Category Archives: Atheism

Comedian Ricky Gervaisdidnt hesitate to dive into a debate about the existence of God when challenged by Stephen Colbert, a practicing Roman Catholic, during an interview yesterday.

Gervais, an outspoken atheist, was appearing on ColbertsLate Showwhen the late-night talk show host posed the question Is there a God.

Why is there something instead of nothing? Colbert asked.

Gervais was quick to take the bait.

That makes no sense at all, he hit back.

Surely the bigger question is not why, but how? Why is irrelevant, isnt it?

When pressed by Colbert about how the world could exist without the help of a higher power, Gervais simply said he didn't believe anything played a role outside of science and nature.

The actor and writer went on to say he is actually an agnostic atheist because no one knows if theres a God.

Technically, everyones agnostic, he said.

An agnostic atheist is someone who doesnt know if theres a God or not, as no does.

Atheism is only rejecting the claim that there is a God.

You say theres a God. I say, can you prove that? You say no. I say I dont believe you, then.

Colbert then presented Gervais with the idea that he simply believes what hes being told by scientists, just as religious people believe what theyve read in the Bible.

Gervais came back with his own analogy.

Science is constantly proved all the time, he said.

If we take something like any fiction, any holy book, and destroyed it, in a thousand years time that wouldnt come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed them all, in a thousand years theyd all be back, because all the same tests would be the same result.

Colbert ended the debate with a handshake, affectionately asking Gervais to come back on the show in the futureto discuss other controversial topics.

Nine Digital Pty Ltd 2017

Auto news: Daring heist at Jaguar Land Rover plant - caradvice.com.au

Auto news:2017 new car sales results - winners and losers - caradvice.com.au

Auto news: Revealed: 2018 Holden Commodore Sportswagon. caradvice.com.au

Auto news: Opinion: Stay out of the right lane please. caradvice.com.au

Auto news:The new Kia Stinger will target Holden Commodore buyers - caradvice.com.au

Read the original post:
Stephen Colbert takes on atheist Ricky Gervais over existence of God - 9news.com.au

Ricky Gervais gave a defense of atheism on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert. The British comedian and actor is an outspoken atheist, and Colbert is somewhat of a rarity in comedic circles: a devout Catholic. Unlike similar conversations with Bill Maher, this was far more gracious than it was testy.

Ricky Gervais has never been shy about sharing his beliefs. (Photo: Getty Images)

So this is atheism in a nutshell, said Gervais. You say, Theres a god. I say, You can prove that? You say, No. I say, I dont believe you then. So you believe in one god, I assume but there are 3,000 to choose from So basically, you believe in you deny one less god than I do. You dont believe in 2,999 gods. And I dont believe in just one more.

Colbert explained that his gratitude for existence needs to be expressed and winds up being directed toward God. Gervais explained his gratitude for existence is displayed in an appreciation for scientific discovery. We want to make sense of nature and science. It is too unfathomable everything in the universe was once crunched in some small atom, said Gervais. But you dont know that, Colbert interjected. Youre just believing Stephen Hawking, and thats a matter of faith in his abilities. You dont know it yourself. Youre accepting that because someone told you.

Stephen Colbert is a rarity in comedic circles for his deep Catholic faith. (Photo: Getty Images)

Gervais then explained why Colberts argument wasnt compelling to him, and did so in such a succinct manner that Colbert had to give him credit. You see, if we take something like any fiction and any holy book and any other fiction and destroyed it, in 1,000 years time, that wouldnt come back just as it was, Gervais pointed out. Whereas if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed them all, in 1,000 years theyd all be back, because all the same tests would be the same result. Thats good, Colbert acknowledged. Thats really good.

Previously on Colbert: Jon Stewart Reveals Trumps Next Executive Order:

Tell us what you think! Hit us up on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram or leave your comments below. And check out our host, Khail Anonymous, on Twitter.

See the original post here:
Ricky Gervais and Stephen Colbert Debate Atheism - Yahoo TV (blog)

Its been over 13 years since Ricky Gervais bade farewell to David Brent, the middling middle manager on the original U.K. version of The Office that launched his career. Since then, hes had other successful series (Extras,Derek), dabbled in movies (The Invention of Lying), and sold out venues with his standup tour. Yet the character who considered himself friend first, boss secondprobably entertainer third has never really gone away. There wasnt a day that went by where I wasnt managing the estate of David Brent, Gervais notes. There were remakes around the world, I would get requests every day to show clips, or something would could up with licensing.

SEE MORE: Awards: The Contenders

After short appearances on the American version of The Office or at Comic Relief, Gervais has brought Brent back in full force with the release of David Brent: Life on the Road. Written and directed by Gervais, the film hits American theaters and streaming platform Netflix on Feb. 10. It follows Brents attempts to extend his modicum of fame by launching a music career with typically uncomfortable results. As Gervais puts it, If you went on Facebook and found out the most boring man you went to college with was trying to be a rock star, youd have to watch.

We spoke with Gervais on the phone from England the morning of Donald Trumps inauguration, mere minutes after Trump was sworn in. The outspoken comedian noted some parallels between his fictional character and the new president.

Thank you for bringing David Brent back, I didnt realize how much I missed him.That was sort of the point, really, for people to catch up on an old friend. Its a fake documentary but I deal in realism. And I suppose theres parallels to real life where everyone wants to be famous. He had a bit of fame at the turn of the century, and we thought hed go away. But now fame is a different beast and people dont give up. And its easier to be famous because people are willing to do anything to be famous. Theres no difference now between fame and infamy. Weve just seen the host of The Apprentice become President of the United States.

Did you see some news reports are saying he lifted parts of his speech from Bane in The Dark Knight Rises?And Im not shocked. A year ago, I would have been horrified. But then again, the things he said running up to thisif any other politician or any other world leader had said it, he would have resigned. He confessed to abusing women and that wasnt enough. There is no greater role model in the western world arguably, so what happens when a guy is caught for attacking a woman and says, My president said it was all right? Its off the charts. I do sort of blame reality TV in a way because we are all made from our input. Hes a man who wants to be famous. Donald Trump has more in common with David Brent than he does with JFK or Lincoln or Roosevelt. Hes not even a smart man who had to work for it. Hes not particularly erudite or educated or caring. He wants to be famous, he wants to be loved. Im not saying that makes him a terrible president or its the end of the world, Im just saying he is different from other presidents and he is a product of the last 50 years of people wanting to be famous. Its like he wasnt satisfied with having $5 billion and running companies, he had to be on telly every possible moment.

When thinking of ideas for a David Brent movie, did you ever imagine a storyline where he or someone like him ran for president? It would seem too outrageous.Thats exactly right, nothing is fiction now. It seems like the way it first started was a little bit like one of those 80s movies where two old billionaires in a gentlemans club make a bet that they can make any idiot into the president of the United States. One says, Where are you going to find someone that stupid? And it cuts to Trump and the one says, Youre on sir! Its like Pygmalion in a bad, Hollywood 1980s genre movie. And it worked.

Do you still watch reality TV?Its been good to me. Ive watched it and found it enjoyable and laughed at some things and been angry at others but I have studied it, it has been my muse. I wrote The Office based on my experiences as a middle manager, I worked at an office for 10 years. I also watched a lot of those quaint docu-soaps in the 90s that followed someone at work and they sort of became a household name for 15 minutes. But now its different. Now you get on The Apprentice by saying, Ill destroy anything that stands in my way. They choose the people who are willing to do anything, and people get on by promising to behave badly. And theyre rewarded for it. Though I dont think it ever ends well.

You seem to be drawn to the subject of fame in a lot of your work.The Office was about a man who wanted to be famous. Extras was about a man literally on the first rung of being famous. The Golden Globes was a study in fame to me. I was shocked by how worried everyone was about what I would say. I just dont get it. It was a shock that people were that sensitive or that worried about what a little fat guy from Reading said about them. I always like to sort of play with that. I think its staple of British comedy, even more than American, we always try to bring down authority. Theres something were trying to undermine when people take themselves too seriously. It was reflected in the remake of the American Office. Its more hopeful. Americans are told you can grow up to be the next president of the United States. Brits are told to not even try, who do you think you are? Its funny because my sense of humor is British but my comedy is American. I embrace both things.

What do these characters or someone like David Brent hope to get out of fame?Ive always been fascinated with what people think leading a good life is. Good people do bad things, for many reasons. For money, for fame, because they think it will make them happy. They should just cut out the middle man and just be happy. So Im always on the side of the deluded, if theyve got a good heart. David Brent isnt an evil person. Now hes 55, not 39, hes not the boss. Hes not doing a job that anyone ever dreams of as a child. So he believes, like most people, that fame will sort their life out. Hes putting all his money on one number and cashing in his chips to buy fame. Hes looking for the wrong thing and hes certainly looking in the wrong place. We see sort of a more sympathetic side of him.

It would be easy to mock David Brent as a musician, but the music in the film actually isnt bad.Well, David Brent is paying for it so David Brent would get the best musicians he could. Hes hemorrhaging money because he wants a real band. But at least hes trying and it is his money, hes not stealing or conning anyone. Hes following a dream, no matter how deluded that may be and thats admirable. Thats the staple of comedy. Comedy at its essence is the normal guy trying to do something hes not equipped to do. And when were snickering at him, were only snickering at ourselves. When we laugh at David Brent were sort of going, Oh, Ive done that.

But the album actually charted internationally, it hit number three in Britain and number one in New Zealand.Yeah, but people are in on the jokethey know theyre not buying a cool album. Its David Brent, not me releasing my songs. When you see Ricky Gervais Sings the Blues, shoot me. Thats when its all over. The problem is in the narrative, David Brent isnt as successful as he is in real life. When we do gigs, we sell out huge venues. I have to keep the narrative piece not a huge success otherwise its a bit too far-fetched.

Wait, so you as David Brent is selling out concerts? Yeah, thats how it all started. I brought David Brent back for a Comic Relief sketch and he did a track called Equality Street. It went really well and I did a couple gigs and people went crazy. We had 110,000 ticket requests for these small venues. They called and said I could play Wembley Stadium. I said, This is mad. Why would David Brent play Wembley? Thats when it hit me; he paid top musicians, hes booking venues, and thats where the idea for the movie came.

The Office spawned a lot of comedies that used the fake documentary format or played up the comedy of discomfort. How does it feel to have been at the forefront of that?I dont think I started it, but I fused a few genres so it looked original. I wasnt the first to tap into that stupidity and those idiot characters, Laurel and Hardy did it. I wasnt the first to do a naturalistic fake documentary, you could point to This Is Spinal Tap. Awkwardness and discomfort were done in Seinfeld. What I did do was probably up everything a notch. Mine was slower, more uncomfortable, more desperate.

In addition to your performing, youre an outspoken animal rights activist and atheist. How does it feel to be almost as well-known for your causes as for your work? Its funny isnt it? Those things have always been my passion but you get a bigger platform. As your fame grows, those things about you grow as well. With the invention of social media, the more famous you get and the more access people get to you, the more youre loved but they more youre hated as well. But thats no reason to not still give your opinion and tell the truth. Its never worried me to have a popular or unpopular view. One of my favorite tweets Ive ever got said, Everyones entitled to believe what they want, so shut up about your atheism.

See the original post here:
Ricky Gervais on Atheism, Donald Trump, and the Return of David Brent - Variety

My Great-Great-Aunt Kit might have been, in the parlance of her times, an infidel. In the 1890s, she loaded her scrapbook with the blasphemous speeches of the eras most famous agnostic, Robert Ingersoll, marking them up with apparent appreciation.

A student of American religious history, I was surprised to find such interest in unbelief among these ancestors because that side of my family is a long line of Ohio farmers. The instincts of my discipline recommend for them a quiet but dogged Methodism, maybe a flash of revivalism here and there. "Ignorance is the soil of the supernatural. The miraculous is false" wasnt the first thing I would have expected to find circled and starred in a family heirloom.

Village Atheists: How America's Unbelievers Made Their Way in a Godly Nation By Leigh Eric Schmidt

(Princeton University Press)

Schmidt wants to neutralize some of the polemicism surrounding the topic. The very words by which we name this strand of American religious history are negations, inherently adversarial: atheist, nonbeliever, irreligious. Even freethinker is a provocation, if one is just a thinker. Schmidt, though, discovers gray areas and blurred lines between belief and unbelief. "Certainly many freethinkers and evangelicals saw this as a war without a middle ground, but forbearance and mutual recognition nonetheless frequently emerged amid the Manichean opposition."

This is complicated, however, by Schmidts own title character, a composite "cultural figure" drawn from the lives of his four contrarians. Samuel Porter Putnam once published a pamphlet called "Religion a Curse, Religion a Disease, Religion a Lie" (1893). Charles B. Reynolds co-opted the methods of evangelicalism and traveled the country holding tent revivals, preaching a gospel of freethought. Elmina Drake Slenker defied obscenity laws to spread advice about sex and the body, taking particular pride in using "short, emphatic, and clear" words i.e., four-letter ones. Watson Heston drew cartoons demonstrating the absurdity of belief and the unfairness of religions hold on the nations institutions. A typical Heston cartoon mocked common Protestant imagery about "clinging to the cross" by labeling the suffering souls supposed life-saver "a piece of worthless theological driftwood." A "Freethought Life-Boat" offers rescue as the sharks of priestcraft close in.

Schmidt wants the lives of these characters to "capture the dilemmas of a quotidian secularism the tensions between combat and courtesy, candor and dissembling, irreverence and respectability that marked the everyday lives of Americas unbelievers." He succeeds to the extent that these public atheists wrote and spoke to audiences of everyday nonbelievers living amid the assumptions of belief. His four main subjects do not appear to have dissembled much, though, and most of the book is about court cases and public controversies, moments not easily thought of as part of their normal daily lives.

The fact is that much of the everyday 19th-century atheism Schmidt set out to chronicle might have been characterized by silence. Proclaiming oneself an atheist has been and still is in many circles simply considered rude. Schmidt chronicles a recurrent argument among freethinkers themselves about how impolite to be, but does not reflect on the constant violence of self-censorship that this implies. Self-censorship in the face of overwhelming cultural pressure is as much a part of the American atheist experience as irreverent provocation. Family members who knew her she lived to be 99 have no memory of Aunt Kit ever discussing religion.

Beyond the risk of social stigma, atheists have been subject to violence, imprisonment, and the denial of political rights. True, they are not exactly like other persecuted religious minorities in American history. For one thing, they have not been powerless. Contemporary surveys indicate that they tend toward the white, male, and educated, and that is not a new trend. Even in the 19th century, the self-consciously irreverent edge of so much atheist rhetoric came from a place of relative privilege. Compared with the violence wrought along lines of race, gender, and class, the challenges faced by atheists can seem minor, or quaint, or even funny. Schmidt recounts the story of a one-armed Kansan named Jacob B. Wise who was prosecuted in 1895, under the Comstock obscenity laws, for mailing a minister a postcard with a single line on it about eating and drinking human waste. The joke was that the line was from the Bible (Isaiah 36:12).

Schmidt is mostly mindful of this tension, punctuating stories of relative tolerance toward atheists with the real consequences of persecution. (Wise spent a month in jail and was fined $50, all for sending a postcard with a Bible verse on it.) Even as the religious right has wrapped itself in the rhetoric of victimhood, claiming to feel oppressed in a secular nation, surveys continue to suggest that it is atheists who might feel most compelled to hide their commitments of conscience. Americans feel coldest about atheists and Muslims, and admit that they are less likely to vote for members of these groups than any others. In 2005, Justice Antonin Scalia may the God he worshiped rest his soul argued in a dissent "that the Establishment Clause permits the disregard of devout atheists."

Nevertheless, the irreverent work of the village atheist goes on in a public arena radically changed by high-profile 20th-century Supreme Court cases. The Satanic Temple is easily the most entertaining avatar of the village atheists spirit today. They are atheists who claim Satan as a metaphor, not a deity, and they recently announced an "After School Satan" program as a counter to Christian programs permitted to evangelize in public schools. And the University of Miami will soon run a search for an endowed chair in "the study of atheism, humanism and secular ethics." It took the donor more than 15 years and $2.2 million to get the university to agree to use the word "atheism" in the title, but the term might soon be an everyday presence.

Seth Perry is an assistant professor of religion at Princeton University.

Original post:
Devout Atheists - Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)

And then I shared it with the man the government sent to kill me.

Virginia Prodan / September 23, 2016

What life was like for unbelievers long before Christopher Hitchens and company arrived on the scene.

Timothy Larsen / August 22, 2016

I had no untapped, unanswered yearnings. All was well in the state of Denmark. And then it wasnt.

Nicole Cliffe / May 20, 2016

How I learned to see my unbelieving husband through Gods eyes.

Stina Kielsmeier-Cook, guest writer / May 19, 2016

What we really need, says Kevin Seamus Hasson, is a different understanding of the God our nation is under.

Interview by Matt Reynolds / March 18, 2016

(UPDATED) However, survey also finds Trump is one of few candidates who doesn't have to be religious to be deemed great.

Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra / January 27, 2016

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki destroyed Joy Davidmans worldview, too.

Abigail Santamaria / August 18, 2015

And everything else. How I learned hes an all-or-nothing Lord.

Craig Keener / May 20, 2015

Nancy Pearcey equips believers with tools to expose error and promote truth.

Richard Weikart / April 10, 2015

Planting in Highly-Church Areas; Atheists Believe in Heaven; Alex and Brett Harris

Ed Stetzer / November 24, 2014

End of Mideast Christianity?; Atheism in China; Exercising Power and Wise Boundaries

Ed Stetzer / November 19, 2014

Inside my own revolution.

Guillaume Bignon / November 17, 2014

But question remains: Will IRS agree with DOJ that atheists count as 'ministers of the gospel'?

Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra / November 13, 2014

Sarah Bowler on what she's learned about God from unbelievers.

Ed Stetzer / October 16, 2014

Bart Campolo's departure from Christianitysome reflections about faith and (our) families.

Ed Stetzer / September 30, 2014

The temptation of utilitarianism.

Amy Julia Becker / September 12, 2014

Humanists say LifeWay Research was biased, but both polls are helpful

Ed Stetzer / September 5, 2014

IRS and Atheists; Getting Fired from Your First Pastorate; Transformational Churches

Ed Stetzer / August 12, 2014

New survey finds even liberals largely favor Christians over other types of marriage partners.

Kate Tracy / June 17, 2014

How the realm of make-believe can bring us toward God.

Rachel Marie Stone / June 10, 2014

What a Kentucky court ruling implies for a high-profile Wisconsin challenge to the clergy housing allowance.

Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra / May 21, 2014

For the UK writer, Christianity must first make sense in the realm of lived experience.

Interview by John Wilson / April 3, 2014

NYT's 3 Worst Corrections on Christian Holidays; 3 Questions for Managing Your Boss; Who are the "Nones"?

Ed Stetzer / April 2, 2014

Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage?; Is Atheism Irrational?; Great Teammates

Ed Stetzer / February 17, 2014

Were confused by one California pastors year without God.

Laura Turner / January 9, 2014

Pentecostals and Charismatics; Life Apart from God; Ted Turner and Heaven

Ed Stetzer / November 21, 2013

City Density; Bias Toward Action; Atheist Megachurches

Ed Stetzer / November 18, 2013

Despite outpouring of support, a few fellow students remain critical of atheist senior at Northwest Christian.

Timothy C. Morgan / November 12, 2013

(UPDATED) Legal challenge to pastor tax break takes 'fascinating turn.'

Jeremy Weber / August 19, 2013

A new study highlights important differences between nonbelievers. But they have many things in common, too.

George Yancey / August 12, 2013

Willow Creek; Young Atheists; Kingdom of God; Beth Moore on The Exchange

Ed Stetzer / June 10, 2013

I tried to face down an overwhelming body of evidence, as well as the living God.

Jordan Monge / April 4, 2013

As a leftist lesbian professor, I despised Christians. Then I somehow became one.

Rosaria Champagne Butterfield / February 7, 2013

Susan Jacoby's biography of Robert Ingersoll mistakes a likeable fellow with a second-rate mind for a "freethinking" hall-of-famer.

Timothy Larsen / January 29, 2013

Children are statistically significant factor in church attendance by atheist scientists.

Melissa Steffan / January 2, 2013

U.K. group would offer alternative 'Scout Promise' that removes reference to God.

Melissa Steffan / December 18, 2012

In my questions for God, I'm like my kids. Sometimes sincere in my doubts. Sometimes whiny, repetitive, insistent. Often not even asking God directly but allowing my doubts to protect me from talking to God, or listening to God, at all.

December 10, 2012

Leah Libresco announced her conversion Monday after lengthy exploration of morality on her blog.

Jeremy Weber / June 19, 2012

How to think about the death of the outspoken atheist.

Douglas Wilson / December 16, 2011

Read more:
Atheism | Topics | Christianity Today

matt: I just listened to the loftus-dsouza debate and as a consequence left the william lane craig should debate john loftus group at facebook. I dont know what others here think, but I have never heard such terrible debating (loftus). dinesh dsouza is the most overrated and small-minded debater in the english speaking universe, as far as im concerned. his arguments are like cardboard cutout versions of anything william craig has to say, for one thing because he makes no effort to hide his cultural and ideological bigotry. (he actually claims with a straight face that christians invented empathy as a moral good. what an asshole.) loftus comes across as a well-meaning college student trying to argue with his professor. i dont understand why theres a movement to see him embarrass himself and atheism generally by publically confronting the Terminator of christian apologetics himself. soooo disappointing!

As entirely disappointing as it is to say this, I am in complete agreement with Matt. I am unwilling, after listening to this, to cast my name in the vote for Loftus to debate Mr. Craig. Naively, I was hoping, especially after becoming aware of the fervent almost zealous nature of Loftus pursuit of Craig, that this would not only be the introduction of a worthy gun-slinging atheist debate protagonist but that if this epic showdown took place, it would have the added poetry of it being the student who is finally able to best the theistic Samurai. Like I said; Naive.

Typically, I dont criticize without visiting some of the reasons for my criticism.

1) There are several themes Loftus runs with in this debate, they continually come up ineffectively and provide nothing of real substance. He opens up with one; essentially telling everyone that Dinesh is just brainwashed. Which, although true, isnt something that couldnt be slung right back at him as we all know theists to do as they believe we dont believe because we dont want culpability moral or otherwise, so therefore, weve brainwashed ourselves into disbelief. Fortunately, Dinesh doesnt pick up this thread and engage Loftus in playing a sort of merry-go-round styled No, youre the brainwashed one.. No, you are.. No, YOU are...

2) Another theme is his constant return to Well all the sects of these religions critique each other and theyre all right, effectively eliminating religion in front of our very eyes. This is repeated quite frequently in this debate and Im sure Ill have more to say about it later.

3) I was inconceivably shocked with his statement History is all in the mind. He quickly tried to cover his tracks by following that up with something like well, thats what some philosophers of history say, anyway. His reasoning, as it could be inferred from what he said just prior to this utterance, was basically that history writers can only write from their perspective so given what may be of that perspective, they may have rationale for remaining skeptical of something that actually happened. Yikes.

4)Generally, about his opening remarks, he is just all over the place. There is no introduction of his arguments he just shifts left and talks about Quantum fluctuation rendering the singularity at the inception of our universe not likely therefore removing the beginning of the universe theory out of the Christians favor then all of a sudden he shifts right and now were talking about Jesus not delivering his scriptural message well and thereby is responsible for all the religious wars in his name then if there is God, hes to blame for the tsunamis. Loftus, the opening statement is the only time you have to not scramble about trying to address all of your antagonists remarks. You should have complete lucidity at this point in the game. Perhaps collecting your thoughts at the outset and introducing your arguments with more clarity of mind, e.g.

Ok, our first batter up on the atheist lineup is going to be the evidential argument from evil, it goes like this: 1) If there is an omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving God..

Our next argument is a quick rejoinder to the First Cause argument, which is something like this: 1) Everything that begins to exist..

Instead of touching briefly on all of them, narrow your selection down to a few and expound on them in greater detail leaving Dinesh to either spend a huge chunk of his time rebutting you or, should he chose not to, being able in your first rebuttal to say Hey, remember that huge argument of the problem of evil looks like Dinesh agrees with me as he apparently has no reply.

5) Loftus, at a few points in the debate calls Dinesh something which must have been new to his huge ears: Charming. Dinesh Dsouza is not charming. He is an arrogant, unsophisticated, misleading to the point of purposefully deceiving bucket of fuck. He is good at appearing to have a legit reply to atheistic arguments which are so transparently fraught with specious reasoning and argumentative fallacies that they render him ineligible to be charming.

6) Ive actually taken the trouble to transcribe the next part because I didnt think people would believe me when I said I bet I could find the worst conceivable argument for the atheistic creation-scenario. This was in response to, and was in fact introduced as such by Loftus himself as, Now, Dinesh has asked me to give an account of the creation of the universe.

even though Im not a scientist, what I do know, is that scientists all agree that there was no cosmic singularity. Now I cant do the math. Uhh, I can not do Victor Stengers math. He has done the math. Uhh, ::clears throat:: But, he says, given the laws of nature, its a 60% chance that something should have happened, something should be there, something should exist. 60%. Given the laws of nature.

Yep. Word for word. You can hear this enlightening account of our origins at the 41:28 point. Prepare to be underwhelmed.

7) Loftus closing, opens with this gem: I guess things got heated a little bit.. but, uh, its you know, it doesnt have to be but it does. Illuminating. Loftus then spends more then his first minute of his five minute closing telling everyone that the real way to learn is from the books. I must say, I would feel a bit slapped in the face as someone who Ive paid to listen to tell me I should pay, instead, to read him. Im not saying hes wrong. You can certainly learn more from a 300 page dissection of theism then what collectively amounts to 35 or 40 minutes worth of lectures, but to use that time so inefficiently is irritating. How about using that time to effectively rebut one of Dineshs arguments? Or constructing one of your own against Christianity? A task youve been flown in and paid to do. He then spends the rest of his closing telling everyone they should just be agnostic because theyre agnostic/atheistic towards every other religion so basically, just be consistent. Have you read any other religions? No? Then you should just discard yours too. we deny scientology, we deny mormons, we deny muslims Im sorry, maybe Im being unfairly critical but who the hell has ever been converted after being told that line? Who, after being made to realize that they havent given fair intellectual treatment to greek mythology, has right then and there renounced Christ for good?

Loftus and Dsouza were very generous and permitted almost another hour of questioning following there closings.

Before I submit this rather harsh review of Loftus debating skills, I have to say, as I believe Ive stated before, Why I Became An Atheist was one of the best, most helpful books I read in the atheistic/agnostic/naturalist cannon of probably 20-30 books Ive read in the past 2 or 3 years. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Notes for future thoughts and arguments poured out of me while reading that book and I recommend and cite it in my own writing quite often. So maybe my resentment is as a result of placing so much FAITH in Mr Loftus as an author that I unfairly expected too much of him as a neophyte debater.

I do, with the utmost sincerity hope, that if you are reading this Mr Loftus (as I know you frequent this site) you take some note of how this looks to your fellow nonbelievers. Were relying on you, as one of the few out there headlining debates on our behalf. You know the crowd of people at your back are of an intellectual breed and as such, we demand the highest caliber arguments be offered in our defense. You clearly display a great deal of passion for these topics and Im hoping I can count on that to have you take better care to prepare your thoughts in the future. As well as to focus your arguments and speak with more clarity and precision. Look at your former mentor. He doesnt race through his speeches. He has a calm, very collected vibe and hardly repeats the same thing in a single debate whereas, a lot of what you said, you said in almost the same wording in multiple places (i.e. the religion cancels each other out argument).

Best, J.

Link:
600+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates - Common Sense Atheism

There are hundreds of great atheism quotes out there. Like most skillful turns of phrase, they all sound good. But there are many I disagree with, for example All thinking men are atheists (Ernest Hemmingway).

Or consider this Julian Baggini quote: Goblins, hobbits truly everlasting gobstoppers God is just one of the things that atheists dont believe in, it just happens to be the thing that, for historical reasons, gave them their name. Actually, no. Perhaps we could say that God is just one of many things that naturalists dont believe in, or something like that, but atheism is defined only by a lack of belief in gods.

There are hundreds of other atheism quotes to choose from, but these are the ones that strike me most deeply right now.

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Stephen Roberts

When I was a kid I had an imaginary friend and I used to think that he went everywhere with me, and that I could talk to him and that he could hear me, and that he could grant me wishes and stuff. And then I grew up, and I stopped going to church.

Jimmy Carr

Believe nothing, No matter where you read it, Or who has said it, Not even if I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own common sense.

Buddha

To understand via the heart is not to understand.

Michel de Montaigne

I dont know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didnt.

Jules Renard

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.

Anonymous

Do not pass by my epitaph, traveler. But having stopped, listen and learn, then go your way. There is no boat in Hades, no ferryman Charon, No caretaker Aiakos, no dog Cerberus. All we who are dead below Have become bones and ashes, but nothing else. I have spoken to you honestly, go on, traveler, Lest even while dead I seem talkative to you.

Ancient Roman tombstone

An atheist doesnt have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there cant be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.

John McCarthy

Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.

Blaise Pascal

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

Anonymous

See original here:
Top 10 Atheism Quotes - Common Sense Atheism

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]

The term atheism originated from the Greek (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.[12] With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word atheist lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment. The French Revolution, noted for its "unprecedented atheism," witnessed the first major political movement in history to advocate for the supremacy of human reason.[14]

Arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to social and historical approaches. Rationales for not believing in deities include arguments that there is a lack of empirical evidence,[15][16] the problem of evil; the argument from inconsistent revelations, the rejection of concepts that cannot be falsified, and the argument from nonbelief.[15][17] Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies (eg. secular humanism),[18][19] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[20] Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism and therefore that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.[21]

Since conceptions of atheism vary, accurate estimations of current numbers of atheists are difficult.[22] Several comprehensive global polls on the subject have been conducted by Gallup International: their 2015 poll featured over 64,000 respondents and indicated that 11% were "convinced atheists" whereas an earlier 2012 poll found that 13% of respondents were "convinced atheists."[23][24] An older survey by the BBC, in 2004, recorded atheists as comprising 8% of the world's population.[25] Other older estimates have indicated that atheists comprise 2% of the world's population, while the irreligious add a further 12%.[26] According to these polls, Europe and East Asia are the regions with the highest rates of atheism. In 2015, 61% of people in China reported that they were atheists.[27] The figures for a 2010 Eurobarometer survey in the European Union (EU) reported that 20% of the EU population claimed not to believe in "any sort of spirit, God or life force".[28]

Writers disagree on how best to define and classify atheism,[29] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is a philosophic position in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36] and has also been contrasted with it.[37][38][39] A variety of categories have been used to distinguish the different forms of atheism.

Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deity and god. The plurality of wildly different conceptions of God and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability. The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities. Gradually, this view fell into disfavor as theism came to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity.

With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Taoism.[41]

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[42] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[43] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".[44]

Philosophers such as Antony Flew[45] and Michael Martin have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist. The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[45] and in Catholic apologetics.[46] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.

While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism,[33] many agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism,[47][48] which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[47] The assertion of unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as an indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[49][50] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[51] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[52] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalized philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[53] Consequently, some atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions along a spectrum of theistic probabilitythe likelihood that each assigns to the statement "God exists".

Before the 18th century, the existence of God was so accepted in the western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatismthe notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.[55]

There is also a position claiming that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis, that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there are no atheists in foxholes".[56] There have however been examples to the contrary, among them examples of literal "atheists in foxholes".[57]

Some atheists have doubted the very need for the term "atheism". In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris wrote:

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist". We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

Pragmatic atheism is the view one should reject a belief in a god or gods because it is unnecessary for a pragmatic life. This view is related to apatheism and practical atheism.[59]

The source of man's unhappiness is his ignorance of Nature. The pertinacity with which he clings to blind opinions imbibed in his infancy, which interweave themselves with his existence, the consequent prejudice that warps his mind, that prevents its expansion, that renders him the slave of fiction, appears to doom him to continual error.

Atheists have put forward arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager.

Atheists have also argued that people cannot know a God or prove the existence of a God. The later is called agnosticism, which takes a variety of forms. In the philosophy of immanence, divinity is inseparable from the world itself, including a person's mind, and each person's consciousness is locked in the subject. According to this form of agnosticism, this limitation in perspective prevents any objective inference from belief in a god to assertions of its existence. The rationalistic agnosticism of Kant and the Enlightenment only accepts knowledge deduced with human rationality; this form of atheism holds that gods are not discernible as a matter of principle, and therefore cannot be known to exist. Skepticism, based on the ideas of Hume, asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know for sure whether or not a god exists. Hume, however, held that such unobservable metaphysical concepts should be rejected as "sophistry and illusion".[61] The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic worldview.[62]

Other arguments for atheism that can be classified as epistemological or ontological, including ignosticism, assert the meaninglessness or unintelligibility of basic terms such as "God" and statements such as "God is all-powerful." Theological noncognitivism holds that the statement "God exists" does not express a proposition, but is nonsensical or cognitively meaningless. It has been argued both ways as to whether such individuals can be classified into some form of atheism or agnosticism. Philosophers A. J. Ayer and Theodore M. Drange reject both categories, stating that both camps accept "God exists" as a proposition; they instead place noncognitivism in its own category.[63][64]

Philosopher, Zofia Zdybicka writes:

"Metaphysical atheism... includes all doctrines that hold to metaphysical monism (the homogeneity of reality). Metaphysical atheism may be either: a) absolute an explicit denial of God's existence associated with materialistic monism (all materialistic trends, both in ancient and modern times); b) relative the implicit denial of God in all philosophies that, while they accept the existence of an absolute, conceive of the absolute as not possessing any of the attributes proper to God: transcendence, a personal character or unity. Relative atheism is associated with idealistic monism (pantheism, panentheism, deism)."[65]

Some atheists hold the view that the various conceptions of gods, such as the personal god of Christianity, are ascribed logically inconsistent qualities. Such atheists present deductive arguments against the existence of God, which assert the incompatibility between certain traits, such as perfection, creator-status, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, transcendence, personhood (a personal being), nonphysicality, justice, and mercy.[15]

Theodicean atheists believe that the world as they experience it cannot be reconciled with the qualities commonly ascribed to God and gods by theologians. They argue that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God is not compatible with a world where there is evil and suffering, and where divine love is hidden from many people.[17] A similar argument is attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism.[67]

Philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach[68] and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud have argued that God and other religious beliefs are human inventions, created to fulfill various psychological and emotional wants or needs. This is also a view of many Buddhists.[69]Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, influenced by the work of Feuerbach, argued that belief in God and religion are social functions, used by those in power to oppress the working class. According to Mikhail Bakunin, "the idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, in theory and practice." He reversed Voltaire's famous aphorism that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him, writing instead that "if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."[70]

Atheism is coherent with some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Syntheism, Ralism,[71] and Neopagan movements[72] such as Wicca.[73]stika schools in Hinduism hold atheism to be a valid path to moksha, but extremely difficult, for the atheist can not expect any help from the divine on their journey.[74] Jainism believes the universe is eternal and has no need for a creator deity, however Tirthankaras are revered that can transcend space and time [75] and have more power than the god Indra.[76]Secular Buddhism does not advocate belief in gods. Early Buddhism was atheistic as Gautama Buddha's path involved no mention of gods. Later conceptions of Buddhism consider Buddha himself a god, suggest adherents can attain godhood, and revere Bodhisattvas[77] and Eternal Buddha.

Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a "higher absolute", such as humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx and Freud used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness.[62] One of the most common criticisms of atheism has been to the contrarythat denying the existence of a god leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation,[78] or renders life meaningless and miserable.[79]Blaise Pascal argued this view in his Penses.[80]

French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre identified himself as a representative of an "atheist existentialism" concerned less with denying the existence of God than with establishing that "man needs... to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God." Sartre said a corollary of his atheism was that "if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and... this being is man." The practical consequence of this atheism was described by Sartre as meaning that there are no a priori rules or absolute values that can be invoked to govern human conduct, and that humans are "condemned" to invent these for themselves, making "man" absolutely "responsible for everything he does".

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief, and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. He found that there are much lower concentrations of atheism and secularity in poorer, less developed nations (particularly in Africa and South America) than in the richer industrialized democracies.[84][85] His findings relating specifically to atheism in the US were that compared to religious people in the US, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, closed-minded, and authoritarian, and in US states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious states, the murder rate is higher than average.[86][87]

People who self-identify as atheists are often assumed to be irreligious, but some sects within major religions reject the existence of a personal, creator deity.[89] In recent years, certain religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as atheistic or humanistic Judaism[90][91] and Christian atheists.[92][93][94]

The strictest sense of positive atheism does not entail any specific beliefs outside of disbelief in any deity; as such, atheists can hold any number of spiritual beliefs. For the same reason, atheists can hold a wide variety of ethical beliefs, ranging from the moral universalism of humanism, which holds that a moral code should be applied consistently to all humans, to moral nihilism, which holds that morality is meaningless.[95]

Philosophers such as Slavoj iek,[96]Alain de Botton,[97] and Alexander Bard and Jan Sderqvist,[98] have all argued that atheists should reclaim religion as an act of defiance against theism, precisely not to leave religion as an unwarranted monopoly to theists.

According to Plato's Euthyphro dilemma, the role of the gods in determining right from wrong is either unnecessary or arbitrary. The argument that morality must be derived from God, and cannot exist without a wise creator, has been a persistent feature of political if not so much philosophical debate.[99][100][101] Moral precepts such as "murder is wrong" are seen as divine laws, requiring a divine lawmaker and judge. However, many atheists argue that treating morality legalistically involves a false analogy, and that morality does not depend on a lawmaker in the same way that laws do.[102]Friedrich Nietzsche believed in a morality independent of theistic belief, and stated that morality based upon God "has truth only if God is truthit stands or falls with faith in God."[103][104][105]

There exist normative ethical systems that do not require principles and rules to be given by a deity. Some include virtue ethics, social contract, Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, and Objectivism. Sam Harris has proposed that moral prescription (ethical rule making) is not just an issue to be explored by philosophy, but that we can meaningfully practice a science of morality. Any such scientific system must, nevertheless, respond to the criticism embodied in the naturalistic fallacy.[106]

Philosophers Susan Neiman[107] and Julian Baggini[108] (among others) assert that behaving ethically only because of divine mandate is not true ethical behavior but merely blind obedience. Baggini argues that atheism is a superior basis for ethics, claiming that a moral basis external to religious imperatives is necessary to evaluate the morality of the imperatives themselvesto be able to discern, for example, that "thou shalt steal" is immoral even if one's religion instructs itand that atheists, therefore, have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations.[109] The contemporary British political philosopher Martin Cohen has offered the more historically telling example of Biblical injunctions in favor of torture and slavery as evidence of how religious injunctions follow political and social customs, rather than vice versa, but also noted that the same tendency seems to be true of supposedly dispassionate and objective philosophers.[110] Cohen extends this argument in more detail in Political Philosophy from Plato to Mao, where he argues that the Qur'an played a role in perpetuating social codes from the early 7th century despite changes in secular society.[111]

Some prominent atheistsmost recently Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins, and following such thinkers as Bertrand Russell, Robert G. Ingersoll, Voltaire, and novelist Jos Saramagohave criticized religions, citing harmful aspects of religious practices and doctrines.[112]

The 19th-century German political theorist and sociologist Karl Marx called religion "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". He goes on to say, "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."[113]Lenin said that "every religious idea and every idea of God is unutterable vileness... of the most dangerous kind, 'contagion' of the most abominable kind. Millions of sins, filthy deeds, acts of violence and physical contagions... are far less dangerous than the subtle, spiritual idea of God decked out in the smartest ideological constumes..."[114]

Sam Harris criticizes Western religion's reliance on divine authority as lending itself to authoritarianism and dogmatism. There is a correlation between religious fundamentalism and extrinsic religion (when religion is held because it serves ulterior interests)[116] and authoritarianism, dogmatism, and prejudice.[117] These argumentscombined with historical events that are argued to demonstrate the dangers of religion, such as the Crusades, inquisitions, witch trials, and terrorist attackshave been used in response to claims of beneficial effects of belief in religion.[118] Believers counter-argue that some regimes that espouse atheism, such as the Soviet Union, have also been guilty of mass murder.[119][120] In response to those claims, atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have stated that Stalin's atrocities were influenced not by atheism but by dogmatic Marxism, and that while Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists, they did not do their deeds in the name of atheism.[122]

In early ancient Greek, the adjective theos (, from the privative - + "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term (asebs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render theos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also (atheots), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin theos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[12]

The term atheist (from Fr. athe), in the sense of "one who... denies the existence of God or gods",[124] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[125] and again in 1571.[126]Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[127] The term atheism was derived from the French athisme,[128] and appears in English about 1587.[129] An earlier work, from about 1534, used the term atheonism.[130][131] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[132]theist in 1662,[133]deism in 1675,[134] and theism in 1678.[135] At that time "deist" and "deism" already carried their modern meaning. The term theism came to be contrasted with deism.

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."

Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[136] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".

While the earliest-found usage of the term atheism is in 16th-century France,[128][129] ideas that would be recognized today as atheistic are documented from the Vedic period and the classical antiquity.

Atheistic schools are found in early Indian thought and have existed from the times of the historical Vedic religion.[137] Among the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, Samkhya, the oldest philosophical school of thought, does not accept God, and the early Mimamsa also rejected the notion of God.[138] The thoroughly materialistic and anti-theistic philosophical Crvka (or Lokyata) school that originated in India around the 6th century BCE is probably the most explicitly atheistic school of philosophy in India, similar to the Greek Cyrenaic school. This branch of Indian philosophy is classified as heterodox due to its rejection of the authority of Vedas and hence is not considered part of the six orthodox schools of Hinduism, but it is noteworthy as evidence of a materialistic movement within Hinduism.[139] Chatterjee and Datta explain that our understanding of Crvka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of the ideas by other schools, and that it is not a living tradition:

"Though materialism in some form or other has always been present in India, and occasional references are found in the Vedas, the Buddhistic literature, the Epics, as well as in the later philosophical works we do not find any systematic work on materialism, nor any organized school of followers as the other philosophical schools possess. But almost every work of the other schools states, for refutation, the materialistic views. Our knowledge of Indian materialism is chiefly based on these."[140]

Other Indian philosophies generally regarded as atheistic include Classical Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa. The rejection of a personal creator God is also seen in Jainism and Buddhism in India.[141]

Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment.[142] The 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist",[143] and is cited as such by Cicero in his De Natura Deorum.[144]Atomists such as Democritus attempted to explain the world in a purely materialistic way, without reference to the spiritual or mystical. Critias viewed religion as a human invention used to frighten people into following moral order[145] and Prodicus also appears to have made clear atheistic statements in his work. Philodemus reports that Prodicus believed that "the gods of popular belief do not exist nor do they know, but primitive man, [out of admiration, deified] the fruits of the earth and virtually everything that contributed to his existence". Protagoras has sometimes been taken to be an atheist but rather espoused agnostic views, commenting that "Concerning the gods I am unable to discover whether they exist or not, or what they are like in form; for there are many hindrances to knowledge, the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life."[146] In the 3rd-century BCE the Greek philosophers Theodorus Cyrenaicus[144][147] and Strato of Lampsacus[148] did not believe in the existence of gods.

Socrates (c. 470399 BCE) was associated in the Athenian public mind with the trends in pre-Socratic philosophy towards naturalistic inquiry and the rejection of divine explanations for phenomena. Although such an interpretation misrepresents his thought he was portrayed in such a way in Aristophanes' comic play Clouds and was later to be tried and executed for impiety and corrupting the young. At his trial Socrates is reported as vehemently denying that he was an atheist and contemporary scholarship provides little reason to doubt this claim.[149][150]

Euhemerus (c. 300 BCE) published his view that the gods were only the deified rulers, conquerors and founders of the past, and that their cults and religions were in essence the continuation of vanished kingdoms and earlier political structures.[151] Although not strictly an atheist, Euhemerus was later criticized for having "spread atheism over the whole inhabited earth by obliterating the gods".[152]

Also important in the history of atheism was Epicurus (c. 300 BCE). Drawing on the ideas of Democritus and the Atomists, he espoused a materialistic philosophy according to which the universe was governed by the laws of chance without the need for divine intervention (see scientific determinism). Although he stated that deities existed, he believed that they were uninterested in human existence. The aim of the Epicureans was to attain peace of mind and one important way of doing this was by exposing fear of divine wrath as irrational. The Epicureans also denied the existence of an afterlife and the need to fear divine punishment after death.[153]

The Roman philosopher Sextus Empiricus held that one should suspend judgment about virtually all beliefsa form of skepticism known as Pyrrhonismthat nothing was inherently evil, and that ataraxia ("peace of mind") is attainable by withholding one's judgment. His relatively large volume of surviving works had a lasting influence on later philosophers.[154]

The meaning of "atheist" changed over the course of classical antiquity. The early Christians were labeled atheists by non-Christians because of their disbelief in pagan gods.[155] During the Roman Empire, Christians were executed for their rejection of the Roman gods in general and Emperor-worship in particular. When Christianity became the state religion of Rome under Theodosius I in 381, heresy became a punishable offense.[156]

During the Early Middle Ages, the Islamic world underwent a Golden Age. With the associated advances in science and philosophy, Arab and Persian lands produced outspoken rationalists and atheists, including Muhammad al Warraq (fl. 9th century), Ibn al-Rawandi (827911), Al-Razi (854925), and Al-Maarri (9731058). Al-Ma'arri wrote and taught that religion itself was a "fable invented by the ancients"[157] and that humans were "of two sorts: those with brains, but no religion, and those with religion, but no brains."[158] Despite being relatively prolific writers, nearly none of their writing survives to the modern day, most of what little remains being preserved through quotations and excerpts in later works by Muslim apologists attempting to refute them.[159] Other prominent Golden Age scholars have been associated with rationalist thought and atheism as well, although the current intellectual atmosphere in the Islamic world, and the scant evidence that survives from the era, make this point a contentious one today.

In Europe, the espousal of atheistic views was rare during the Early Middle Ages and Middle Ages (see Medieval Inquisition); metaphysics and theology were the dominant interests pertaining to religion.[160] There were, however, movements within this period that furthered heterodox conceptions of the Christian god, including differing views of the nature, transcendence, and knowability of God. Individuals and groups such as Johannes Scotus Eriugena, David of Dinant, Amalric of Bena, and the Brethren of the Free Spirit maintained Christian viewpoints with pantheistic tendencies. Nicholas of Cusa held to a form of fideism he called docta ignorantia ("learned ignorance"), asserting that God is beyond human categorization, and thus our knowledge of him is limited to conjecture. William of Ockham inspired anti-metaphysical tendencies with his nominalistic limitation of human knowledge to singular objects, and asserted that the divine essence could not be intuitively or rationally apprehended by human intellect. Followers of Ockham, such as John of Mirecourt and Nicholas of Autrecourt furthered this view. The resulting division between faith and reason influenced later radical and reformist theologians such as John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and Martin Luther.[160]

The Renaissance did much to expand the scope of free thought and skeptical inquiry. Individuals such as Leonardo da Vinci sought experimentation as a means of explanation, and opposed arguments from religious authority. Other critics of religion and the Church during this time included Niccol Machiavelli, Bonaventure des Priers, Michel de Montaigne, and Franois Rabelais.[154]

Historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that the Reformation had paved the way for atheists by attacking the authority of the Catholic Church, which in turn "quietly inspired other thinkers to attack the authority of the new Protestant churches".[161]Deism gained influence in France, Prussia, and England. The philosopher Baruch Spinoza was "probably the first well known 'semi-atheist' to announce himself in a Christian land in the modern era", according to Blainey. Spinoza believed that natural laws explained the workings of the universe. In 1661 he published his Short Treatise on God.[162]

Criticism of Christianity became increasingly frequent in the 17th and 18th centuries, especially in France and England, where there appears to have been a religious malaise, according to contemporary sources. Some Protestant thinkers, such as Thomas Hobbes, espoused a materialist philosophy and skepticism toward supernatural occurrences, while Spinoza rejected divine providence in favor of a panentheistic naturalism. By the late 17th century, deism came to be openly espoused by intellectuals such as John Toland who coined the term "pantheist".[163]

The first known explicit atheist was the German critic of religion Matthias Knutzen in his three writings of 1674.[164] He was followed by two other explicit atheist writers, the Polish ex-Jesuit philosopher Kazimierz yszczyski and in the 1720s by the French priest Jean Meslier.[165] In the course of the 18th century, other openly atheistic thinkers followed, such as Baron d'Holbach, Jacques-Andr Naigeon, and other French materialists.[166]John Locke in contrast, though an advocate of tolerance, urged authorities not to tolerate atheism, believing that the denial of God's existence would undermine the social order and lead to chaos.[167]

The philosopher David Hume developed a skeptical epistemology grounded in empiricism, and Immanuel Kant's philosophy has strongly questioned the very possibility of a metaphysical knowledge. Both philosophers undermined the metaphysical basis of natural theology and criticized classical arguments for the existence of God.

Blainey notes that, although Voltaire is widely considered to have strongly contributed to atheistic thinking during the Revolution, he also considered fear of God to have discouraged further disorder, having said "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."[168] In Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), the philosopher Edmund Burke denounced atheism, writing of a "literary cabal" who had "some years ago formed something like a regular plan for the destruction of the Christian religion. This object they pursued with a degree of zeal which hitherto had been discovered only in the propagators of some system of piety... These atheistical fathers have a bigotry of their own...". But, Burke asserted, "man is by his constitution a religious animal" and "atheism is against, not only our reason, but our instincts; and... it cannot prevail long".[169]

Baron d'Holbach was a prominent figure in the French Enlightenment who is best known for his atheism and for his voluminous writings against religion, the most famous of them being The System of Nature (1770) but also Christianity Unveiled. One goal of the French Revolution was a restructuring and subordination of the clergy with respect to the state through the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Attempts to enforce it led to anti-clerical violence and the expulsion of many clergy from France, lasting until the Thermidorian Reaction. The radical Jacobins seized power in 1793, ushering in the Reign of Terror. The Jacobins were deists and introduced the Cult of the Supreme Being as a new French state religion. Some atheists surrounding Jacques Hbert instead sought to establish a Cult of Reason, a form of atheistic pseudo-religion with a goddess personifying reason. The Napoleonic era further institutionalized the secularization of French society.

In the latter half of the 19th century, atheism rose to prominence under the influence of rationalistic and freethinking philosophers. Many prominent German philosophers of this era denied the existence of deities and were critical of religion, including Ludwig Feuerbach, Arthur Schopenhauer, Max Stirner, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche.[170]

George Holyoake was the last person (1842) imprisoned in Great Britain due to atheist beliefs.[171]Stephen Law states that Holyoake "first coined the term 'secularism'".[172]

Atheism in the 20th century, particularly in the form of practical atheism, advanced in many societies. Atheistic thought found recognition in a wide variety of other, broader philosophies, such as existentialism, objectivism, secular humanism, nihilism, anarchism, logical positivism, Marxism, feminism,[173] and the general scientific and rationalist movement.

In addition, state atheism emerged in Eastern Europe and Asia during that period, particularly in the Soviet Union under Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, and in Communist China under Mao Zedong. Atheist and anti-religious policies in the Soviet Union included numerous legislative acts, the outlawing of religious instruction in the schools, and the emergence of the League of Militant Atheists.[174][175] After Mao, the Chinese Communist Party remains an atheist organization, and regulates, but does not completely forbid, the practice of religion in mainland China.[176][177][178]

While Geoffrey Blainey has written that "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity",[179] Richard Madsen has pointed out that Hitler and Stalin each opened and closed churches as a matter of political expedience, and Stalin softened his opposition to Christianity in order to improve public acceptance of his regime during the war.[180] Blackford and Schklenk have written that "the Soviet Union was undeniably an atheist state, and the same applies to Maoist China and Pol Pot's fanatical Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the 1970s. That does not, however, show that the atrocities committed by these totalitarian dictatorships were the result of atheist beliefs, carried out in the name of atheism, or caused primarily by the atheistic aspects of the relevant forms of communism."[181]

Logical positivism and scientism paved the way for neopositivism, analytical philosophy, structuralism, and naturalism. Neopositivism and analytical philosophy discarded classical rationalism and metaphysics in favor of strict empiricism and epistemological nominalism. Proponents such as Bertrand Russell emphatically rejected belief in God. In his early work, Ludwig Wittgenstein attempted to separate metaphysical and supernatural language from rational discourse. A. J. Ayer asserted the unverifiability and meaninglessness of religious statements, citing his adherence to the empirical sciences. Relatedly the applied structuralism of Lvi-Strauss sourced religious language to the human subconscious in denying its transcendental meaning. J. N. Findlay and J. J. C. Smart argued that the existence of God is not logically necessary. Naturalists and materialistic monists such as John Dewey considered the natural world to be the basis of everything, denying the existence of God or immortality.[53][182]

Other leaders like Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, a prominent atheist leader of India, fought against Hinduism and Brahmins for discriminating and dividing people in the name of caste and religion.[183] This was highlighted in 1956 when he arranged for the erection of a statue depicting a Hindu god in a humble representation and made antitheistic statements.[184]

Atheist Vashti McCollum was the plaintiff in a landmark 1948 Supreme Court case that struck down religious education in US public schools.[185]Madalyn Murray O'Hair was perhaps one of the most influential American atheists; she brought forth the 1963 Supreme Court case Murray v. Curlett which banned compulsory prayer in public schools.[186] In 1966, Time magazine asked "Is God Dead?"[187] in response to the Death of God theological movement, citing the estimation that nearly half of all people in the world lived under an anti-religious power, and millions more in Africa, Asia, and South America seemed to lack knowledge of the Christian view of theology.[188] The Freedom From Religion Foundation was co-founded by Anne Nicol Gaylor and her daughter, Annie Laurie Gaylor, in 1976 in the United States, and incorporated nationally in 1978. It promotes the separation of church and state.[189][190]

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the number of actively anti-religious regimes has reduced considerably. In 2006, Timothy Shah of the Pew Forum noted "a worldwide trend across all major religious groups, in which God-based and faith-based movements in general are experiencing increasing confidence and influence vis--vis secular movements and ideologies."[191] However, Gregory S. Paul and Phil Zuckerman consider this a myth and suggest that the actual situation is much more complex and nuanced.[192]

A 2010 survey found that those identifying themselves as atheists or agnostics are on average more knowledgeable about religion than followers of major faiths. Nonbelievers scored better on questions about tenets central to Protestant and Catholic faiths. Only Mormon and Jewish faithful scored as well as atheists and agnostics.[193]

In 2012, the first "Women in Secularism" conference was held in Arlington, Virginia.[194] Secular Woman was organized in 2012 as a national organization focused on nonreligious women.[195] The atheist feminist movement has also become increasingly focused on fighting sexism and sexual harassment within the atheist movement itself.[196] In August 2012, Jennifer McCreight (the organizer of Boobquake) founded a movement within atheism known as Atheism Plus, or A+, that "applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime".[197][198][199]

In 2013 the first atheist monument on American government property was unveiled at the Bradford County Courthouse in Florida: a 1,500-pound granite bench and plinth inscribed with quotes by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Madalyn Murray O'Hair.[200][201]

"New Atheism" is the name that has been given to a movement among some early-21st-century atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."[202] The movement is commonly associated with Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor J. Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens.[203] Several best-selling books by these authors, published between 2004 and 2007, form the basis for much of the discussion of "New" Atheism.

These atheists generally seek to disassociate themselves from the mass political atheism that gained ascendency in various nations in the 20th century. In best selling books, the religiously motivated terrorist events of 9/11 and the partially successful attempts of the Discovery Institute to change the American science curriculum to include creationist ideas, together with support for those ideas from George W. Bush in 2005, have been cited by authors such as Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, Stenger, and Hitchens as evidence of a need to move society towards atheism.[205]

It is difficult to quantify the number of atheists in the world. Respondents to religious-belief polls may define "atheism" differently or draw different distinctions between atheism, non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs.[206] A Hindu atheist would declare oneself as a Hindu, although also being an atheist at the same time.[207] A 2010 survey published in Encyclopdia Britannica found that the non-religious made up about 9.6% of the world's population, and atheists about 2.0%, with a very large majority based in Asia. This figure did not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhists.[208] The average annual change for atheism from 2000 to 2010 was 0.17%.[208] A broad figure estimates the number of atheists and agnostics on Earth at 1.1 billion.[209]

According to global studies done by Gallup International, 13% of respondents were "convinced atheists" in 2012 and 11% were "convinced atheists" in 2015.[24][210] As of 2012, the top ten countries with people who viewed themselves as "convinced atheists" were China (47%), Japan (31%), the Czech Republic (30%), France (29%), South Korea (15%), Germany (15%), Netherlands (14%), Austria (10%), Iceland (10%), Australia (10%), and the Republic of Ireland (10%).[211]

According to the 2010 Eurobarometer Poll, the percentage of those polled who agreed with the statement "you don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force" varied from a high percentage in France (40%), Czech Republic (37%), Sweden (34%), Netherlands (30%), and Estonia (29%); medium-high percentage in Germany (27%), Belgium (27%), UK (25%); to very low in Poland (5%), Greece (4%), Cyprus (3%), Malta (2%), and Romania (1%), with the European Union as a whole at 20%.[28] In a 2012 Eurobarometer poll on discrimination in the European Union, 16% of those polled considered themselves non believers/agnostics and 7% considered themselves atheists.[213]

According to a Pew Research Center survey in 2012 religiously unaffiliated (including agnostics and atheists) make up about 18% of Europeans.[214] According to the same survey, the religiously unaffiliated are the majority of the population only in two European countries: Czech Republic (75%) and Estonia (60%).[214] There are another four countries where the unaffiliated make up a majority of the population: North Korea (71%), Japan (57%), Hong Kong (56%), and China (52%).[214]

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 22% of Australians have "no religion", a category that includes atheists.[215]

In the US, there was a 1% to 5% increase in self-reported atheism from 2005 to 2012, and a larger drop in those who self-identified as "religious", down by 13%, from 73% to 60%.[216] According to the World Values Survey, 4.4% of Americans self-identified as atheists in 2014.[217] However, the same survey showed that 11.1% of all respondents stated "no" when asked if they believed in God.[217] In 1984, these same figures were 1.1% and 2.2%, respectively. According to a 2015 report by the Pew Research Center, 3.1% of the US adult population identify as atheist, up from 1.6% in 2007, and within the religiously unaffiliated (or "no religion") demographic, atheists made up 13.6%.[218] According to the 2015 General Sociological Survey the number of atheists and agnostics in the US has remained relatively flat in the past 23 years since in 1991 only 2% identified as atheist and 4% identified as agnostic and in 2014 only 3% identified as atheists and 5% identified as agnostics.[219]

In recent years, the profile of atheism has risen substantially in the Arab world.[220] In major cities across the region, such as Cairo, atheists have been organizing in cafs and social media, despite regular crackdowns from authoritarian governments.[220] A 2012 poll by Gallup International revealed that 5% of Saudis considered themselves to be "convinced atheists."[220] However, very few young people in the Arab world have atheists in their circle of friends or acquaintances. According to one study, less than 1% did in Morocco, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, or Jordan; only 3% to 7% in the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Palestine.[221] When asked whether they have "seen or heard traces of atheism in [their] locality, community, and society" only about 3% to 8% responded yes in all the countries surveyed. The only exception was the UAE, with 51%.[221]

A study noted positive correlations between levels of education and secularism, including atheism, in America.[86] According to evolutionary psychologist Nigel Barber, atheism blossoms in places where most people feel economically secure, particularly in the social democracies of Europe, as there is less uncertainty about the future with extensive social safety nets and better health care resulting in a greater quality of life and higher life expectancy. By contrast, in underdeveloped countries, there are virtually no atheists.[222] In a 2008 study, researchers found intelligence to be negatively related to religious belief in Europe and the United States. In a sample of 137 countries, the correlation between national IQ and disbelief in God was found to be 0.60.[223]

Excerpt from:
Atheism - Wikipedia

How many gods don't you believe in?

Those above are just a small sample of gods and goddesses you don't believe in.

It may be of interest to atheists to know how many gods they don't believe in. Let's call the number N.

There are a lot of issues in determining N.

It is estimated that there are 6,700,000,000 people currently living on the Earth and the total number of people who ever lived is 102,000,000,000 (102 billion or 102 thousand million depending on where you come from). It could be argued that everyone's idea of god is different, so this is N. Or, at least, this could be used as an upper bound for N, except that many people were (or are) polytheists. However, if we accept there would be (sometimes quite large) groupings of people with essentially the same religious beliefs, this would lower the estimate for N.

If these two effects roughly cancel each other out, then N = 102,000,000,000 may be a good starting estimate.

Adherents.com claims to have figures for 4,200 religious groups currently existing on Earth.

Using the ratio of current population to the total number of people who have ever lived, we get an estimate of 63,000 religious groups throughout human history. (Only Homo sapiens' religions are being considered. It may well be that other hominids believed in god or gods, but it would be pure guesswork to estimate the number of gods they believed in.)

The modern dominant (that is, have the most adherents) religions are monotheistic, but they are few in number. Wikipedia lists 309 Hindu deities. The ancient Hittites claimed to have 1000 deities in their pantheon. So for a rough estimate of the average number of deities per religion, we'll take the average of these 3 figures, giving 440 deities per religion.

This gives an estimate of N = 28,000,000.

For monotheists, the number of gods they don't believe in will be N-1, which, of course, will be very close to N. If the estimate above is correct, then (in some sense) atheists and monotheists only differ by 0.000036% in their beliefs.

In fact, working to 2 significant figures, even for the ancient Hittites this figure is the same.

More:
How many gods? | Atheism | Fandom powered by Wikia

Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children to accept their families religious beliefs is child abuse. He considers this form of abuse to be more devastatingly and permanently harmful than sexual abuse. In truth, even the atheistic belief that there is no God is a religion.

If someone stabs you in the back, treats you like nothing, steals from you, or lies to you, it doesnt ultimately matter in an atheistic worldview where everything and everyone are just chemical reactions doing what chemicals do

The fact that atheists even bother to congregate to discuss the meaning of life shows just how desperately human beings need the true God. Even when we try to remove God from our lives, we are compelled to fill the void with some other religion. And atheism is undeniably a religious position.

I know theres no God. And one polite person living his life right doesnt change that. How about two, three, maybe four people living right? What if every Christian exuded this type of concern?

The rest is here:
Atheism | Answers in Genesis