Ethical Atheism

Atheist are ethical thinkers, religious people are rarely thinkers at all.

Religion Puts an End to Curiosity, and Stifles Scientific Enquiry

September 7th, 2009

The dogmatic nature of religious belief and the simplistic beliefs of the majority of  the faithful who don’t think much about their religion, primes believers with the idea that it is wrong to think. They are told to have faith, which is in other words, to believe without thinking. The reward they get for switching off their thinking is peace of mind, which is actually an excellent reward, and obviously one worth achieving. The punishment they get is that having switched off their critical thinking, they become, as far as independent thought goes,  more sheep than human, and it is ironic that the analogy is also used in the Bible. People are encouraged to be like sheep – to follow without thinking.

As Burns wrote, “The man o’ independant mind, he looks and laughs at a’ that.”

Continue Reading…

by John Bremner

The Cruel Illusion of Prayer

September 7th, 2009

One of the saddest things about religious devotees is the way they pray to their deity for help, thinking there is a supernatural being of some kind listening to them and taking an interest in their affairs. People will pray for anything, from good exam results, to good weather for their holidays. In wars, soldiers always have padres, mullahs, or priests around, and both sides pray for the assistance of the deity or holy figure that is associated with their particular belief system. And they both believe they will thus gain assistance. Ironically, the wars they are praying for assistance with are often inspired by the religions themselves, where the initial bickering over ceremonial differences or the importance of minor deities or angels, saints or prophets turns into all-out war.

Continue Reading…

by John Bremner

Religion Encourages Gullibility

September 7th, 2009

To be gullible is to be easily deceived. It is the tendency to believe what we are told, without sufficient evidence, in circumstances that make it necessary for there to be evidence for the account to be accepted in normal circumstances. Now that’s a good definition, and you are welcome to look up ‘gullible’ in any dictionary.

If you say you were almost run over crossing the street, I will probably believe you, because I can’t figure out a good reason why you’d make that up, or be mistaken in what you think happened. But if you say an angel, or some other divine intervention saved your life, I’d be gullible if I believed you without any evidence, even if you were my best friend, and you’d never been known to tell a lie, because what you are telling me is your account of what you think happened, and that might differ substantially from reality.

Continue Reading…

by John Bremner

Why Doesn’t God fix Bad Teeth?

September 7th, 2009

Why doesn’t god fix bad teeth? Why, if their god likes believers, and favours them, as believers seem to think is the case, do they get just as many bad teeth as the rest of us? Doesn’t their god listen to the prayers of people who want to look better, or want their toothache to end? There seems to be no good reason why good people with bad teeth should be discriminated against in this way if there really is a god who answers prayers.

Continue Reading…

by John Bremner

You can’t argue with someone who does not think…

September 16th, 2009

I was beginning an argument with a close friend who is a Christian recently. I was planning to discuss the contradiction between an omniscient god, and a god who made mistakes that were necessary to correct, with the corrections being ‘documented’ in the Bible, and I  planned to develop the argument with clear proof of evolution, destruction of the first principle argument, and evidence that every advance in thinking, in moral philosophy, in science, and in social rights had come from secular thinking rather than religious thinking.

I began, “If your god is omniscient…” but was interrupted.
“What does omniscient mean?” she asked.

So basically, she knew nothing about the god she professed to believe in. She had read nothing except simplistic stories about how her god had changed the lives of people who believed in it. She knew nothing of of the writings of Bishop Berkley, Thomas Aquinas, Nietzsche,  Thomas Paine,  Gandhi, Marx, Plato, St Augustine, Bertrand Russell, or any of the great thinkers of the past and the present. She believed, without proof, but more importantly, without thinking. She is not a stupid person, but she does not use her intelligence. She does not think. And I knew that nothing I could say would make any difference,  because reason was not involved.

If someone does not think, you can’t argue with them. 
John Bremner

by John Bremner

Prayer and the Subconscious

September 17th, 2009

People who claim to speak to their god and get answers are self-deluded or misinterpreting what is happening.
It’s not that praying does not bring answers to those who pray – they clearly think it does, but the subconscious mind provides the answer to the conscious mind that is interpreting the answer. The subconsious mind has access to all the experiences and knowledge that our conscious mind has forgotten, and it is always working, providing answers to our dilemmas, giving us that ‘wee small voice’ that is our intuition, that knows better than our conscious mind what we should do. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in history have come as a result of answers that came in dreams, synthesising the knowledge we have accumulated but not been able to consciously interpret. Some people think this is a supernatural being putting answers in their heads. But most reflective people know that prayer is merely the act of accessing the subconscious. That giving questions to the subconscious and getting answers – sometimes when we least expect it, works for non-religious people, is proof enough that religious belief need not be involved and a supernatural agent is not required to provide the answers. The human mind is an amazing thing.
John Bremner

by John Bremner

Free will

September 20th, 2009

People who worship the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God use the concept of free will to justify the inaction of their god in the presence of suffering, injustice, war, and evil. On the one hand they believe they can influence the mind of their god through prayer, praise, and certain rituals that differ according to the concept of god they hold to be the correct one. On the other hand, they claim that their god gave us free will, and it is up to people to change things.

A god who does nothing to influence matters in the world cannot be discerned, and therefore we can have no knowledge of such a god. Looked at this way, that type of god is more of an invisible observer than a participant in this universe.  But a god who does something to help somone who gives him/her sufficient worship, whilst allowing others to be tortured to death is a deeply flawed god, with the morals of a selfish child.

What are we to become with such an example – are we to we favour those who praise us and ignore the suffering of those who don’t know us, or fail to praise us enough? Are we to punish those who snub us with unending torture? Are we to condemn forever those who do not believe in us, from the example more than once quoted in the Bible “… he that believeth not shall be damned”. (Mark 16:16, John 3:18)

So much for turning the other cheek…  Christians often claim the bible as a guide to moral behaviour. But if we were to take our code of morality from the god of the old testament, the slavery condoning warlord, the one who, according to his own book, sent Moses to kill babies, (Numbers 31:1-35) or even the less warlike god of the new testament, we would be harsh and cruel.

Believing in a god who answers prayers of believers and worshippers means believing in a deeply flawed god. Taking your moral stance from such a god would make a deeply flawed person.

But we are not, as a rule, like that. Atheists, Christians, Muslims, and Jews are not like that. We are all, save for a few twisted individuals, better than that. With this in mind, the faithful have to know, if they think about their beliefs at all, that they know better than the god they worship, what is right, and what is wrong, and that they have higher ideals than the god they worship – they are not so cruel, not so unthinking, not so inhumane, and they have a sense of justice that would not punish someone forever for any crime, no matter what the crime. And if they had the power to do so, unlike the god they worship, they would stop torture, end cancer, get rid of the parasitic worms that blind hundreds of thousands in Africa every year, end AIDS, stop priests, mullahs, and rabbis from abusing children, and they would make this world a better place.

by John Bremner

Religious VS Atheist Ethics

November 8th, 2009

This site aims to show that atheists are at least as ethical as theists, and atheism is a good way forward for humanity.

Religion does not appear to hold the key to moral behaviour. Far from it, in fact – the gods that believers profess to be their moral guides are depicted in ‘holy’ writings as violent and jealous gods, and with few exceptions, their prophets (Moses is a good example here) are as deeply flawed, generally violent, intolerant and highly prejudiced sociopaths and  mass murderers as the gods themselves.

Religions admittedly do give people something to believe in, but to believe without critical thinking often leads to unethical behaviour.

Taking a recent example, consider the People’s Temple Full Gospel Church cult led by the Reverend Jim Jones.  That ‘prophet’ led his enthusiastic group to Brazil where, on November 18, 1978,  he persuaded over 900 of them to commit mass suicide.

He may have thought he was doing a good thing, but most people would agree that persuading 900 people to commit suicide is unethical.

But if you take people who have stopped thinking for themselves and will do whatever their religious leader tells them to do, you can persuade them to do anything. The Reverend Jim Jones could have told his tribe to go out and kill babies and they’d have done it. He could have told them to go and hijack passenger jets and fly them into schools, and they’d have done it.

The point is that the ethics of right and wrong do not exist for people who take their beliefs from others, because if you do that you are taking on board the possible twisted ethical beliefs of someone else. Taking your ethical beliefs from religion, or religious leaders, is abdicatiing your own responsibility to decide what is right, and what is wrong. Leave that to rabbis, priests or mullahs and you may find yourself killing or dying in the name of your religion, as millions have done in the past in the name of gods no longer worshipped, and prophets who no longer matter.

Contrast that situation with the critical thinking of an atheist who must decide what is right and what is wrong based on a sense of humanity and common compassion. The great moral thinkers of our day are not, as a rule, religious leaders, but atheists like A.C. Grayling, and Richard Dawkins. And it also seems to be the case that the more religious a person happens to be, the less they are guided by common decency and compassion and the more they are guided by the outmoded morals of the ancient writings that document the dogma they adhere to. 

Compare being guided by outmoded morals and ancient murderous and bigoted thoughts and writings, to synthesising the original thoughts of the most sublime and intelligent thinkers of the current day, and choosing what is best from all of them… Even a non-contemplative person should be able to work out which of these options would be most likely to lead to an ethical way of life. That religion encourages adopting the outdated morals of the past, and discourages believers from adopting a system of ethics based on common decency, fairness, and equality for all, is a bad thing about religion.

by John Bremner

The confusion of the natural and the supernatural

November 11th, 2009

 The confusion of the natural and the supernatural, promoted by religion, damages the ability to think logically. Religious people are good at ignoring the evidence for scientific explanations of the things they think are supernatural.

 For example, ten people can have ten different explanations for an event such as a volcanic eruption.

  1. It is a result of natural forces, pushing hot magma to the surface through cracks and weaknesses in the earth’s crust.
  2. It is an expression of God’s anger.
  3. It is a result of Mercury’s opposition to Venus, causing a period of unfortunate natural events to occur, of which this was one.
  4. The volcano is itself a God, and it overflows at random times to show us that we must respect nature.
  5. It is sheer bad luck, and it’s happening just to keep me from getting that flight home, that I can’t afford to miss.
  6. It is a result of all the negative emotion in the world filling the earth with fear and hatred until it overflows.
  7. It is erupting because we failed to sacrifice a thousand virgins to the volcano.
  8. It is happening because the old hag at the end of the village has cursed us all.
  9. It is happening because it was destined to happen.
  10. I thought about this happening, and therefore I made it happen.
  11. Gaia  is trying to rid itself of this pestilence of humanity, which is eating into its surface, and taking out the oil, gold, coal, copper, tin, and water.

 As with every event that occurs, the natural explanation – ‘a’ on the list above, is supported by the evidence, and no matter how convinced you are that any of the other explanations are the reason for the volcanic eruption, they are unnecessary, given that we can prove the physics of the natural explanation, which we can.

 Of course, you can argue that the natural explanation is the way God works – through physical laws. However, a similar argument can be made for luck, or Gaia, or astronomy, or the old hag at the end of the village, or any of the others. This being the case, it invalidates the argument that God works through physical laws. That is really just a way of saying, that nature rules.

 The other thing is of course that the natural explanation can be used to predict future eruptions. This can’t be done with any of the other explanations. Only someone indoctrinated into not thinking, into never considering nature as the primary force in this universe, into never critically analysing all the possibilities before deciding which one is right, could believe that such natural events have supernatural origins.

 For some people who can’t think critically about their beliefs or about cause and effect,  the above arguments won’t work, because if you can’t think critically, you basically can’t think. And if you can think and won’t, that’s even worse.

 Religion, by eliminating the need to think, and by preventing critical thinking, encourages intellectual blind spots, and that’s a bad thing about religion.

by John Bremner

Should Museums be at liberty to display pro-religion of pro-athiest art?

August 3rd, 2010

Something for our readers to consider…
Should the government be permitted to show works which publicly endorse certain religious beliefs? Should we all be subject to these displays which are everywhere we look?  Are public grounds the best place for these works of art and should we be forced to encounter them on a daily basis? It would seem that if pro-atheist work was on public display then there would be many complaints from the public, who my see it as offensive to their belief system. Well Atheism is a way of life and should we entitled to the same rights, shouldn’t we?
Food for thought…

More>>

by John Bremner

2010 Global Atheist Convention

May 27th, 2010

The 2010 Global Atheist Convention was the biggest ever atheist event in Australia’s history.  If you missed it, sadly you did miss out, it was a huge success.  There will be a DVD available in July for those who want to see it again or simply missed out.

The DVD will include the following presenters: Richard Dawkins, Catherine Deveny, Phillip Adams, Taslima Nasrin, Peter Singer, PZ Myers, Dan Barker, Stuart Bechman, Sue-Ann Post, Kylie Sturgess, John Perkins, Tamas Pataki, Max Wallace, Russell Blackford, Ian Robinson, AC Grayling, Robyn Williams, Simon Taylor, NonStampCollector and Craig Reucassel and Julian Morrow (The Chaser). In addition, a panel of women chaired by Maggie Millar will feature Lyn Allison, Tanya Levin, Leslie Cannold and Jane Caro.

Thank you to, and find out more at: http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/

by debugdesign

Irish Atheists outraged

May 27th, 2010

Secular campaigners in the Irish Republic defied a strict new blasphemy law (with a fine of up to £22,000!!).  They published a series of anti-religious quotations online and promised to fight the legislation in court.

Blasphemy in Ireland is now a crime punishable with a hefty fine. The new law defines blasphemy as “publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted”.

The groups Chair, Michael Nugent said: “…It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas…”

by debugdesign

Richard Dawkins get the rights to his domain name

May 26th, 2010

Richard Dawkins; well know atheist and author of the book, The God Delusion has finally won the right to the domain name richarddawkins.com through an arbitration case at the National Arbitration Forum.

Richard Dawkins previously was using the domain name RichardDawkins.net to promote, blog and inform as the .com domain was already taken by a fan.  On the .com site the fan had many affiliate links to a plethora of Richard Dawkins products and although the fan insisted that this was in return for hosting.  However the three strong arbitration panel were convinced by Dawkins and agreed that he has common law rights to his name.

In its decision, the panel said:

The Panel unanimously finds that Richard Dawkins has established a common law trademark in his name. The three Panel members agree that Mr. Dawkins has perhaps done the most thorough job in establishing the existence of the common law trademark in a personal name that any of the three panelists have seen.

Full Details

by debugdesign

The Atheism Debate – Video Selection

April 28th, 2010

This week one of our content writers Ian has been looking around the video channels for various debates, and presentations about atheism and in particular ethical  atheism.  Below are his particular favorites but if you have any which you think we should feature, please get in touch or comment below.

Atheist Debate: Is Faith in God a Delusion

Below is a discussion between David Robertson, author of ‘The Dawkins Letters’ and Alistair McBay of the National Secular Society.

Atheist Debate: Is Faith in God a Delusion originally posted from atheist debate on Vimeo.

Moral Superiority Of Atheism

Christopher Hitchens explains why atheists are more moral than religious fundamentalists.


Christian Vs Atheist

A 15 video debate where the Willow Creek Community Church and the American Atheists, Inc. agreed to stage a major debate on the theme “Atheism vs. Christianity: Where Does The Evidence Point?” This video presents the entire debate as it actually unfolded.

Table of contents:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list…

by debugdesign

Nick Clegg – Will you vote for the Atheist?

April 28th, 2010

nickcleggNick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats’ defied political convention with a frank admission that he is an atheist back in 2007 when he became party leader.

He later issued a statement saying that: “I have enormous respect for people who have religious faith. I’m married to a Catholic and am committed to bringing my children up as Catholics.

“However, I myself am not an active believer, but the last thing I would do when talking or thinking about religion is approach it with a closed heart or a closed mind.”

David Cameron previously told interviewers he believes in God, attends church (“not as much as I should”) and wants his children to attend a church school.

Gordon Brown makes much of his upbringing as the son of a Church of Scotland minister and his own “moral compass” but, in line with many British politicians, is coy when pressed in greater detail about his faith.

It seems now thought that Clegg is conscious that this atheist admission may not have pleased the masses and it appears Nick Clegg has found religion just in time for the Election. After attending Mass at the weekend the Liberal Democrat leader has now claimed Christian values are ‘central’ to his party’s policies.

by debugdesign

“militant atheist” gets asbo

April 28th, 2010

hbrownA “militant atheist” who left explicit images in a prayer room at Liverpool John Lennon Airport has been given a six-month suspended sentence.  He was also given a five-year ASBO at which point Harry Taylor claimed he felt faint after he was told by Judge Charles James his crimes deserved imprisonment and ruled he should pay £250 in costs.

Harry Taylor, 59, of Salford, left images of religious figures in sexual poses on three occasions in 2008.  The Asbo bans Taylor from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place.

Jurors found him guilty of causing religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress in March. He was also given a five-year Anti-social Behaviour Order (Asbo) at Liverpool Crown Court.

Judge James said: “Not only have you shown no remorse for what you did, but even now you continue to maintain you have done nothing wrong and say that whenever you feel like it you intend to do the same thing again in the future.”

Among the posters, one image showed a smiling crucified Christ next to an advert for a brand of “no nails” glue. In another, Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise were told: “Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins.”

Image & Story Source: www.liverpoolecho.co.uk
by debugdesign

Why not Religion?

April 6th, 2010

Why not Religion?

By: Cathi Bee

It is a fact that the world today is very religious. One needs only to examine how many religions there are as opposed to the single direction of “Atheism” to see this. Many feel that the tendency towards some sort of faith is proof for the existence of God. Many claim to derive great power from their religious practices. Many believe that their specific belief system is the only truth and that the whole world should be converted to their views. So why not you? There are about as many good arguments against religion as there are for it.

Continue Reading…

by debugdesign

Existentialism, the optimistic atheism

April 6th, 2010

Existentialism, the optimistic atheism

By: Ender Corinthian

What Jean-Paul Sartre means by trying to explain that existentialism is optimistic atheism is that although he doesn’t believe in God, he still sees a purpose, and the purpose is his to choose. In existentialism, the belief is that existence came before essence and not the other way around. This means that there is no preset way for us to be.  He’s an existentialist as he believes that existence comes before essence with humans, this means that he doesn’t believe we were planned, we’re unlike a sword, as a sword smith requires some sort of idea of a sword to make one, therefore in this case essence comes before existence. He argues that this doesn’t apply to humans – “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.” From this it’s obvious to see why he’d be considered atheist, and the way in which he tries to argue it’s optimistic atheism is by being responsible for our own actions, and coming to terms with the fact that life is what you make of it. It’s important to establish this concept as an opening for the next part in “Existentialism is a Humanism”. He brings up the word subjectivism and it’s two meanings; the first meaning is the freedom of the individual subject, the second meaning is that man cannot pass beyond human subjectivity, the latter meaning is the deeper meaning of existentialism.
In existentialism “subjectivism” means that when they say a man chooses himself, they mean that every one of us must choose himself; but by that they also mean choose yourself in the way you’d choose all men to be.  Live your life as you’d see fit for all to live, for what we choose is always the better, and nothing can be better for us unless it is better for us all. “In fashioning myself I fashion man”

Continue Reading…

by debugdesign

24th February 2010

February 24th, 2010

“You know that God made man in His own image when God hates all the same people you do.”

Anon.

by John Bremner