanse the Moskva River’s sparkling waters of TEH GAY, after a dirty gay cruise vessel full of dirty gays trailed megalitres of santorum in its wake the previous evening.

Participants hired a ship and decorated it with church banners, icons, Russian imperial flags and their motto, “We are Russian, God is with us.”

“Our great Orthodox capital is in spiritual vacuum and experiences ideological aggression from the West. So our aim was to demonstrate that the Russian people’s spiritual and moral ideals are alive and will be so forever,” Yury Ageschev, coordinator of the Union of Orthodox Brotherhoods, told Interfax.

He said one of the action’s aims was “to purge the Moskva River after a large group of gays, who hired a similar ship to have a party going the same route last night.”

On a more serious note, this follows a plan by Christians to conduct anti-homosexual pogroms in a Moscow park popular as a meeting place for gays and lesbians.

YouTube: Christians and homophobia

The argument from personality

I’ve been involved in a lengthy debate with a Christian at Reed Braden’s blog. Asked why Christianity is to be preferred over other religions, my interlocutor responded thus:

[1]As far as other religions go, the first step I took was evaluating the idea of a personal or impersonal god. [2]Reality and experience has shown that people certainly possess personality and individuality. [3]This being the case, I had to ask myself the question of whether I thought it made sense that personality would flow from an impersonal god. [4]For me it does not, and Schaeffer, C.S. Lewis, and countless others have observed the same thing. [5]It is for this reason that I have chosen to reject so many of the Eastern religions (even though Judaism/Christianity really isn’t Western). [Sentences numbered by yours truly]

I don’t think my interlocutor has offered very good reasons for rejecting other religions, if he must choose religion at all. The weakest arguments he proposes are of course the appeals to authority and popularity in sentence 4, followed closely by the argument from incredulity presented in sentences 3-4 (“x doesn’t make sense to me; ergo, x is wrong”).

But what of his main reason: that given that people possess personality and individuality, an impersonal god doesn’t make sense? Since my friend doesn’t explain why personality and individuality in human beings makes the idea of an impersonal god nonsensical (this is simply asserted), I can only infer that he is assuming the truth of Genesis 1:27–“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.” (Is God Yoda?)

If this is the case, then my interlocutor is attempting to prove the superiority of Christianity using a Christian axiom (i.e. the aforementioned Bible verse)–an axiom which one would have to be a Christian in the first place in order to accept. Circular reasoning.

(OK: Jews would accept this axiom too, but I don’t see how that helps my interlocutor’s position. In fact, it weakens it.)

Sam Harris on his book The End of Faith.

Short story: the Marquis de Sade’s "Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man"

This is actually a dialogue rather than a story. A priest is giving the last rites to a dying man who repents that he has not taken full advantage of the fact that he was “created by Nature with the keenest appetites and the strongest of passions and was put on this earth with the sole purpose of placating both by surrendering to them.” The dying man then proceeds to state his case for atheism.

Despite the fact that the dying man seems not to have heard of the is-ought fallacy, he makes some good arguments that resonate well with current debates. His opponent is probably an unfair strawman, but I have heard a Christian apologist in a recent debate with Christopher Hitchens advance at least one of the priest’s counter-arguments–the notion that the world has been created “broken” as an answer to the problem of evil.

The dialogue is far too long to reproduce here, so I’ll just provide a link to the PDF:

“Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man”

Of course, more than just atheists have been influenced by de Sade’s ideas:

The Wonderful World of Magical Thinking XXI

The week in fundie:

1. The Religious Right post-Falwell. (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State)
2. A library in South Carolina has been forced to cancel its summer programs after receiving threats and accusations that it was “promoting witchcraft.” (Via Pharyngula)
3. Lesbians kicked off a bus for for kissing. (Via Morons.org)
4. Queensland National MP Barnaby Joyce: “If Christian people do not put their view forward that Australia is a Christian state, then within a short period of time, [. . .] another religion might fill the vacuum.” (Via Unbelief.org)
5. An Italian village has opened a criminal investigation into the film version of The Da Vinci Code, in response to complaints by local clergy. (Dispatches from the Culture Wars)
6. The Exclusive Brethren cult, which bans sex ed and ICT in its own schools, is planning to sponsor one of the UK’s publicly-funded “faith schools.” (Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion)
7. Study: social dysfunction higher in America’s Jesus states. (Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Bill Maher on Jesus Camp

Chems

Some Chemical Brothers videos for your viewing and listening pleasure.

Elektrobank (1997)

Loops of Fury (1996)

Setting Sun (1996)

Hey Boy Hey Girl (1999)

Out of Control (1999)

Star Guitar (2002)

Get Yourself High (2003)

Galvanize (2005)

Do It Again (2007)

On the pod

This is the kind of TV show that would encourage me to watch Channel 31. The Atheist Experience is a public access cable TV show operated by the Atheist Community of Austin, and hosted by an ex-fundie. (I mention that last part because some theists like to parade their ex-atheism as if it lends extra credibility to their arguments–cough Alister McGrath cough Kirk Cameron cough–and I wanted to show that the traffic isn’t all one way.) Given public-access restrictions, the somewhat-lefty presenters keep away from partisan politics and keep the programme focused on atheism, science (including pseudoscience) and counter-apologetics. Well worth the listen. (It’s available in GoogleVideo and MP3 formats.)

(BTW: Unfortunately it’s not available on Channel 31, where we have to put up with crap like Margaret Court: a Life of Victory.

Also: Ninglun, if he’s watching, will be interested in tonight’s Late Night Live, featuring two biographers of Kevin Rudd.

Meanwhile, for your entertainment, “Hand of the Almighty!”

Today’s text

Source: Saint Gasoline

In my view, the only culture war that really matters was won during the Enlightenment, when we realised that we didn’t need a theory of God to be ethical or to explain the Universe. Today’s reactionary culture-warriors are fighting a rearguard action in a battle that was lost long ago.

On Pakistan’s ability to get its priorities in order

This is Waziristan, a northern province of Pakistan. It was from here that the Taliban swept into Afghanistan, establishing in the late 90s one of the most savage and despotic faith-based regimes ever known. To this day it remains a Taliban and Al-Qaeda stronghold.

This is Salman Rushdie, an Anglo-Indian novelist who in 1989 was sentenced to death in absentia by the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini, in response to the publication of The Satanic Verses which contained references to Mohammed which many Muslims deemed to be blasphemous. As a result, Rushdie went into hiding for nine years–while several others associated with the novel’s publication were either murdered, assaulted or threatened–and to this day Iran’s religious authorities refuse to lift the fatwa that was placed on him.

Now, if you were a Muslim and a member of the Pakistani government, which of the two would you consider a bigger enemy of Islam and more worthy of your condemnation: (a) a bunch of bloodthirsty religious fanatics who like to slaughter innocent people in the name of their faith, or (b) a British novelist who once wrote a book containing an irreverent depiction of Mohammed? Which of the two does more damage to the image of Islam?

Yeah. Me too.

But the Pakistani government doesn’t see it that way, given its outrage over Britain’s decision to award Rushdie a knighthood. Condemning the British government for its “insensitivity,” Pakistan is demanding that the knighthood be revoked. According to the Foreign Ministry, “this decision can unnecessarily incite religious feelings [. . .] Rushdie has been a controversial figure who is known less for his contribution to literature and more for hurting the feelings of Muslims.” (Cue the world’s smallest violin.) The Minister for Religious Affairs warns that “such an award can provoke suicide attacks.” Got that? If more innocent people are murdered because certain faith-heads have so completely lost the will to behave rationally, blame Rushdie.

Seriously, guys: if you don’t like Rushdie, don’t read his books. And don’t take his knighthood personally–the notion that it’s intended to be an insult to Muslims is preposterous. In the meantime, you have a very big backyard to clean up, and perhaps you should focus your energies on that.

More at Ninglun’s.

The Photoshop Creationism Challenge

B3ta.com posed the following challenge to its contributors:

Creationists believe that everything in the universe was created absolutely by a deity, and that evolution is hocus pocus, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Please portray this conflict using God’s own image-manipulation software.

Here are some of the gems they came up with:

Via the comments at Pharyngula.