Metroplex Atheists
"If you're interested in us, we're interested in you!"

SOME FREQUENTLY-ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT ATHEISM AND ATHEISTS

©1997 by Tim Gorski

WHAT DO ATHEISTS BELIEVE?

Atheism is not a belief. It is an absence of belief, specifically of belief in god(s). But, because most Atheists come to be Atheists because of the fact that there is no persuasive evidence for the existence of god(s), most Atheists also reject belief in other things for which there is insufficient facts and reason. This varies widely from Atheist to Atheist, though. Some Atheists believe that extraterrestrials are visiting the earth, or that crystals and homeopathy can, by themselves, exert beneficial medicinal effects. Most Atheists, though, are as skeptical of unproven claims not having to do with god(s) as they are about other unsupported and unreasonable claims. Also, some Atheists are political liberals and some are conservatives. There probably is a disproportionate number of Atheists who are libertarians because those who champion the free mind often see free markets as naturally compatible with intellectual liberty. Except for the absence of belief in god(s), though, an Atheist could believe a lot of things.

AREN'T ATHEISTS AFRAID OF DYING?

Atheists, at least those who are healthy, do not welcome the prospect of death any more than anyone else. But they do not see this as a reason, much less a rational argument, for a faith belief in any deity. On the contrary, Atheists see no benefit in trivializing life by pretending that its ending is of no importance. Nor do they consider it right to disparage life by pretending that another life after death will be a better one. Atheists, therefore, concern themselves with the task of living the good life here and now.

WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED AND COME BACK TO LIFE? DOESN'T THAT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A SUPERNATURAL SOUL?

There really are no facts or reasons for supposing that any human consciousness can survive the death of the brain. Studies of brain function show that states of consciousness are tightly correlated with brain function. Nor has there ever been the slightest hint that anything takes its leave of the brain at the time of death or at other times, or even that there is any sort of matter or energy which could accomplish this feat. Although Near-Death-Experiences (NDE's) are often cited by those who wish to persuade others of the existence of an afterlife, NDE's are not evidence for life after death. For one thing, contrary to frequent claims, no one has ever reported an NDE in which they gained knowledge that they did not already know or could have known or could have reasonably guessed. Secondly, NDE's are well-explained as being caused by the physiologic stresses that provoke them. The reason that they are often so similar from person to person is because human brains are very similar from person to person. Toothaches feel much the same from person to person as well but that does not mean that there is a supernatural force or power connected with people having toothaches. Thirdly, if there is a supernatural soul that inhabits people's bodies, as some claim NDE's prove, then there ought already to have been numerous cases in which substantial amounts of physical brain function were lost without it having any appreciable effect on neurologic function. But this is not what is seen. Rather, when someone's brain is injured because of a stroke or a penetrating injury and a portion of the brain is destroyed or injured as a result, there are demonstrable changes in neurologic function. These can range from a loss of the ability to walk or talk, even though all the muscles are intact, to deficits, large and small, in mental abilities, to dramatic changes in personality. This would not be the case if human bodies, and specifically human brains, are not essential requirements for the existence of human consciousness. If NDE's proved the contrary, then we would also expect that being "brain dead" should not affect anyone's ability to function in the least.

WHY SHOULD ANYONE BE GOOD IF THERE IS NO GOD?

As with speculations about life after death, conscientious concerns about matters of ethics, however understandable, do not amount to an argument for the existence of any god(s). That is, the existence of a deity cannot answer the question of how we ought to choose our moral principles. Even if god(s) existed, it would not help to establish morality except in the minds of those who are so misguided as to think that might makes right. But Atheists do not worship the law of the jungle, no matter how grand it is made to seem. And they are well supported in this by the very Bible relied on by Christians. For example, it is said of the "good" deity of the Bible that "it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth," [Genesis 6:6 KJV] after which, the story goes, God drowned everyone except Noah and his family. Was this the act of a deity who is not only all-knowing and all powerful but who can serve as the basis for absolute morality? Socrates, unlike today's theologians, honestly stated the problem in Plato's Euthyphro when he asked "whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods." This was four hundred years before the time that Jesus Christ is supposed to have lived. The closest that Christians come to confronting this question is buried in a little-mentioned passage in Romans. There, Saint Paul obliquely reveals his difficulty with the fact that in the Genesis story God saw fit to "harden" Pharaoh's heart so that he would not let the Jews go and then punished Pharaoh and his whole nation for not letting the Jews go! This, even more than the divinely-ordered murders, massacres and genocides detailed elsewhere in the scripture, troubled the evangelist, who wrote: "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? [Romans 9:17-21] That is, he resolved the difficulty by arguing that something is good because God says it's good. What sort of moral principle is that? It is nothing but a recipe for disaster, and it has been. Some people who ask this question of Atheists actually intend to mean that if there is no promise of heaven or threat of hell, that people will not be good. Yet this formula is not actually taught by the Christian Bible. There, rather, it is taught that all one need do is believe or, if necessary, repent at the last minute. That is why the famous Freethinker Robert G. Ingersoll called Christianity "crime on credit." Put simply, most Atheists tend to agree that the reason to be good is because it's good. Experience shows that if someone cannot be good for goodness' sake, there is little likelihood that they will be good at all.