Open Letter to Moderate Believers

It's a common argument in discussions about faith: The atheist will bring up the atrocities committed in the names of the various religions, be it the inquisition, various genocides, wars or the burning of heretics. The believer will then fire back with naming famous "atheist murderers": Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. The obvious flaw here is of course that religious atrocities are indeed committed "in the name of the Lord" or "for the glory of God", while Stalin committed his murders in the name of what he was fond of calling "scientific socialism", not in the name of reason, compassion and critical thinking.
Some believers have realized this and now subtly go about the other way, by saying "I don't lump you with atheists like Stalin and Mao, so don't lump me with other murderers simply because they believe in the same stuff as I do."
This has happened to me today when commenting on a christian blog; somebody telling me that lumping christians together with muslims would be as unfair as lumping all atheists together with said genocidal maniacs. That inspired me to pen a few words addressed at all religious moderates out there, who feel treated unfairly when being lumped together with "those extremists":

The funny thing about the term “atheism” is that it's a non-label. It’s negatively defined as “not being theist”. Unlike its counter part, "theist", it has little descriptive use. If you take a comparative look at me and Stalin, you will not find a single positive thing we share. Of course, we might both have hair that is not black, we might both not believe in astrology, we might both dislike horses and so on. But you won’t find much similarities that go beyond what we both not share with another.
When I look at christians and muslims though, I can easily find a lot of important and positive similarities. Just to name a few:
Both believe that there is a diety that cares about what humans do, especially about what humans do while naked. Both believe that there is a book that carries divine authority to some degree and that conveys the will of a god which, by definition, is universally true for all humankind. Both believe in an afterlife; Both believe that god can hear prayers, and a majority even believe that he answers them. Both believe in the concept of sin and atonement, and both believe in the existence of prophets with a direct link to the beyond.

And I could go on. The point is, the similarities that you can find between me and Stalin are none which are of any consequence for our respective behaviour. Our common non-belief does not lead to similar actions. The similarities I find between christians and muslims, however, do lead to similar behaviours, such as the suppression of women and the opposition to gay rights and abortions. I am aware that there are some very important differences between Christianity and Islam, and I do not deny that. However, for the point I am making those differences are irrelevant.

What is relevant is the belief in some sort of divine authority that is attributed to ancient texts that are barbaric, homophobic and patriarchical. There is a varying degree among believers as to how seriously these texts are taken, but all believers take them to be something more than fiction, and that is the key point.
So yes, I am justified in lumping together huge groups that are largely different for the sake of that argument, because they do share the relevant beliefs, and do exhibit the behaviour that I take offense at as a direct result of those beliefs.

You might well be a liberal person with modern, rational views – and still be religious. But the fact remains that the bible, among many other horrific things, does say that homosexuality is “an abomination” (Lev. 18:22 is perhaps the most famous of the many, many examples). And it doesn’t matter wether or not you personally view that as metaphoric or not relevant to your belief, because as long as the bible is viewed as having divine authority to some degree, any fundamentalist coming along will always have the power to revive the potential for barbaric hatred simply by saying “Look, you haven’t been paying attention. Right here, it says black on white that women mustn’t speak in church. That adultery is to be punished with death. That homosexuality is a sin. That sacrificing your son because you're hearing voices in your head is a good thing. This is the perfect word of our divine creator, and it says so right here.”

As much as those “interpretations” of scripture have become very, very rare in christianity today, they are still possible as long as the bible and the Qur'an are viewed as something more than just old books. As long as there are people like you proclaiming that some god, however liberal and modern in his views and demands, is real, it is you who invest fundamentalists with the power to revive the ancient potential for hatred that sleeps in those texts.

That is something that can never be said of my particular brand of atheism, Humanism. My views do not hold the potential to be abused in that way, they do not hold the potential to do anything but improve the human condition. They can be abolished at best, but they cannot be used or misconstrued to do evil. Yours can. Think about that.

The Supposed Absurdity of a Life Without God

It's one of those things theists ask me: If I don't believe in a God or an Afterlife, if there is no higher purpose, why bother living at all? Might I not just as well die and save the hassle? What difference would it make if you'd die today rather than in 50 years?
For some reason, they think this to be a very profound question. It really isn't. In fact, I find the question rather preposterous. Whoever asks it is implying that if they wouldn't believe in a God/Afterlife/Higher Purpose, if they believed life was finite, if believed that life ends at the grave, they would certainly not bother living - Which I think is a rather pathetic statement to make and a testament to a lack of serious consideration of the matter.

Let's try an analogy: Why do you ever go on a holiday trip even though it inevitably ends? Even though there is no higher purpose to it other than that you enjoy it? How can you enjoy a sunset over a beautiful beach if the time you spend there is finite, if it's only two weeks before you'll have to go back to the same old life in the office again?
If theists were actually serious about this mindset, I should expect them to step out of the plane, take a look around the astonishingly beautiful place they've landed, frown, and say something like:
"Pff... yeah it's nice, but so what? How can I enjoy this stay, knowing I have to leave eventually?
Of course, if there was a book subjecting me to nonsensical rules during my stay and promising me that, if I subject to these rules, I get to go on an even better, eternal holiday after this one, then, and only then! could I enjoy my brief stay in this wonderful place."

So, does it make a difference whether I die tomorrow or in fifty years? Certainly not to the universe, that's true. Maybe not even to other people, though I like to think it does. But be that as it may, in any case it does make a rather huge difference to me, and I don't know why I should need any more incentive than that to go on living. I am not opposed to suicide; If you are in full control of your mental faculties and make the informed and well-considered decision that your life really just isn't worth it any more, I think it's your right to end it. But as for me, well, I really like living. For now at least. I enjoy my life, and I will go on living it as long as my life stays enjoyable. So the short answer to "why do you bother living?" is because it's fun. Being alive simply seems to be a more enjoyable state than 'not being alive' - so I'd rather live than not.

In the end it's simply a pretty nonsensical question to start with. Living is a bit like having sex: Affirmative is the default position. The question shouldn't be Why?, it should be, Why not?

How to Settle the Burden of Proof

I want you to picture a guy, let's call him Paul, walking into an urban police-station. Beaming, he proclaims that he knows what happened to the dead body that was found in the river five days ago; that he's solved the mystery.

Let's assume that by some random chance, or maybe out of desperation, the police actually take him seriously. So they ask him in, lead him into a room, sharpen their pencils, switch on the tape-recorder, and take a statement. This is how it goes:

PAUL: "You ready? Can I start?"
OFFICER: "Sure. Please tell us what you know."
PAUL: "You see, he was murdered. Frank did it."
OFFICER: "Frank... Frank who?"
PAUL: "Well, Frank of course. Frank Frank. Who else would I mean?"
OFFICER: "..."
PAUL: "..."
OFFICER (With disappointment at the realization that this won't be the clue they'd been hoping for): "That's it? That's what you came to tell us?"
PAUL (Genuinely puzzled): "What do you mean? I told you what happened. What more could you want?"

We could imagine this going on indefinitely, but this little conversation is enough to illustrate my point. Merely tossing a name out there and proclaiming that a murder took place is not the same as truly solving the mystery of an unidentified body.
Yet, this is exactly how religious people tackle the question about the origin of our universe. They proclaim that it was "made", and that it was "God" who made it. And then they lean back, satisfied with their accomplishment of having "solved" the mystery, gaze us a beaming smile, and react confused when we reject their "explanation" as preposterous and stupid.

To complete the analogy, let's have Paul defend his thesis by proclaiming that it's more likely Frank committed a murder than that the water of the river simply morphed into a dead body.
This is analogous to the claim frequently made by theists that, due to the apparent fine-tuning of our universe, it being made is more likely than it just coming into existence "by a giant explosion". Of course, nobody ever said that a giant explosion was the origin of the universe, just like nobody at the police-department proposed that the body is actually magically transformed water of the river.
The Big Bang Theory is actually not about the origin of the universe: Like the police, we're still pretty clueless regarding that mystery; like the police, it's likely we'll solve it eventually. What the Big Bang Theory actually is about is the early development of the universe: The theory states that the universe transformed from a very hot, very dense state to a less hot, less dense state, which is analogous to the police stating that it's very likely the case that the body they found was, at some point in the past, alive. It's something we know beyond reasonable doubt. It's something we can prove pretty much for sure.

There are tons of people like Paul out there; People who really do not see the problem with the sort of oversimplified skyhook-explanation they give for complex problems. They are ubiquitous, and while they tend to be annoying, their existence does not actually bother me.

What does bother me is that my analogy fails in one very important point: Paul the potential witness is regarded as a lunatic by society, and will probably find himself in a mental institution in the near future. Paul the theologean, on the other hand, is a highly respected member of society, gets invited by TV-stations to comment on enormously important political topics and has a huge influence on public opinion regarding an incredible variety of topics.

The Morals of an Atheist

It’s about time I do a post that I can simply link to whenever somebody asks me just what I base my morals on without the possibility to look to the perfect word of a divine creator. How can there be objectivity when I can’t stick to God’s written rules?
The answer is actually quite simple. My morals are based on compassion and, well, Just a Little Common Sense: “suffering” is bad, “happiness” is good – so I seek to minimize harm and maximize pleasure. Empathy makes me recognize that other people too seek happiness, each according to their own subjective definition of what “happiness” is, and reason tells me that cooperation and a mutual agreement not to stand in each other’s way is the most efficient way for all of us to achieve that.
The fact that (mentally healthy) human beings are capable of empathy is also the reason why cooperation is a better way to achieve happiness than an ego-trip and stepping on other people’s heads to climb a little higher: Seeing others suffer is a bad feeling in itself. Causing others to suffer even more so. Creating happiness for others, on the other hand, is a great source for our own happiness.
Most people would agree that not having to worry about existential problems and having a fulfilling social life fits the definition of a happy life better than making a dad you hated proud by becoming rich and despised all on your own.

So really, being good without god doesn’t really have much to do with godlessness. Coincidentally, being good with god doesn’t, either. Wether you’re a believer or not, try to just be nice to people and trust that they’ll be nice in return. As a general rule, whether one is religious or not has little bearing on this one way or the other. I’d venture to say that religious belief is more of a hinderance than a help in leading a good life, but that’s a topic for another post.

The bottom line of this one is that religion sure as fuck is not a prerequisite.