Richard Dawkins
Photo by Matti Á
These days, we often see the battle raging in news items, on websites and in forums between theists and atheists, as one tries to outwit the other, etc., ad infinitum. Each side takes great glee in providing a more clever or morally superior position than the other. The question is why? Why does one side or the other care?
Atheists will claim that they are out to debunk theism because of its horrendous past record of atrocities, while theists have been supplied with great ammo in the opposite direction by the purported atheistic regimes of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot, to name a few apologies slung in return.
Theists—specifically Christians—next raise up the issue of "saving souls," when they give reasons for their proselytizing efforts, which essentially constitute attempts at mind control. Atheists likewise become pushy and aggressive in insisting that everyone toss the idea of God out of their minds.
Everybody's a 'fool'
This theist versus atheist debate is a neverending battle frequently characterized by mudslinging and ad homs from both camps, such as calling people "fools"—a favorite epithet used by both theists and atheists. For example, in their attempts at compelling everyone to believe as they do, Christians go around posting messages quoting Psalm 14:1:
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
Apparently, bibliolaters believe that this ad hom settles the matter. Atheists shoot back by calling themselves "brights" and insisting that theists are the fools for blindly believing in nonsense.
Ray Comfort
Photo by Carol Scott
This typical and wearisome exchange is exemplified by the fracas between atheist scientist Richard Dawkins and Christian evangelist Ray Comfort, who has been so effective in his attacks on atheism that Dawkins was prompted to acknowledge him by calling him "an ignorant fool." In response, Comfort became cloyingly condescending by claiming he was out to save Dawkins's soul. While making a pretense at being "pious," Comfort arrogantly remarked of the British scientist and unofficial atheist spokesman:
Now that he's in his 60s, it won't be long until he goes to meet his maker... And I want him to think deeply before he passes into eternity, because he is of worth to God and to me."
The conceit of such a statement is breathtaking: "I want him to think deeply..." As if Richard Dawkins has not thought deeply, while Ray Comfort has! In actuality, a betting person might see great odds on the former's IQ being significantly higher than the latter. In any event, Comfort is presuming to know not only that there is a god but also what that god thinks, and these holy thoughts are obviously favorable as concerns Ray Comfort but not as concerns Richard Dawkins.
How do we know that God doesn't agree with Dawkins that Ray Comfort is an ignorant fool? What kind of God have Comfort and so many others created in their own minds who is so insecure and ridiculous that he is hurt and angered by Richard Dawkins's unbelief? Why are these devout believers so desperate to have everyone believe as they do? Are they too so insecure in their unfounded beliefs that they must compel others into them, no matter what, including being arrogant, conceited and condescending?
The question comes full circle: Why must we engage in this battle in the first place? Why does anyone care what you do in the privacy of your own mind? One moment you could think there's a god, and the next, not. So what? To me, the capacity of the human mind to be able to think deeply about all things in the cosmos, including there being a god or not being a god, represents the ultimate freethinking perspective.
Sources & Further Reading
A surefire way to debunk atheism?
Freethought Nation news & commentary
Comments
There are other options. People who know, know them
ASlthough you attempt to make this article seem unbiased, it is clear you are an athiest, anf therefore I will say to you:
Psalm 14:1:
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
Because god-belief is DANGEROUS!
Oh, and for the record, Hitler was an Christian and Stalin and Pol Pot didn't commit their atrocities because of their lack of belief in unreasonable things. They did it because of non-religious unreasonable beliefs.
By what standards does one determine that Hitler was a christian?
I do not consider myself an "atheist" or a "theist," so throwing the ad hom in Psalms at me has no effect. It is, however, a sign of a poor argument.
As concerns Hitler and Stalin, please see the link attached to their names in the article. My other article linked thereto contains some very interesting information about the religious lives of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot.
@you, that could be the most idiotic comment I have seen. What happened to your own personal comment? I am a Acharya lover because she is a truth seeker and even if I disagree with her or feel differently about things, I still respect what she says and all that she works at here and abroad.
The fool says in his head, "There is a God and I blindly follow him."
"Why does anyone care what you do in the privacy of your own mind?"
If what you do is constricted to your own mind, no one cares. Sadly, all to often, it is not restricted to just that.
Who ever wrote psalm 14.1 , was a clear biased religious person.
Mohummad was like that, used to say things to suit himself.
As for why have this debate at all? because i want the tax breaks priests, clergy and churches get.
I think the issue of Atheism vs Theism is important not because of the belief itself, but the manner of thinking entailed. People like Karen Armstrong who regard religious faith as a kind of emotional experience, a way of relating to existence don't concern me any more than someone who writes imaginative poetry.
What is of concern is the tendency, most pronounced in fundamentalists of confusing faith with fact. It is the assertion by some that their view of the world is based upon an absolute truth despite being neither proved nor supported by evidence that is of concern. For, if you think you have access to absolute truth you lay claim to knowledge of practical import, of moral certainty which now empowers judgement and control.
The other danger of theism is the preparation of the minds of people, from their childhood, to accept unfounded assertions, and to maintain them through live in the absence of good cause to do so. This prepares the way to political manipulation.
Atheists and Theists: Two of a kind, Kissing cousins. They can't do without each other! They both have the same thought process. Except that one of 'For'...and the other is 'against'. Its the same thing! The game is the same! Its like cops and robbers. Sometimes the atheist is the cop, the theist the robber, sometimes vice versa.
The atheist's mind is continuously focused on the theist. And the theist's mind is continuously focused on the atheist.
Its a very passionate love affair. hahaha!
Since it can't be proven either way the arguing back and forth on this matter is completly pointless and a waste of time.
I'm sorry to break it to you Acharya but you and your ilk are heading straight to Hell to burn for all eternity. If you don't accept Jesus as the one and only truth then you're screwed. There's nothing you can say or do to change that. You have hardened your heart to God and there's no hope for you anyhow. God is just. Sometimes that requires God to hate and punish those who reject his free gift of eternal salvation.
It matters because religion is by far the worst thing ever to have afflicted Mankind. It doesn’t just need “humoring” it needs to be got rid of.
It is also very, very silly.
How can you be neither? You either believe or you don't therefore you are one or the other. You are an atheist but you just don't care. That's why you don't see the relevance of the argument. Before you start writing articles about a subject you should care enough about it so as to see the reason behind the argument, if you do this you will realise how ridiculous religion is and understand why you are an atheist.
"Why must we engage in this battle in the first place? Why does anyone care what you do in the privacy of your own mind?"
I don't care what religious people believe. What I do care about are;
That children are being told Creationism is scientific.
That those who helped a 9 year old rape victim abort twins that would have killed her if carried to term were branded evil by a Catholic Bishop.
That if I want to end my life or that of a loved one who has only a short time of suffering and indignity left; I cannot because it's sacred
That my homosexual friends cannot marry each other because marriage is "defined by the bible".
That every US Dollar I spend states "In God we Trust" when I don't.
That religions avoid tax that I then have to make up.
In short; if the various religions were willing to keep their beliefs to themselves instead of forcing them into the public sphere most Atheists would back off. Instead we are dragged into a conflict not of our making.
As an atheist I care about this argument because the religious continue to want to impose their rules and morality on those of us who do not share their beliefs. They want national laws to accommodate their religion, even if that is to the detriment of the rest of us. When they stop stuffing their religion down my throat and stop trying to run my life, I will stop arguing with them.
WOW!!! I LOVE this discussion, no matter what isn't great we live in a country...state of mind... whatever, that allows this exchange...Hooray for us ALL!
Well, if even a fool knows that there is no god, then what's your excuse?
Also - how come this fool has a talking heart? Did no one in the bible write literally or understand biology?
I don't know how you measure true belief but I think it is not that less people have belief in a Divinity but that more people have ceased to accept the doctrines of the organised religions and turned directly to God and I believe two of the main causes of this is abuse in the Catholic Church and violence in Islam. Indeed from daily observation I would say that the non attached are more moral, more ethical, more supportive of goodness and the law of the land than the doctrinaire. There does seem to be a case for saying that if God can see into our minds and influence us daily and directly via our conscience why do we need these hierarchies that appear to more about self aggrandisement and getting a kick from power over others, than about goodness.
Numerous, almost unlimited reasons to debunk "Theism".
However your question is "Why debunk Atheism" well there is not any "real" reasons, atheist are not out to take dominion over the planet we merely want to be left alone to live a life free of religious insanity.
However the religiously insane feel they MUST try to fruitlessly debunk atheism in order to bolster their belief in their little invisible friend.
They are so insecure in this belief that they feel they must brain wash as many young children as possible to carry on their vile hate filled reason for living.
The logically unsupported assertion "A fool says in his heart "There is a God"" is meaningless. It has precisely the same value as the assertion "A fool says in his heart "The is no God"" Truly a fool is simply someone who is not aware of a cognitive illusion that has deluded them that is recognised by someone more enlightened. "All healthy normal dogs have four legs, my dog is healthy and normal, therefore my dog has four legs" is a logical argument where the conclusion is supported by premises "Soundness" and the form of the argument is "valid" - A both valid and sound argument. The statement "A fools says in his heart "These is (or is no) God" is neither supported by valid or sound argument structure or premises. The statements are meaningless. "A fool in his heart says the number 3 is not a red number" is an assertion too but one that makes more sense because it is at least invokes no metaphysical categories.
I don't like posting here. After a few lines you cannot see what you are typing without scrolling down after every few words. When you read your own comments after posting you see they are so un-proof read that you may as well not have posted them. I'm not going to scroll down anymore. I'll just spread my comments over several...
...posts so as not to get so frustrated anymore.
Niles the theist spews out a rant essentially condemning me to hell, with all manner of hate speech and violent insults - disgraceful behavior that proves exactly why I would not want to be a theist.
The atheist Garyl asks, "How can you be neither [a theist or atheist}?" Then he likewise goes on a rant and insults me about a subject I have been studying and writing about for many years - angry, hostile behavior that demonstrates exactly why I would not want to be an atheist.
And THAT'S how I can be neither.
Acharya,
I completely agree with your estimation. As humans, we are able to think at one moment that there is a god and at the next that there is not. Why shouldn't we? I'm a great admirer of yours and of Richard Dawkins, who I believe would probably agree with your article. As you know, Dawkins has described himself as a "unicorn atheist." He does not believe in "god" any more than he believes in unicorns. It's impossible to prove a negative, therefore it would be irrational and shallow to insist that there are DEFINITELY no unicorns, but it seems reasonable to conclude that there are MOST LIKELY no unicorns.
I think the criticisms of atheism that you politely imply are utterly valid. It seems to me that any self-respecting atheist, myself included, must acknowledge that to be dogmatic is to lower ourselves to the level of the theist. Once again, I'm sure Dawkins would agree.
Thank you for your latest article, which is as thought-inspiring and wonderful as ever.
-Rio Verad
The only reason people of faith ever prompt a response from me is their certainty that said faith makes them more moral, often made with the same examples the author here provides -Stalin, Hitler and so on. What is never mentioned is religion's Golden Age of supremacy known as the Dark Ages, a period that held mankind back by placing dogma over education. Oh and Niles, what you fail to understand is that whilst people such as yourself treat being "good" as necessary because of the carrot and the stick, those of us without the crutch of religion have a moral compass based on empathy - not the fear of Hell or the promise of Heaven.
hitler was not atheist. He was Christian, was an alter boy. Catholic Pope supported Hitler regime.
Acharya says: "And THAT'S how I can be neither." Acharys, if you either or both do not believe in any gods or believe that there are no gods then you are an atheist by definition. Perhaps you may choose to not "call" yourself an atheist but that does not take you outside of the defintion. A father might be so disappointed with his son so as to say "You are no son of mine - from now on you are dead to me" but unless the boy is in fact not really his biological son then the mere expression of such a sentiment cannot change the fact of biological qualification of title.
Rio Veradonir, you are mixing catogories. Neither theists nor atheists are dogmatists. Only dogmatists, like Christians, Nazis, Communists and Islamists etc are dogmatists.
If we are living under a celestial regime where there is 24/7 monitoring, thought crimes, required regular groveling to the Great Leader, no vote, blood sacrifices and eternal torture camps for dissenters, then I think I would want to know about it! Regardless of how repugnant I find the idea of such a regime, I think it is kind of Christians to want to warn us about it. Similarly if I was suddenly plunked into North Korea or Stalinist Russia I would appreciate someone telling me to shut up as I espoused my preference for democracy, freedom of expression and basing morality on ideas of happiness, freedom and fairness rather than the dictates of the Great Leader.
As it turns out, the evidence I have seen for such a celestial dictatorship is very poor (ancient books; warm fuzzy feelings; selective prayer outcomes; wishful thinking). And while I do sigh at the facile arguments thrown at me (e.g. ‘Can you prove Jesus/Allah/Zeus doesn’t exist?’) I still appreciate that they want to help.
There is natural follow-up to Clifford's post below. I think the primary reason some atheists are vocal in attempting to debunk, or at least isolate religion to the private realm, has been well articulated by a number of posts already (i.e. interference in public policies such as stem cell research, contraception and abortion policy, school science curricula, Middle East policy, gay rights, assisted dying, etc.)
However, taking the flipside of Clifford's comment, there are also some atheists who think it is tragic how some religionist’s lives are greatly diminished by, what they see, as the totally unjustified belief in ancient fairytales. How many people have lived their lives in constant fear of eternal torture, or deprived themselves of basic comforts, sex or their sexuality, or killed other people because they thought they were pleasing some invisible sky being. Some atheists think that there is a moral imperative to emancipate such people from these toxic, bogus beliefs.
::to begin, i am a huge Dawkins fan.::
i loved your article. it seems to me that in the crossfire between theist vs atheist there has to, ironically, be a voice of pure *practical* reason to keep things in perspective, so neither side loses sight of the goal, which ultimately is the expansion of intellectual boundaries. on the other hand, for me, living in the south and being subject to irreligious persecution, i equate the validation of arguments from the atheist side roughly to the Civil Rights Movement. each time we make headway in establishing atheism as something that must be accepted as a valid meta-ethical or religious position, atheists come closer to being true citizens and human beings in more than a merely "technical", de facto sense. i hope Dr. Dawkins will read and absorb what you've written to avoid future outbursts like the ones you describe in your article. ....you rock.
"Why must we engage in this battle in the first place? Why does anyone care what you do in the privacy of your own mind?"
Unfortunately, it doesn't stay in the privacy of one's own mind.
When those in power start to create rules and laws that affect everyone, including those that do not share their beliefs, then there is cause not only for concern, but for debate and discussion too.
It's unfortunate that it tends to quickly decend into ad hominem. Oh well.
I think thats the problem. I speak with my vocal chords, via my mouth, not with my heart.
We debunk because we love them silly. (tinyurl.com/WelcomeIloveyou)
Just wondering how you feel as to what love is?
Is love pulling a child out a building that is burning even though he is kicking and screaming that he wants to continue to play in that burning building?
Now this is just me but I believe love (perfect love) is a constant confronter, it takes far more love to confront then to ignore the situation. Do you agree?
Sometimes truth is confrontational, I understand. Please do not take offense. I know me all to well and sometimes I am aggressive attempting to pull you out of the fire while you are kicking and screaming but when we are "in the clear" we can both calm down and lick our wounds. Right now its an emergency, forgive me if I bruise you a little in grabbing you. Now get your butt out of that fire!!!
Penn was appreciative of the Good news.(youtube.com/watch?v=ZhG-tkQ_Q2w)
Hopefully, someday, you will understand how important this is.
The reason they have the burning desire to debunk each other is because they both share the same mind set.
How wonderful it must be to have special knowledge above and beyond that of the average person.
They and there followers will lead the ignorant world out of darkness and into the light of TRUTH.
Their own peculiar brand of truth.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!