Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.atheism.moderated,news.answers,alt.answers
Path: bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!news.ltw.org!news.kei.com!hookup!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!harlqn.co.uk!meta
From: mathew 
Subject: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Summary: Please read this file before posting to alt.atheism
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Sender: meta@harlequin.co.uk (mathew)
Supersedes: 
Organization: Harlequin Ltd, Cambridge, UK
References:  
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 15:32:10 GMT
Approved: news-answers-request@mit.edu
Expires: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 15:31:52 GMT
Lines: 715
Xref: bloom-beacon.mit.edu alt.atheism:134104 alt.atheism.moderated:7319 news.answers:33702 alt.answers:7040

Archive-name: atheism/introduction
Alt-atheism-archive-name: introduction
Last-modified: 3 June 1994
Version: 2.0

                          AN INTRODUCTION TO ATHEISM
                                       
                    Written by mathew 
              with help from Michael Wang 
    
   This article attempts to provide a general introduction to atheism.
   Whilst I have tried to be as neutral as possible regarding contentious
   issues, you should always remember that this document represents only
   one viewpoint. I would encourage you to read widely and draw your own
   conclusions; some relevant books are listed in a companion article.
   
   To provide a sense of cohesion and progression, I have presented this
   article as an imaginary conversation between an atheist and a theist.
   All the questions asked by the imaginary theist are questions which
   have been cropped up repeatedly on alt.atheism since that newsgroup
   was created. Some other frequently asked questions are answered in a
   companion article.
   
   Please note that this article is arguably slanted towards answering
   questions posed from a Christian viewpoint. This is because the FAQ
   files reflect questions which have actually been asked, and it is
   predominantly Christians who proselytize on alt.atheism.
   
   So when I talk of religion, I am talking primarily about religions
   such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which involve some sort of
   superhuman divine being. Much of the discussion will apply to other
   religions, but some of it may not.
   
   [i01] "What is atheism?" 
   
   Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
   gods. Some atheists go further, and believe that particular gods do
   not exist. The former is often referred to as the "weak atheist"
   position, and the latter as "strong atheism".
   
   It is important to note the difference between these two positions.
   "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of
   God. "Strong atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist.
   Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are
   "strong atheists".
   
   Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit
   their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than
   making flat-out denials.
   
   [i02] "But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he
   doesn't exist?" 
   
   Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not
   believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not
   equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea
   whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism.
   
   [i03] "What is agnosticism then?" 
   
   The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor Huxley at a meeting of
   the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone
   who disclaimed ("strong") atheism and believed that the ultimate
   origin of things must be some cause unknown and unknowable. Another
   way of putting it is an agnostic is someone who believes that we do
   not and cannot know for sure whether God exists.
   
   Since that time, however, the term agnostic has also been used to
   describe those that do not believe that the question is intrinsically
   unknowable, but instead believe that the evidence for or against God
   is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.
   
   To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it
   is recommended that usage based on the original definition be
   qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the second
   definition be qualified as "empirical agnosticism".
   
   Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming
   that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply
   from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For
   example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here
   as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to
   "strong atheism".
   
   Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of
   meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all
   you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For
   example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that
   science is the best way to find out about the universe.
   
   [i04] "So what is the philosophical justification or basis for
   atheism?" 
   
   There are many philosophical justifications for atheism. To find out
   why a particular person chooses to be an atheist, it's best to ask
   her.
   
   Many atheists feel that the idea of God as presented by the major
   religions is essentially self-contradictory, and that it is logically
   impossible that such a God could exist. Others are atheists through
   scepticism, because they see no evidence that God exists.
   
   There are a number of books which lay out a philosophical
   justification for atheism, such as Martin's "Atheism: A Philosophical
   Justification" and Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God". A few such
   books are in the document listing "Atheist Resources".
   
   [i05] "But isn't it impossible to prove the non-existence of
   something?" 
   
   There are many counter-examples to such a statement. For example, it
   is quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number
   larger than all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with
   well-defined objects obeying well-defined rules. Whether Gods or
   universes are similarly well-defined is a matter for debate.
   
   However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not
   provably impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the
   non-existence of God. If we assume that something does not exist, it
   is always possible to show that this assumption is invalid by finding
   a single counter-example.
   
   If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the
   thing in question is not provably impossible, showing that the
   assumption is invalid may require an exhaustive search of all possible
   places where such a thing might be found, to show that it isn't there.
   Such an exhaustive search is often impractical or impossible. There is
   no such problem with largest primes, because we can prove that they
   don't exist.
   
   Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not
   exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this
   rule most of the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though
   they can't conclusively prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.
   
   To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably
   cannot be tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere
   God might be to prove that he doesn't exist anywhere. So the sceptical
   atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an
   assumption we can test.
   
   Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of
   God exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to
   cover varieties of God described by followers of various religions. So
   whilst it may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists,
   it may be possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a
   particular religious book does not exist. It may even be possible to
   prove that no God described by any present-day religion exists.
   
   In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is
   very close to believing that no God exists. However, it is
   sufficiently different that counter-arguments based on the
   impossibility of disproving every kind of God are not really
   applicable.
   
   [i06] "But what if God is essentially non-detectable?" 
   
   If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his
   interaction must be measurable. Hence his interaction with our
   universe must be detectable.
   
   If God is essentially non-detectable, it must therefore be the case
   that he does not interact with our universe in any way. Many atheists
   would argue that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it
   is of no importance whether he exists or not.
   
   If the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the
   Israelites. Surely he should still be detectable today?
   
   Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically
   verifiable, physical way. It must surely be possible to perceive some
   effect caused by his presence, though; otherwise, how can I
   distinguish him from all the other things that don't exist?
   
   [i07] "What if I managed to logically prove that he exists?" 
   
   Even after centuries of effort, nobody has come up with a watertight
   logical proof of the existence of God. In spite of this, however,
   people often feel that they can logically prove that God exists.
   
   Unfortunately, reality is not decided by logic. Even if you could
   rigorously prove that God exists, it wouldn't actually get you very
   far. It could be that your logical rules do not always preserve truth
   -- that your system of logic is flawed. It could be that your premises
   are wrong. It could even be that reality is not logically consistent.
   In the end, the only way to find out what is really going on is to
   observe it. Logic can merely give you an idea where or how to look;
   and most logical arguments about God don't even perform that task.
   
   Logic is a useful tool for analyzing data and inferring what is going
   on; but if logic and reality disagree, reality wins.
   
   [i08] "OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for
   atheism, but isn't it still a religious belief?" 
   
   One of the most common pastimes in philosophical discussion is "the
   redefinition game". The cynical view of this game is as follows:
   
   Person A begins by making a contentious statement. When person B
   points out that it can't be true, person A gradually re-defines the
   words he used in the statement until he arrives at something person B
   is prepared to accept. He then records the statement, along with the
   fact that person B has agreed to it, and continues. Eventually A uses
   the statement as an "agreed fact", but uses his original definitions
   of all the words in it rather than the obscure redefinitions
   originally needed to get B to agree to it. Rather than be seen to be
   apparently inconsistent, B will tend to play along.
   
   The point of this digression is that the answer to the question "Isn't
   atheism a religious belief?" depends crucially upon what is meant by
   "religious". "Religion" is generally characterized by belief in a
   superhuman controlling power -- especially in some sort of God -- and
   by faith and worship.
   
   (It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism
   are not "religion" according to such a definition.)
   
   Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor
   is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the
   definition of "religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many
   other aspects of human behaviour suddenly becoming classed as
   "religious" as well -- such as science, politics, and watching TV.
   
   [i09] "OK, so it's not a religion. But surely belief in atheism (or
   science) is still just an act of faith, like religion is?" 
   
   Firstly, it's not entirely clear that sceptical atheism is something
   one actually believes in.
   
   Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or
   assumptions to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we
   experience. Most atheists try to adopt as few core beliefs as
   possible; and even those are subject to questioning if experience
   throws them into doubt.
   
   Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally
   assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. These
   are the sort of core assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas
   are called "acts of faith", then almost everything we know must be
   said to be based on acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.
   
   Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in
   something. According to such a definition, atheism and science are
   certainly not acts of faith. Of course, individual atheists or
   scientists can be as dogmatic as religious followers when claiming
   that something is "certain". This is not a general tendency, however;
   there are many atheists who would be reluctant to state with certainty
   that the universe exists.
   
   Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or
   proof. Sceptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as
   sceptical atheism has no beliefs. Strong atheism is closer, but still
   doesn't really match, as even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to
   refer to experimental data (or the lack of it) when asserting that God
   does not exist.
   
   [i10] "If atheism is not religious, surely it's anti-religious?" 
   
   It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for"
   or "against", "friend" or "enemy". The truth is not so clear-cut.
   
   Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism; in that
   sense, it can be said to be "anti-religion". However, when religious
   believers speak of atheists being "anti-religious" they usually mean
   that the atheists have some sort of antipathy or hatred towards
   theists.
   
   This categorization of atheists as hostile towards religion is quite
   unfair. Atheist attitudes towards theists in fact cover a broad
   spectrum.
   
   Most atheists take a "live and let live" attitude. Unless questioned,
   they will not usually mention their atheism, except perhaps to close
   friends. Of course, this may be in part because atheism is not
   "socially acceptable" in many countries.
   
   A few atheists are quite anti-religious, and may even try to "convert"
   others when possible. Historically, such anti-religious atheists have
   made little impact on society outside the Eastern Bloc countries.
   
   (To digress slightly: the Soviet Union was originally dedicated to
   separation of church and state, just like the USA. Soviet citizens
   were legally free to worship as they wished. The institution of "state
   atheism" came about when Stalin took control of the Soviet Union and
   tried to destroy the churches in order to gain complete power over the
   population.)
   
   Some atheists are quite vocal about their beliefs, but only where they
   see religion encroaching on matters which are not its business -- for
   example, the government of the USA. Such individuals are usually
   concerned that church and state should remain separate.
   
   [i11] "But if you don't allow religion to have a say in the running
   of the state, surely that's the same as state atheism?" 
   
   The principle of the separation of church and state is that the state
   shall not legislate concerning matters of religious belief. In
   particular, it means not only that the state cannot promote one
   religion at the expense of another, but also that it cannot promote
   any belief which is religious in nature.
   
   Religions can still have a say in discussion of purely secular
   matters. For example, religious believers have historically been
   responsible for encouraging many political reforms. Even today, many
   organizations campaigning for an increase in spending on foreign aid
   are founded as religious campaigns. So long as they campaign
   concerning secular matters, and so long as they do not discriminate on
   religious grounds, most atheists are quite happy to see them have
   their say.
   
   [i12] "What about prayer in schools? If there's no God, why do you
   care if people pray?" 
   
   Because people who do pray are voters and lawmakers, and tend to do
   things that those who don't pray can't just ignore. Also, Christian
   prayer in schools is intimidating to non-Christians, even if they are
   told that they need not join in. The diversity of religious and
   non-religious belief means that it is impossible to formulate a
   meaningful prayer that will be acceptable to all those present at any
   public event.
   
   Also, non-prayers tend to have friends and family who pray. It is
   reasonable to care about friends and family wasting their time, even
   without other motives.
   
   [i13] "You mentioned Christians who campaign for increased foreign
   aid. What about atheists? Why aren't there any atheist charities or
   hospitals? Don't atheists object to the religious charities?" 
   
   There are many charities without religious purpose that atheists can
   contribute to. Some atheists contribute to religious charities as
   well, for the sake of the practical good they do. Some atheists even
   do voluntary work for charities founded on a theistic basis.
   
   Most atheists seem to feel that atheism isn't worth shouting about in
   connection with charity. To them, atheism is just a simple, obvious
   everyday matter, and so is charity. Many feel that it's somewhat
   cheap, not to say self-righteous, to use simple charity as an excuse
   to plug a particular set of religious beliefs.
   
   To "weak" atheists, building a hospital to say "I do not believe in
   God" is a rather strange idea; it's rather like holding a party to say
   "Today is not my birthday". Why the fuss? Atheism is rarely
   evangelistic.
   
   [i14] "You said atheism isn't anti-religious. But is it perhaps a
   backlash against one's upbringing, a way of rebelling?" 
   
   Perhaps it is, for some. But many people have parents who do not
   attempt to force any religious (or atheist) ideas upon them, and many
   of those people choose to call themselves atheists.
   
   It's also doubtless the case that some religious people chose religion
   as a backlash against an atheist upbringing, as a way of being
   different. On the other hand, many people choose religion as a way of
   conforming to the expectations of others.
   
   On the whole, we can't conclude much about whether atheism or religion
   are backlash or conformism; although in general, people have a
   tendency to go along with a group rather than act or think
   independently.
   
   [i15] "How do atheists differ from religious people?" 
   
   They don't believe in God. That's all there is to it.
   
   Atheists may listen to heavy metal -- backwards, even -- or they may
   prefer a Verdi Requiem, even if they know the words. They may wear
   Hawaiian shirts, they may dress all in black, they may even wear
   orange robes. (Many Buddhists lack a belief in any sort of God.) Some
   atheists even carry a copy of the Bible around -- for arguing against,
   of course!
   
   Whoever you are, the chances are you have met several atheists without
   realising it. Atheists are usually unexceptional in behaviour and
   appearance.
   
   [i16] "Unexceptional? But aren't atheists less moral than religious
   people?" 
   
   That depends. If you define morality as obedience to God, then of
   course atheists are less moral as they don't obey any God. But usually
   when one talks of morality, one talks of what is acceptable ("right")
   and unacceptable ("wrong") behaviour within society.
   
   Humans are social animals, and to be maximally successful they must
   co-operate with each other. This is a good enough reason to discourage
   most atheists from "anti-social" or "immoral" behaviour, purely for
   the purposes of self-preservation.
   
   Many atheists behave in a "moral" or "compassionate" way simply
   because they feel a natural tendency to empathize with other humans.
   So why do they care what happens to others? They don't know, they
   simply are that way.
   
   Naturally, there are some people who behave "immorally" and try to use
   atheism to justify their actions. However, there are equally many
   people who behave "immorally" and then try to use religious beliefs to
   justify their actions. For example:
   
     "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Jesus
     Christ came into the world to save sinners... But for that very
     reason, I was shown mercy so that in me... Jesus Christ might
     display His unlimited patience as an example for those who would
     believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the king eternal,
     immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and
     ever."
     
   The above quote is from a statement made to the court on February 17th
   1992 by Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer of
   Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It seems that for every atheist mass-murderer,
   there is a religious mass-murderer. But what of more trivial morality?
   
     A survey conducted by the Roper Organization found that behavior
     deteriorated after "born again" experiences. While only 4% of
     respondents said they had driven intoxicated before being "born
     again," 12% had done so after conversion. Similarly, 5% had used
     illegal drugs before conversion, 9% after. Two percent admitted to
     engaging in illicit sex before salvation; 5% after. ["Freethought
     Today", September 1991, p. 12.]
     
   So it seems that at best, religion does not have a monopoly on moral
   behaviour.
   
   Of course, a great many people are converted to (and from)
   Christianity during adolescence and their early twenties. This is also
   the time at which people begin to drink and become sexually active. It
   could be that the above figures merely indicate that Christianity has
   no effect on moral behaviour, or insufficient effect to result in an
   overall fall in immoral behaviour.
   
   [i17] "Is there such a thing as atheist morality?" 
   
   If you mean "Is there such a thing as morality for atheists?", then
   the answer is yes, as explained above. Many atheists have ideas about
   morality which are at least as strong as those held by religious
   people.
   
   If you mean "Does atheism have a characteristic moral code?", then the
   answer is no. Atheism by itself does not imply anything much about how
   a person will behave. Most atheists follow many of the same "moral
   rules" as theists, but for different reasons. Atheists view morality
   as something created by humans, according to the way humans feel the
   world 'ought' to work, rather than seeing it as a set of rules decreed
   by a supernatural being.
   
   [i18] "Then aren't atheists just theists who are denying God?" 
   
   A study by the Freedom From Religion Foundation found that over 90% of
   the atheists who responded became atheists because religion did not
   work for them. They had found that religious beliefs were
   fundamentally incompatible with what they observed around them.
   
   Atheists are not unbelievers through ignorance or denial; they are
   unbelievers through choice. The vast majority of them have spent time
   studying one or more religions, sometimes in very great depth. They
   have made a careful and considered decision to reject religious
   beliefs.
   
   This decision may, of course, be an inevitable consequence of that
   individual's personality. For a naturally sceptical person, the choice
   of atheism is often the only one that makes sense, and hence the only
   choice that person can honestly make.
   
   [i19] "But don't atheists want to believe in God?" 
   
   Atheists live their lives as though there is nobody watching over
   them. Many of them have no desire to be watched over, no matter how
   good-natured the "Big Brother" figure might be.
   
   Some atheists would like to be able to believe in God -- but so what?
   Should one believe things merely because one wants them to be true?
   The risks of such an approach should be obvious. Atheists often decide
   that wanting to believe something is not enough; there must be
   evidence for the belief.
   
   [i20] "But of course atheists see no evidence for the existence of
   God -- they are unwilling in their souls to see!" 
   
   Many, if not most atheists were previously religious. As has been
   explained above, the vast majority have seriously considered the
   possibility that God exists. Many atheists have spent time in prayer
   trying to reach God.
   
   Of course, it is true that some atheists lack an open mind; but
   assuming that all atheists are biased and insincere is offensive and
   closed-minded. Comments such as "Of course God is there, you just
   aren't looking properly" are likely to be viewed as patronizing.
   
   Certainly, if you wish to engage in philosophical debate with atheists
   it is vital that you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume
   that they are being sincere if they say that they have searched for
   God. If you are not willing to believe that they are basically telling
   the truth, debate is futile.
   
   [i21] "Isn't the whole of life completely pointless to an atheist?" 
   
   Many atheists live a purposeful life. They decide what they think
   gives meaning to life, and they pursue those goals. They try to make
   their lives count, not by wishing for eternal life, but by having an
   influence on other people who will live on. For example, an atheist
   may dedicate his life to political reform, in the hope of leaving his
   mark on history.
   
   It is a natural human tendency to look for "meaning" or "purpose" in
   random events. However, it is by no means obvious that "life" is the
   sort of thing that has a "meaning".
   
   To put it another way, not everything which looks like a question is
   actually a sensible thing to ask. Some atheists believe that asking
   "What is the meaning of life?" is as silly as asking "What is the
   meaning of a cup of coffee?". They believe that life has no purpose or
   meaning, it just is.
   
   Also, if some sort of mystical external force is required to give
   one's existence a "meaning", surely that makes any hypothetical god's
   existence meaningless?
   
   [i22] "So how do atheists find comfort in time of danger?" 
   
   There are many ways of obtaining comfort; from family, friends, or
   even pets. Or on a less spiritual level, from food or drink or TV.
   
   That may sound rather an empty and vulnerable way to face danger, but
   so what? Should individuals believe in things because they are
   comforting, or should they face reality no matter how harsh it might
   be?
   
   In the end, it's a decision for the individual concerned. Most
   atheists are unable to believe something they would not otherwise
   believe merely because it makes them feel comfortable. They put truth
   before comfort, and consider that if searching for truth sometimes
   makes them feel unhappy, that's just hard luck.
   
   [i23] "Don't atheists worry that they might suddenly be shown to be
   wrong?" 
   
   The short answer is "No, do you?"
   
   Many atheists have been atheists for years. They have encountered many
   arguments and much supposed evidence for the existence of God, but
   they have found all of it to be invalid or inconclusive.
   
   Thousands of years of religious belief haven't resulted in any good
   proof of the existence of God. Atheists therefore tend to feel that
   they are unlikely to be proved wrong in the immediate future, and they
   stop worrying about it.
   
   [i24] "So why should theists question their beliefs? Don't the same
   arguments apply?" 
   
   No, because the beliefs being questioned are not similar. Weak atheism
   is the sceptical "default position" to take; it asserts nothing.
   Strong atheism is a negative belief. Theism is a very strong positive
   belief.
   
   Atheists sometimes also argue that theists should question their
   beliefs because of the very real harm they can cause -- not just to
   the believers, but to everyone else.
   
   [i25] "What sort of harm?" 
   
   Religion represents a huge financial and work burden on mankind. It's
   not just a matter of religious believers wasting their money on church
   buildings; think of all the time and effort spent building churches,
   praying, and so on. Imagine how that effort could be better spent.
   
   Many theists believe in miracle healing. There have been plenty of
   instances of ill people being "healed" by a priest, ceasing to take
   the medicines prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result.
   Some theists have died because they have refused blood transfusions on
   religious grounds.
   
   It is arguable that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control
   -- and condoms in particular -- is increasing the problem of
   overpopulation in many third-world countries and contributing to the
   spread of AIDS world-wide.
   
   Religious believers have been known to murder their children rather
   than allow their children to become atheists or marry someone of a
   different religion.
   
   [i26] "Those weren't real believers. They just claimed to be
   believers as some sort of excuse." 
   
   What makes a real believer? There are so many One True Religions it's
   hard to tell. Look at Christianity: there are many competing groups,
   all convinced that they are the only true Christians. Sometimes they
   even fight and kill each other. How is an atheist supposed to decide
   who's a real Christian and who isn't, when even the major Christian
   churches like the Catholic Church and the Church of England can't
   decide amongst themselves?
   
   In the end, most atheists take a pragmatic view, and decide that
   anyone who calls himself a Christian, and uses Christian belief or
   dogma to justify his actions, should be considered a Christian. Maybe
   some of those Christians are just perverting Christian teaching for
   their own ends -- but surely if the Bible can be so readily used to
   support un-Christian acts it can't be much of a moral code? If the
   Bible is the word of God, why couldn't he have made it less easy to
   misinterpret? And how do you know that your beliefs aren't a
   perversion of what your God intended?
   
   If there is no single unambiguous interpretation of the Bible, then
   why should an atheist take one interpretation over another just on
   your say-so? Sorry, but if someone claims that he believes in Jesus
   and that he murdered others because Jesus and the Bible told him to do
   so, we must call him a Christian.
   
   [i27] "Obviously those extreme sorts of beliefs should be questioned.
   But since nobody has ever proved that God does not exist, it must be
   very unlikely that more basic religious beliefs, shared by all
   faiths, are nonsense." 
   
   That does not hold, because as was pointed out earlier in this
   dialogue, positive assertions concerning the existence of entities are
   inherently much harder to disprove than negative ones. Nobody has ever
   proved that unicorns don't exist, but that doesn't make it unlikely
   that they are myths.
   
   It is therefore much more valid to hold a negative assertion by
   default than it is to hold a positive assertion by default. Of course,
   "weak" atheists would argue that asserting nothing is better still.
   
   [i28] "Well, if atheism's so great, why are there so many theists?" 
   
   Unfortunately, the popularity of a belief has little to do with how
   "correct" it is, or whether it "works"; consider how many people
   believe in astrology, graphology, and other pseudo-sciences.
   
   Many atheists feel that it is simply a human weakness to want to
   believe in gods. Certainly in many primitive human societies, religion
   allows the people to deal with phenomena that they do not adequately
   understand.
   
   Of course, there's more to religion than that. In the industrialized
   world, we find people believing in religious explanations of phenomena
   even when there are perfectly adequate natural explanations. Religion
   may have started as a means of attempting to explain the world, but
   nowadays it serves other purposes as well.
   
   [i29] "But so many cultures have developed religions. Surely that
   must say something?" 
   
   Not really. Most religions are only superficially similar; for
   example, it's worth remembering that religions such as Buddhism and
   Taoism lack any sort of concept of God in the Christian sense.
   
   Of course, most religions are quick to denounce competing religions,
   so it's rather odd to use one religion to try and justify another.
   
   [i30] "What about all the famous scientists and philosophers who have
   concluded that God exists?" 
   
   For every scientist or philosopher who believes in a god, there is one
   who does not. Besides, as has already been pointed out, the truth of a
   belief is not determined by how many people believe it. Also, it is
   important to realize that atheists do not view famous scientists or
   philosophers in the same way that theists view their religious
   leaders.
   
   A famous scientist is only human; she may be an expert in some fields,
   but when she talks about other matters her words carry no special
   weight. Many respected scientists have made themselves look foolish by
   speaking on subjects which lie outside their fields of expertise.
   
   (The Constructing a Logical Argument FAQ has more to say about this.)
   
   [i31] "So are you really saying that widespread belief in religion
   indicates nothing?" 
   
   Not entirely. It certainly indicates that the religion in question has
   properties which have helped it so spread so far.
   
   The theory of memetics talks of "memes" -- sets of ideas which can
   propagate themselves between human minds, by analogy with genes. Some
   atheists view religions as sets of particularly successful parasitic
   memes, which spread by encouraging their hosts to convert others. Some
   memes avoid destruction by discouraging believers from questioning
   doctrine, or by using peer pressure to keep one-time believers from
   admitting that they were mistaken. Some religious memes even encourage
   their hosts to destroy hosts controlled by other memes.
   
   Of course, in the memetic view there is no particular virtue
   associated with successful propagation of a meme. Religion is not a
   good thing because of the number of people who believe it, any more
   than a disease is a good thing because of the number of people who
   have caught it.
   
   [i32] "Even if religion is not entirely true, at least it puts across
   important messages. What are the fundamental messages of atheism?" 
   
   There are many important ideas atheists promote. The following are
   just a few of them; don't be surprised to see ideas which are also
   present in some religions.
     * There is more to moral behaviour than mindlessly following rules.
     * Be especially sceptical of positive claims.
     * If you want your life to have some sort of meaning, it's up to you
       to find it.
     * Search for what is true, even if it makes you uncomfortable.
     * Make the most of your life, as it's probably the only one you'll
       have.
     * It's no good relying on some external power to change you; you
       must change yourself.
     * Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good.
     * If you must assume something, assume something easy to test.
     * Don't believe things just because you want them to be true.
       
   and finally (and most importantly):
     * All beliefs should be open to question.
       
   Thanks for taking the time to read this document.
   
mathew