Atheist FAQ

The following is an “Atheist FAQ” I’m modifying from a form on: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html . I have removed most of the entries I find either less compelling or redundant and revised or shortened the ones that I kept, and added some of my own.

“I have proven God exists! Now that means that [X/Y/Z] that it says in the Bible/Qur’an is also true!”

No. Even if you prove God exists, that does not mean that you have also proven that the Bible/Qur’an is the expression of that God’s will.

“God is true because the Bible says so!”

This is a circular argument; it usually relies on the argument, “The Bible is true because God says so.” X is true because Y is true; Y is true because X is true.

“[X/Y/Z] argument is true because it says so in the Bible/Qur’an!”

Bottom line: No. This might be an effective argument in your local church group, but if you want your argument to be compelling at all to someone who is not in your denomination, this isn’t good enough. If you don’t want your argument to be compelling, why are you making it? Who are you talking to?

To make an argument like this to someone who does not believe in your denomination, you must first demonstrate that *every* claim in the Bible/Qur’an is true. Otherwise, you’re just wasting your own time.

"God must by definition exist."

Things do not exist merely because they have been defined to do so.

"I managed to prove that God exists from [X/Y/Z]."

Before you begin your proof, you must come up with a clear and precise definition of exactly what you mean by "God." A logical proof requires a clear definition of that which you are trying to prove.

Different religions have very different ideas of what 'God' is like; they even disagree about basic issues such as how many gods there are, whether they're male or female, and so on. An atheist's idea of what people mean by the word 'God' may be very different from your own views.

Reality is not decided by logic, logic is decided from reality. Even if you could rigorously prove that God exists, 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.

Logic is a useful tool for analyzing data and inferring what is going on; but if logic and reality disagree, reality wins.

A clear definition of 'God,' plus some objective and compelling supporting evidence, would be enough to convince many atheists.
The evidence must be objective, though; of other people's religious experiences isn't good enough. And strong, compelling evidence is required, because the existence of God is an extraordinary claim--and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"Atheism (or science) is still just an act of faith, like religion is."

First, it's not entirely clear that skeptical/weak/nice atheism is something one actually believes in.

Second, 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 (or at least, all observers in inertial frames). 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. Skeptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as skeptical/weak/nice atheism has no beliefs. Strong/mean 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.

"If atheism is not religious, surely it's anti-religious?"

No. Atheist attitudes towards theists and religions cover a broad spectrum.

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.

"How do atheists differ from religious people?"

Presuming you meant, "How do people differ from theists?" They don't believe in God. That's all there is to it. If you really meant the question as is, then technically there's no inherent difference whatsoever.

"Aren't atheists less moral than religious people?"

No. Only if you define morality as “acknowledging and obeying God” can this inherently be the case. An atheist might be less moral than others, but atheists and atheism is not less moral. In first world countries, atheists tend to be more moral than others.

Usually when one talks of morality, one talks of what is acceptable ("right") and unacceptable ("wrong") behavior. To understand these terms, and to act according to these terms, does not require a belief in any God(s).

One moral system, similar to that expressed by John Stuart Mill, runs as follows:

“Humans are social animals, and to be maximally successful they must cooperate with each other. This is a good enough reason to discourage most atheists from "anti-social" or "immoral" behavior, purely for the purposes of self-preservation.”

There are countless moral systems that do not rely on a belief in God.

"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.

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. Many 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.

"But surely discussing God in this way is a tacit admission that he exists?"

No. I can talk about Frodo Baggins too, that doesn’t mean he exists.

"Isn't the whole of life completely pointless to an atheist?"

No. Even if it did, that wouldn’t mean that any God(s) exist. Things do not exist because it is convenient for them to exist.

"[X/Y/Z] aren't real believers!"

This is rather like the No True Scotsman fallacy.

“No True Scotsman..."

Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This is an example of an ad hoc change being used to shore up an assertion, combined with an attempt to shift the meaning of the words used original assertion; you might call it a combination of fallacies.”

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, if the Bible can be so readily used to support un-Christian acts, how effective is it as 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? 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.

Thanks for reading this FAQ, I hope it has clarified the answers if you had any of these questions.